Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Police Use Google to check the law?
16 views
Skip to first unread message
S.P.
Mar 29, 2012, 1:05:02 PM3/29/12
to
According to the article repeated in several different papers (and copied
below for anyone reading off-line) a Welsh PC used Google to determine
whether or not a shop-keeper was breaking the law in selling a "bong".
Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to see
anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the PC to check
the law on a specific matter was Google.
There must be better sources available, surely?
If not, perhaps we should suggest ULM be used as an alternative source to
check the accuracy of the first. :-)
Regards
S.P.
Article in full:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9172879/Welsh-Pc-in-drugs-arrest-blunder-after-confusing-Australian-laws-on-internet.html
Welsh Pc in drugs arrest blunder after confusing Australian laws on internet
A Welsh shopkeeper was threatened with arrest for selling drugs
paraphernalia after a local officer mistakenly quoted Australian law he
found during internet searches.
The police constable confused New South Wales in Australia with South Wales
in Britain as he brushed up on his law knowledge when using Google.
But as a result, the shopkeeper, who is located in the South Wales valleys,
was mistakenly warned he could be arrested for selling a pipe-smokers'
"bong" that is generally used for smoking marijuana.
The Pc, who has not been named, had showed the shopkeeper an internet
printout on the law's stance about selling such equipment, which he stated
proved it was an illegal act in Wales.
But the unidentified retailer later discovered the law referred to
Australia's most populous state, home to the country's biggest city Sydney,
more than 10,000 miles away.
The bobby was left red-faced after senior officers told him he was wrong.
Police chiefs were later forced to apologise for the embarrassing blunder.
Martin Palmer, who supplies the Savers Xtra store in Bargoed, near
Caerphilly, South Wales, said the "bong" smoking tools had always been legal
in Britain.
"The policeman went into the store and told the shopkeeper what he was
selling illegal," said Mr Palmer, a 52 year-old company director.
"He quoted a law and gave him a piece of paper with the relevant clause on
it.
"But he phoned me up asking for advice - and I've been doing this for 25
years so I knew it was OK."
Mr Palmer, of wholesalers Avalon based in Portsmouth, Hants, added: "So I
searched the act and this section on google and found that it was a law in
New South Wales in Australia."
The PC showed a document titled "Misuse of Drugs and Trafficking Act 1985"
and drew the shop keeper's attention to Section 11A.
It states: "It is an offence to sell, supply or display for sale a bong or
ice pipe, or the component parts of a bong or pipe, whether or not the bong
or pipe was intended to be used to administer a prohibited drug."
The legal crackdown in Australia was introduced to deter people from using
the equipment for smoking cannabis instead of tobacco. It is not outlawed in
Britain.
Police in Gwent, South Wales, apologised to the shopkeeper.
A spokesman said: "The officer in question was acting in good faith but on
this occasion we got it wrong.
"The local inspector has visited the shopkeeper and apologised personally
for the confusion and any distress caused."
below for anyone reading off-line) a Welsh PC used Google to determine
whether or not a shop-keeper was breaking the law in selling a "bong".
Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to see
anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the PC to check
the law on a specific matter was Google.
There must be better sources available, surely?
If not, perhaps we should suggest ULM be used as an alternative source to
check the accuracy of the first. :-)
Regards
S.P.
Article in full:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9172879/Welsh-Pc-in-drugs-arrest-blunder-after-confusing-Australian-laws-on-internet.html
Welsh Pc in drugs arrest blunder after confusing Australian laws on internet
A Welsh shopkeeper was threatened with arrest for selling drugs
paraphernalia after a local officer mistakenly quoted Australian law he
found during internet searches.
The police constable confused New South Wales in Australia with South Wales
in Britain as he brushed up on his law knowledge when using Google.
But as a result, the shopkeeper, who is located in the South Wales valleys,
was mistakenly warned he could be arrested for selling a pipe-smokers'
"bong" that is generally used for smoking marijuana.
The Pc, who has not been named, had showed the shopkeeper an internet
printout on the law's stance about selling such equipment, which he stated
proved it was an illegal act in Wales.
But the unidentified retailer later discovered the law referred to
Australia's most populous state, home to the country's biggest city Sydney,
more than 10,000 miles away.
The bobby was left red-faced after senior officers told him he was wrong.
Police chiefs were later forced to apologise for the embarrassing blunder.
Martin Palmer, who supplies the Savers Xtra store in Bargoed, near
Caerphilly, South Wales, said the "bong" smoking tools had always been legal
in Britain.
"The policeman went into the store and told the shopkeeper what he was
selling illegal," said Mr Palmer, a 52 year-old company director.
"He quoted a law and gave him a piece of paper with the relevant clause on
it.
"But he phoned me up asking for advice - and I've been doing this for 25
years so I knew it was OK."
Mr Palmer, of wholesalers Avalon based in Portsmouth, Hants, added: "So I
searched the act and this section on google and found that it was a law in
New South Wales in Australia."
The PC showed a document titled "Misuse of Drugs and Trafficking Act 1985"
and drew the shop keeper's attention to Section 11A.
It states: "It is an offence to sell, supply or display for sale a bong or
ice pipe, or the component parts of a bong or pipe, whether or not the bong
or pipe was intended to be used to administer a prohibited drug."
The legal crackdown in Australia was introduced to deter people from using
the equipment for smoking cannabis instead of tobacco. It is not outlawed in
Britain.
Police in Gwent, South Wales, apologised to the shopkeeper.
A spokesman said: "The officer in question was acting in good faith but on
this occasion we got it wrong.
"The local inspector has visited the shopkeeper and apologised personally
for the confusion and any distress caused."
Ian Jackson
Mar 29, 2012, 2:00:03 PM3/29/12
to
In article <4f7495c3$0$10732$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>,
>There must be better sources available, surely?
You would have hoped so but unfortunately the connection between what
the police enforce, and what the law actually is, is often very
tenuous at best. See also endless reports of police fobbing people
off saying "it's a civil matter" for the converse mistake.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
S.P. <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to see
>anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the PC to check
>the law on a specific matter was Google.
Sadly this seems entirely unsurprising to me.
>Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to see
>anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the PC to check
>the law on a specific matter was Google.
>There must be better sources available, surely?
the police enforce, and what the law actually is, is often very
tenuous at best. See also endless reports of police fobbing people
off saying "it's a civil matter" for the converse mistake.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Percy Picacity
Mar 29, 2012, 5:25:01 PM3/29/12
to
On 2012-03-29 18:00:03 +0000, Ian Jackson said:
> In article <4f7495c3$0$10732$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> S.P. <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to see
>> anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the PC to check
>> the law on a specific matter was Google.
>
> Sadly this seems entirely unsurprising to me.
>
>> There must be better sources available, surely?
>
> You would have hoped so but unfortunately the connection between what
> the police enforce, and what the law actually is, is often very
> tenuous at best. See also endless reports of police fobbing people
> off saying "it's a civil matter" for the converse mistake.
Clearly in this case a careless mistake was made. But it is important
> In article <4f7495c3$0$10732$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> S.P. <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to see
>> anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the PC to check
>> the law on a specific matter was Google.
>
> Sadly this seems entirely unsurprising to me.
>
>> There must be better sources available, surely?
>
> You would have hoped so but unfortunately the connection between what
> the police enforce, and what the law actually is, is often very
> tenuous at best. See also endless reports of police fobbing people
> off saying "it's a civil matter" for the converse mistake.
to distinguish using a search engine to find material with assessment
of the material found. I know that many doctors use Google to find the
latest guidelines, or look up something unusual, for instance. The
trick is to access the references found and use those that are either
known to the researcher or have internal evidence of reputability.
This has always been the method of literature searches of course, but
is much more important now that Internet publication is so prolific.
--
Percy Picacity
Periander
Mar 29, 2012, 6:55:09 PM3/29/12
to
On 29-Mar-2012, "S.P." <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to see
> anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the PC to
> check
> the law on a specific matter was Google.
>
> There must be better sources available, surely?
database but that's hard to search ... and google's quick. You may be
interested to learn that police also use google street view to get photos of
target locations for briefings and so forth ...
> If not, perhaps we should suggest ULM be used as an alternative source to
> check the accuracy of the first. :-)
government systems and none of them provide access to a newsfeed :-)
Although I happen to know that a now Met Police Commander several years ago
used to post to uk.legal *back in teh days when legal qustions there weren't
all that uncommon) under his own name ... "who's a silly billy" he has since
said to himself.
--
All the best,
Periander
Just zis Guy, you know?
Mar 29, 2012, 6:55:09 PM3/29/12
to
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:05:02 +0100, "S.P." <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>According to the article repeated in several different papers (and copied
>below for anyone reading off-line) a Welsh PC used Google to determine
>whether or not a shop-keeper was breaking the law in selling a "bong".
Give it ten years and a few hundred million and the Police will have
implemented a secure internal search engine that will search across
all statutory instruments and precedents. In the mean time a
well-crafted Google search will probably get the answer first.
Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
wrote:
>According to the article repeated in several different papers (and copied
>below for anyone reading off-line) a Welsh PC used Google to determine
>whether or not a shop-keeper was breaking the law in selling a "bong".
implemented a secure internal search engine that will search across
all statutory instruments and precedents. In the mean time a
well-crafted Google search will probably get the answer first.
Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
Periander
Mar 29, 2012, 7:15:14 PM3/29/12
to
On 29-Mar-2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> > You would have hoped so but unfortunately the connection between what
> > the police enforce, and what the law actually is, is often very
> > tenuous at best. See also endless reports of police fobbing people
> > off saying "it's a civil matter" for the converse mistake.
>
> Clearly in this case a careless mistake was made. But it is important
> to distinguish using a search engine to find material with assessment
> of the material found. I know that many doctors use Google to find the
> latest guidelines, or look up something unusual,
laptop, it makes sense.
S.P.
Mar 30, 2012, 7:40:11 AM3/30/12
to
started quoting Australian law, even going so far as to hand a print-out of
aforementioned Australian law to the judge or the opposing barrister, do you
think that makes sense too?
Furthermore, what do you think ought to happen to the barrister?
Regards
S.P.
S.P.
Mar 30, 2012, 7:50:09 AM3/30/12
to
Periander wrote:
> On 29-Mar-2012, "S.P." <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to
>> see anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the
>> PC to check
>> the law on a specific matter was Google.
>>
>> There must be better sources available, surely?
>
> Well there's the PNLD but it's hard to navigate and there's the
> statute law database but that's hard to search ... and google's
> quick. You may be interested to learn that police also use google
> street view to get photos of target locations for briefings and so
> forth ...
Do they manage to get photos of the right street (or even the right
> On 29-Mar-2012, "S.P." <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to
>> see anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the
>> PC to check
>> the law on a specific matter was Google.
>>
>> There must be better sources available, surely?
>
> Well there's the PNLD but it's hard to navigate and there's the
> statute law database but that's hard to search ... and google's
> quick. You may be interested to learn that police also use google
> street view to get photos of target locations for briefings and so
> forth ...
country!) in these briefings and so forth?
One would hope they'd notice something amiss when they arriving at Cardiff
airport to catch the flight to Sydney!
>> If not, perhaps we should suggest ULM be used as an alternative
>> source to check the accuracy of the first. :-)
>
> Requires a secure conection to post via google and that's disallowed
> on most government systems and none of them provide access to a
> newsfeed :-)
Alternatively, and this may be a bit too extreme for some - I realise, but
if we accept that the Police are using Google to check what the law is,
should be not ensure they are trained to a suitable level to determine, for
example, that New South Wales is not the same place Wales and that different
laws apply!
> Although I happen to know that a now Met Police Commander several
> years ago used to post to uk.legal *back in teh days when legal
> qustions there weren't all that uncommon) under his own name ...
> "who's a silly billy" he has since said to himself.
trying to find out who you're referring to so that they can trawl back
through all his posts. :-)
Regards
S.P.
Percy Picacity
Mar 30, 2012, 2:50:02 PM3/30/12
to
anything should 'happen' to him except the occasional humorous comment).
However, I wouldn't be surprised if a barrister was a bit vague about
keeping public order, investigating crime and arresting criminals. It
is not really his job. The same applies to the police officer, knowing
the detail of obscurer parts of the law by heart is not his main area
of expertiise.
--
Percy Picacity
D.M. Procida
Mar 30, 2012, 2:10:03 PM3/30/12
to
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <4f7495c3$0$10732$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> S.P. <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to see
> >anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the PC to check
> >the law on a specific matter was Google.
>
> Sadly this seems entirely unsurprising to me.
Why is it sad?
> In article <4f7495c3$0$10732$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> S.P. <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >Those from the Welsh Police force involved in incident don't seem to see
> >anything wrong with the face that the best tool available to the PC to check
> >the law on a specific matter was Google.
>
> Sadly this seems entirely unsurprising to me.
It would be sad if people like doctors, police officers and computer
programmers didn't use the amazing information resources that have
become available in the last 20 years to help them in their work.
They'd be idiots not to. It's the whole frikking point of the web!
In this particular case, the mistake was poor use of those resources.
Daniele
0 new messages