ktlight
26th June 2011, 09:20
... obscenities because courts won't convict
FYI:
Police have been banned from arresting foul-mouthed yobs who abuse them with the most offensive swear words in the language.
The rule change, which has sparked a revolt in the force and anger among MPs, is revealed in secret advice issued to officers and leaked to The Mail on Sunday.
Scotland Yard has issued a card to its officers, telling them to do nothing if they are subjected to a torrent of obscene abuse.
The card, which the police are told to keep on them, secreted behind their warrant badges, says: ‘The courts do not accept police officers are caused harassment, alarm or distress by words such as ‘f**k, c**t, b*****ks, w*****s’.
The guidance has been issued despite existing laws that sanction the fining of people who swear at police and the jailing of persistent offenders.
The ‘licence to swear’ edict has enraged senior officers, who describe it as a sign of a collapse in respect for the police. They say it will make it harder for them to deal with public-order problems and cope with the increase in drunken yobs outside pubs and nightclubs.
The rule change was also condemned by MPs. Tory MP David Davies, who serves as a Special Constable, said: ‘This is a threat to law and order. When I trained in London four years ago, if someone swore directly at you – I was called a “f****** pig”, for instance – you would give them one warning, then arrest them if they refused to stop.
‘It is vital that you take action in such circumstances. The police should not have to put up with this behaviour.’
Others pointed out the irony that Scotland Yard used asterisks on the cards to disguise the offensiveness of the language.
Officers have the power to arrest yobs who swear at them, either by quoting the Public Order Act – which prohibits the ‘use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour’ – or as a breach of the peace under Common Law.
But the new guidance, issued to officers in London by the Civil Actions Unit of the Metropolitan Police, states that a prosecution for swearing will be lost without ‘compelling evidence of a person within sight or hearing likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress’. It adds that this is ‘very unlikely to be you [the police officer]’.
Scotland Yard says the advice was issued because compensation had recently been paid out to ‘victims’ who had been ‘falsely’ arrested for swearing.
A spokeswoman could not discuss the cases, so it is unclear whether the prosecutions were lost because the evidence given by the police was not trusted –or because bad language is now so prevalent that it was not deemed to be offensive.
The distribution of the card is likely to prompt criticism that the ‘compensation culture’ and the fear of having to pay out damages for wrongful arrest is driving the rule change.
The card claims that courts now assume that any arrests in such circumstances result from police deciding that detainees have ‘failed the attitude test’, an informal term for belligerent troublemakers whom officers feel deserve to be detained. ‘This is unlawful,’ it says.
The same section of the card warns that yobs cannot be handcuffed ‘just’ because they pose a threat to the safety of officers.
‘ ‘‘Handcuffed for officer safety” – Not sufficient!’ it says. ‘We must be able to justify it. Fully detail all the circumstances, set the scene and describe their build, your build, their demeanour and any warning signs. Include all the factors available to you.’
source
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008207/a-told-arrest-people-scream-obscenities-courts-wont-convict.html
FYI:
Police have been banned from arresting foul-mouthed yobs who abuse them with the most offensive swear words in the language.
The rule change, which has sparked a revolt in the force and anger among MPs, is revealed in secret advice issued to officers and leaked to The Mail on Sunday.
Scotland Yard has issued a card to its officers, telling them to do nothing if they are subjected to a torrent of obscene abuse.
The card, which the police are told to keep on them, secreted behind their warrant badges, says: ‘The courts do not accept police officers are caused harassment, alarm or distress by words such as ‘f**k, c**t, b*****ks, w*****s’.
The guidance has been issued despite existing laws that sanction the fining of people who swear at police and the jailing of persistent offenders.
The ‘licence to swear’ edict has enraged senior officers, who describe it as a sign of a collapse in respect for the police. They say it will make it harder for them to deal with public-order problems and cope with the increase in drunken yobs outside pubs and nightclubs.
The rule change was also condemned by MPs. Tory MP David Davies, who serves as a Special Constable, said: ‘This is a threat to law and order. When I trained in London four years ago, if someone swore directly at you – I was called a “f****** pig”, for instance – you would give them one warning, then arrest them if they refused to stop.
‘It is vital that you take action in such circumstances. The police should not have to put up with this behaviour.’
Others pointed out the irony that Scotland Yard used asterisks on the cards to disguise the offensiveness of the language.
Officers have the power to arrest yobs who swear at them, either by quoting the Public Order Act – which prohibits the ‘use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour’ – or as a breach of the peace under Common Law.
But the new guidance, issued to officers in London by the Civil Actions Unit of the Metropolitan Police, states that a prosecution for swearing will be lost without ‘compelling evidence of a person within sight or hearing likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress’. It adds that this is ‘very unlikely to be you [the police officer]’.
Scotland Yard says the advice was issued because compensation had recently been paid out to ‘victims’ who had been ‘falsely’ arrested for swearing.
A spokeswoman could not discuss the cases, so it is unclear whether the prosecutions were lost because the evidence given by the police was not trusted –or because bad language is now so prevalent that it was not deemed to be offensive.
The distribution of the card is likely to prompt criticism that the ‘compensation culture’ and the fear of having to pay out damages for wrongful arrest is driving the rule change.
The card claims that courts now assume that any arrests in such circumstances result from police deciding that detainees have ‘failed the attitude test’, an informal term for belligerent troublemakers whom officers feel deserve to be detained. ‘This is unlawful,’ it says.
The same section of the card warns that yobs cannot be handcuffed ‘just’ because they pose a threat to the safety of officers.
‘ ‘‘Handcuffed for officer safety” – Not sufficient!’ it says. ‘We must be able to justify it. Fully detail all the circumstances, set the scene and describe their build, your build, their demeanour and any warning signs. Include all the factors available to you.’
source
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008207/a-told-arrest-people-scream-obscenities-courts-wont-convict.html