Crosswords0 min ago
section 5 - public order act 1986
14 Answers
Last night i went to my local tesco with my girlfriend to get some eye drops for an infection. As soon as a parked up 6 police officers surrounded my car, when i got out of my car i saw 1 of the officers taking down my reg plate number.
I was annoyed at this and sed " o for god sake why are you taking my reg number?".
The police officer and 1 other officer calimed i said " o for f*@k sake" which i honestly did not.
I have 2 witnesses to say i did not but i was still issued with an �80 fine, i have posted the contest part of the fine today, what can i expect to happen and what will i have to pay?
Thanks.
One last thing, on the part of the fine that says, state offence, nothing has been writen.
Thanks again.
I was annoyed at this and sed " o for god sake why are you taking my reg number?".
The police officer and 1 other officer calimed i said " o for f*@k sake" which i honestly did not.
I have 2 witnesses to say i did not but i was still issued with an �80 fine, i have posted the contest part of the fine today, what can i expect to happen and what will i have to pay?
Thanks.
One last thing, on the part of the fine that says, state offence, nothing has been writen.
Thanks again.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mattyriches. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
as far as i know they wer on foot just leaving tesco as they are often there for theft, they were walkin across the car park to deal with a large group of boy racers and i guess i was just on the way, they would of checked my car because i have a nice car that stands out in a crowd and are young and on that car park.
There's absolutely nothing in law which specifically states that it's illegal to use the F-word. What the Public Order Act 1986 actually says is this:
"A person is guilty of an offence if he�
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".
The Public Order Act also states:
" It is a defence for the accused to prove that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress".
I refuse to accept that your average plod would be "likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" simply because you (allegedly) said "For f*ck's sake". If a court took the same view it would have to rule that it was perfectly legal to (allegedly) use such words.
Further, The Public Order Act states:
" It is a defence for the accused to prove . . . that his conduct was reasonable". Under the circumstances, your (alleged) words sound perfectly reasonable to me!
The police frequently mis-use the Public Order Act just to bully people, or simply to improve their crime statistics. They rely on the fact that most people either don't know the law or won't bother to challenge the penalty notice. Go to court and fight them!
Chris
"A person is guilty of an offence if he�
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".
The Public Order Act also states:
" It is a defence for the accused to prove that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress".
I refuse to accept that your average plod would be "likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" simply because you (allegedly) said "For f*ck's sake". If a court took the same view it would have to rule that it was perfectly legal to (allegedly) use such words.
Further, The Public Order Act states:
" It is a defence for the accused to prove . . . that his conduct was reasonable". Under the circumstances, your (alleged) words sound perfectly reasonable to me!
The police frequently mis-use the Public Order Act just to bully people, or simply to improve their crime statistics. They rely on the fact that most people either don't know the law or won't bother to challenge the penalty notice. Go to court and fight them!
Chris
I agree with Chris. The police often victimise young people, especially in supermarket car parks. This is a very typical occurence. I was stopped by a police officer who chased me with his sirens and blue light flashing. I was driving old banger on the run up to Christmas when they were on alert for drunken youngsters.
When the police officer stopped us and realised that the car was being driven by a forty year old female with her seventy year old mother in the passenger seat (we were returning late at night from a funeral), he looked very sheepish. However, to save face, he said I was speeding (which I wasn't) but added 'on this occasion I will just verbally warn you.'!
The police are not whiter than white.
When the police officer stopped us and realised that the car was being driven by a forty year old female with her seventy year old mother in the passenger seat (we were returning late at night from a funeral), he looked very sheepish. However, to save face, he said I was speeding (which I wasn't) but added 'on this occasion I will just verbally warn you.'!
The police are not whiter than white.