The case in question involves Mr. Justice Bean. Squashing a conviction that involved a man being prosecuted for a section 5 public order offense in relation to him using the f word at police officers multiple times when being searched. Mr. Justice bean. Explained the conviction as ridiculous. And said swear words are now used so often they can no longer be deemed offensive when used at police officers. In my opinion, the police officer in this video just committed a section 4 public order offense. By the way, he was provoking the man into an offense. Provocation. For sure.
I have mentioned before, the police are completing ignoring Harvey v DPP. The police know about 98% of the population have no idea of Mr Justice Bean's ruling in the case of Harvey v DPP and will plead guilty and pay the fixed penalty notice. I remember a few days after the Harvey v DPP decision Hogan hyphen Howe the ex Met Police Commissioner was interviewed on tv about the ruling by Justice Bean. He was spitting feathers that it was legal for the public to swear at police officers.
Let's hope the gentleman on the ground sues the police for unlawful use of force! That police officer had his finger in the gentleman's face, so it's no wonder he reacted the way he did. Then, they proceeded to force the man's face into the concrete, scraping it along the ground. Discusting!!!
Those cops need reminding about Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. A police constable committing the offence of using powers and privileges improperly while on duty may be imprisoned for up to 14 years.
Note this thing of pushing the face into the ground to cause hurt, then twisting the arms in such a way to cause a struggle? This is not a young person they are attacking!
I remember coming across this particular flaw in the law before, very concerning in and of itself. Do UK Police understand the words they read?, is reading comprehension taught in school anymore?
Only 12 to arest the womem as the police did not want to be to be outnumbered by the lady,just shows what spineless arrogant gets our Police Farce is these days
I believe the case you want is Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] All ER (D) 143. Another important point from this case is that it cannot be inferred that just because there are people around, it cannot be inferred that they are caused distress, this evidence must be presented. Another important case is DPP v Orum [1988] 3 All ER 449, which held that police officers should be familiar with swear words, so the idea of them being the complainant themselves would hardly stand up in court. In all, section 5 is one of those horribly vaguely worded pieces of legislation that gives far too much discretion to sausages who simply love to abuse people.
Got to say that you're often terrible at reading through legislation - you've done this before, you change "except that NO offence is committed" . . into . . . "except that THE offence is committed" . . . completely changing the meaning, other words are omitted and changed, even the title becomes the Public Orders (plural) Act, the subheading becomes the act of "harassment, alarm AND distress" (rather than OR) . . . etc etc.
As bad as the police are (and I agree they abuse Section 5 like it's going out of fashion), auditors are just as bad and will often run to the police for someone swearing in public, recent examples are Scorpion Audits reporting a receptionist for a Section 5 for swearing (like the guy in this video, her "crime of the century!" was using the F-word), and of course Charlie "free speech" Veitch (lol) who has on more than one occasion run to the police when someone has used 'hurty' words, in a recent video he has someone marched off by the police for using the word "demon" ! So yeah, the police are often a bunch of nasty thugs, but auditors are just as keen to have people arrested for Section 5.
I just watched that video and I think that all speech should be free speech. No matter how it makes you feel. No one should be getting arrested for speech.
FORNICATE.UNDER. (The ) COUNCIL.(of the) KING -I.d.know which? I Believe this was asked to bolster the future army due to a lack of soldiers, Spain was a major threat, I'm told. Good channel 👍
He went on the floor for swearing, the police are out of control
The case in question involves Mr. Justice Bean. Squashing a conviction that involved a man being prosecuted for a section 5 public order offense in relation to him using the f word at police officers multiple times when being searched. Mr. Justice bean. Explained the conviction as ridiculous. And said swear words are now used so often they can no longer be deemed offensive when used at police officers.
In my opinion, the police officer in this video just committed a section 4 public order offense. By the way, he was provoking the man into an offense. Provocation. For sure.
I have mentioned before, the police are completing ignoring Harvey v DPP. The police know about 98% of the population have no idea of Mr Justice Bean's ruling in the case of Harvey v DPP and will plead guilty and pay the fixed penalty notice. I remember a few days after the Harvey v DPP decision Hogan hyphen Howe the ex Met Police Commissioner was interviewed on tv about the ruling by Justice Bean. He was spitting feathers that it was legal for the public to swear at police officers.
They are al cowards.
yap they wouldn't do it off duty alone
Spineless and arrogant,a complete waste of resources
I’m ashamed of the British police. Their cowardice is astonishing.
Our local supermarket have been told by plod unless its more than £200 in goods is stolen they wont attend.😮???
Petty!
Let's hope the gentleman on the ground sues the police for unlawful use of force! That police officer had his finger in the gentleman's face, so it's no wonder he reacted the way he did. Then, they proceeded to force the man's face into the concrete, scraping it along the ground. Discusting!!!
Ya beat me to Justice Bean analogy lol
Section 3 self defense as the copper was pushing him back and being aggressive.
Enjoying your breakdowns of these vids. I have seen this but you do a good job going through the situation.
Is this is Kier's new policing?... You would think the crime is far bigger than just theft of a sandwich.... Shocking.
Most expensive sandwich ever
😂
Those cops need reminding about Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. A police constable committing the offence of using powers and privileges improperly while on duty may be imprisoned for up to 14 years.
how many times do the pigs swear at the public?
After the 9pm watershed I've heard quite a few "Get on the fing ground" by the police.
Note this thing of pushing the face into the ground to cause hurt, then twisting the arms in such a way to cause a struggle? This is not a young person they are attacking!
WE MUST DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST THESE FERAL GANGS...
why are the police so petty its only words its common too this isn't coronation street, i bet he wouldn't be so tough off duty alone
I remember coming across this particular flaw in the law before, very concerning in and of itself. Do UK Police understand the words they read?, is reading comprehension taught in school anymore?
Aren’t they trying to use this now for homes flying the Union Jack?
😂 in fucked then I have one flying at my house
Are their consequences for police abusing powers if not why isn't their?
Would have been very different if it was a refugee.
2 tier policing at its best
The Uk has turned into a 4th world country.
They used to use section 5 at football matches to arrest football fans for cheering and jumping up and down when our team scored
I'd be running round getting the honest witness contact details for this man.
they are cowards if they are so tough why do they hide behind a uniform and mates
Only 12 to arest the womem as the police did not want to be to be outnumbered by the lady,just shows what spineless arrogant gets our Police Farce is these days
Officers safety 😂
I wonder what the law says regarding assisting a member of the public who's clearly being assaulted.
Salami starmers private army!!!!!!
Also section 3a. If you don't believe anyone around you is likely to be offended then it also isn't an offence.
I believe the case you want is Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] All ER (D) 143. Another important point from this case is that it cannot be inferred that just because there are people around, it cannot be inferred that they are caused distress, this evidence must be presented. Another important case is DPP v Orum [1988] 3 All ER 449, which held that police officers should be familiar with swear words, so the idea of them being the complainant themselves would hardly stand up in court. In all, section 5 is one of those horribly vaguely worded pieces of legislation that gives far too much discretion to sausages who simply love to abuse people.
Why is it LIKELY to be caused harassment alarm or distress? What a load of bollocks where the complainant/victim?
Was it a bacon sandwich?
Show us on the dolly where the mean word hurt you
I ued to read pace alot, now they can't find it these days never pleasant cheers for posting it
It ie now fixed penalty 100 non compliance
the thing is though mate i don't consider swearing to be a crime 11:00
Got to say that you're often terrible at reading through legislation - you've done this before, you change "except that NO offence is committed" . . into . . . "except that THE offence is committed" . . . completely changing the meaning, other words are omitted and changed, even the title becomes the Public Orders (plural) Act, the subheading becomes the act of "harassment, alarm AND distress" (rather than OR) . . . etc etc.
Pronouns escape
To many PO :LICE with Muslim beards
UK policing at its most idiotic
As bad as the police are (and I agree they abuse Section 5 like it's going out of fashion), auditors are just as bad and will often run to the police for someone swearing in public, recent examples are Scorpion Audits reporting a receptionist for a Section 5 for swearing (like the guy in this video, her "crime of the century!" was using the F-word), and of course Charlie "free speech" Veitch (lol) who has on more than one occasion run to the police when someone has used 'hurty' words, in a recent video he has someone marched off by the police for using the word "demon" ! So yeah, the police are often a bunch of nasty thugs, but auditors are just as keen to have people arrested for Section 5.
I just watched that video and I think that all speech should be free speech. No matter how it makes you feel. No one should be getting arrested for speech.
Beards
They basically arrest you for being annoying these days....Will this ever change?
Argue in court. It’s futile arguing in the street.
FORNICATE.UNDER.
(The ) COUNCIL.(of the) KING -I.d.know which?
I Believe this was asked to bolster the future army due to a lack of soldiers, Spain was a major threat, I'm told.
Good channel 👍