Climbing a war memorial - not a crime

motorbiking said:
We are still left with the position that the head of the met police is publicly, wrongly saying his officers had no power to act and is calling for more powers
Click to expand...
”calling for more powers”

I would say the police big cheese said that because it’s an easy deflection….most people won’t have a clue whether existing laws provide the power to act.

Police Commissioners are as much politicians as they are operational leaders
 
It was a highly disrespectful thing to do but no criminal damage and crucially - in the judgement of officers present - not something that caused alarm or distress. I for one am happy to accept the judgement of the police managing the aftermath of a march that seems to have been essentially peaceful. How angry and outraged the daiily fail and mbk get is not the test.

If I had witnessed it myself I would have reported it to the nearest police officer.

Blup
 
I’ve said they acted correctly. Tell them to get down, they did. No reason to issue a fixed penalty.

My issue was with the met command who moaned they had no power. They have been advised differently.

Police regularly issue fixed penalty fines for similar, but normally after a warning is ignored.
 
motorbiking said:
I have no need, the government, home office, various MPs who are also lawyers and other lawyers have all pointed him in the right place.
Click to expand...
So you mean there's many interpretations of the law?
Now I understand why and how you can disagree with the head of the Met. You have your interpretation, and he has his.
 
Odds said:
Managed to put all your toys back in the pram after this mornings tantrum. Good boy. Run along now.
Click to expand...
Lost your pet monkey?
Looking to hopefully adopt another with your sarcasm?
That'll work. :rolleyes:
 
Roy Bloom said:
So you mean there's many interpretations of the law?
Now I understand why and how you can disagree with the head of the Met. You have your interpretation, and he has his.
Click to expand...
There can be many interpretations of anything, but in this case there is the correct one and the one the met chief is alleged to have had. Police officers should always exercise discretion. it is for this reason I have said issuing a FP would have been wrong. Again, that is not the same as wrongly saying you don't have the power because something isn't a crime when you do and it can be.
 
motorbiking said:
There can be many interpretations of anything, but in this case there is the correct one and the one the met chief is alleged to have had. Police officers should always exercise discretion. it is for this reason I have said issuing a FP would have been wrong. Again, that is not the same as wrongly saying you don't have the power because something isn't a crime when you do and it can be.
Click to expand...
Of course everyone will claim their interpretationis the correct one.
Then there's discretion to add into the mix.
Where one might issue a penalty or take action, others would not.


Now if the perpetrators were BAME or Muslim, they'd end up in prison. ;)
 
motorbiking said:
There can be many interpretations of anything, but in this case there is the correct one and the one the met chief is alleged to have had. Police officers should always exercise discretion. it is for this reason I have said issuing a FP would have been wrong. Again, that is not the same as wrongly saying you don't have the power because something isn't a crime when you do and it can be.
Click to expand...
And I always thought law was simple, and easy.

Looks like there is more than 1 viewpoint on things, after all.
 
If it was simple and easy, fees would not be £3k - £10k per day.

However, public order offences are fairly straightforward and the police have widespread powers
 
motorbiking said:
If it was simple and easy, fees would not be £3k - £10k per day.

However, public order offences are fairly straightforward and the police have widespread powers
Click to expand...
They also have discretion. They're not automatons.
They police through consent, or they're supposed to.
Slapping FPN at every opportunity is not likely to improve their public relations, which the government are trying hard to destroy.

And if the head of the Met says it's not illegal, I'll take his word for it.
Your opinion is of no conecern, you can't slap FPN on people. :rolleyes:
 
motorbiking said:
According to him, neither can he.
Click to expand...
But his word is law, so to speak.
He has the power to issue FPNs, but says he can't in that instance.
You say he does have the power to issues FPNs, but decides not to, and you have no authority to issue FPNs.

Whose interpretation is it logical to accept?

If you parked your car, and a member of public was compalining that it was illegally parked, and called the police.
The police arrived and said it was perfectly legally parked, maybe a bit inconvenient, but not illegal.
And the complainant continued arguing that the police do have the power to issue a FPN, but the police said they didn't.
Would you move your car?
 
Again, I have said the police acted correctly since the protestors complied with the request to come down. If I was that much of a Victor Meldrew, depending on the obstruction I'd remind them of the wording of sec 137 of the Highway Act 1980, the Traffic Management Act or their broad powers under anti social behaviour legislation. But the point you raise is exactly the unintended consequence of the Met cheif's stupid attempt at politics.

Next time one of his officers asks a person to come down, what do you think will happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top