Old bill in doing their job shocker

in one of my less negative experiences of the police i had a nice homoerotic moment where a policemen let me stroke his bald head.

in one of my less negative experiences of the police i had a nice homoerotic moment where a policemen let me stroke his bald head.

Hopefully without blowing my cover, I would just like to say - thanks for that.

Did you buy one of the RLJ t-shirts ? It would be the ideal disguise for an undercover cycling rozzer.

Heh. I'll deffo be getting one of your designs, prob shouldn't wear that one at work though!

I remember a story where some dude was getting some verbal from a motorist which included calling him a wanker. He promptly replied 'that's sargent wanker to you mate', which shut the driver up pretty sharpish.

apparently sargent is a good rank to choose as it could be an army rank and you are therefore not impersonating a police officer.

Or you could use 'commander', which was James Bond's naval rank as well as a Met-specific senior officer. And it sounds cool...

Heh. I'll deffo be getting one of your designs, prob shouldn't wear that one at work though!

:)

I am not sure of the actual 'offense' - but it is probably in breach of a few laws / statutes.

My children will be proud. :P

:)

I am not sure of the actual 'offense' - but it is probably in breach of a few laws / statutes.

My children will be proud. :P

Under the widely encompassing s.5 Public Order Act it's an offence to use threatening, abuse or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly conduct or to **display any writing, sign or visible representation **within sight/hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress...

So whilst I don't think there's ever been a stated case, you could find an over-zealous po-po ticketing you for a sweary t-shirt!

Not that I'm specifically intending to be a smarty pants, but it is the intent to cause alarm or distress that is at the heart of Section 5.

Something has to be alarming or distressing, to a reasonable person, and it must have been intended to be alarming or distressing.

In practice, of course, it tends to be prescriptive.

I thnk that there a "Jesus is a cunt" t-shirt incident a year or two ago.

Nay sir, shurely intent is covered by s.4A of the Public Orcer Act? It's basically exactly the same as s.5 but with the caveat 'intentionally uses blah blah blah'

Otherwise one could always raise the defence 'oh I just like standing in the street shouting "fuck", didn't mean anything by it'... If it went to interview (which s.5 rarely does) we don't need to get an admission of intent or mens rea, the act itself is enough.

That t-shirt thing rings a bell actually...

Oh, there does have to be an actual person present who is likely to be caused H,A,D though. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of?

Not that I'm specifically intending to be a smarty pants, but it is the intent to cause alarm or distress that is at the heart of Section 5.

Something has to be alarming or distressing, to a reasonable person, and it must have been intended to be alarming or distressing.

All my t-shirts were intentionally intended (tautology?) to be alarming and distressing, and I am prepared to go to court and say so to make sure anyone of you bastards, who bought one, do some bird.

I thnk that there a "Jesus is a cunt" t-shirt incident a year or two ago.

But Jesus is a cunt ?

But Jesus is a cunt ?

...and i am offended by those who claim otherwise...

The 'Jesus is a Cunt' T-shirt was by some shite nu-goth band like Cradle of Filth, and the kid who was arrested (If I remember rightly) was in somewhere rather backward in Wales like Merthyr Tydfil.

Oh, there does have to be an actual person present who is likely to be caused H,A,D though. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of?

Nobody actually has to be caused HAD. The wording of the statute is "likely" to cause HAD. There's a fair bit of caselaw on whether a bunch of coppers are "likely" to be caused HAD. Usually statements say "there were people walking past looking shocked at X's language. In seven years as a police officer, I have never heard such vile abuse" etc etc.

You're right about intent, though, s4A.

police officers do seem to like awfully sheltered lives.

Nobody actually has to be caused HAD. The wording of the statute is "likely" to cause HAD. There's a fair bit of caselaw on whether a bunch of coppers are "likely" to be caused HAD. Usually statements say "there were people walking past looking shocked at X's language. In seven years as a police officer, I have never heard such vile abuse" etc etc.

You're right about intent, though, s4A.

Indeed. "Likely". It's usually a young mother with a child who had to cross the road in order to escape such disgusting language! Invariably they never hang around to give a statement...

Indeed. "Likely". It's usually a young mother with a child who had to cross the road in order to escape such disgusting language! Invariably they never hang around to give a statement...
Haha I know. I used to be down in Portsmouth, the police would bring in "an affray" that would end up as barely a s5...now I'm in the met, it's actually proper work, and I can get rid of the rubbish with no problems at all. Nice.

we were told a good way of remembering whether it was s.5, 4a or 4 buy the phrase, "fuck, fuck you and do you fucking want some"

we were told a good way of remembering whether it was s.5, 4a or 4 buy the phrase, "fuck, fuck you and do you fucking want some"

:)

I like that.