Imitating a Police man

On 24/04/2013 16:23, Steve O wrote:

On 24/04/2013 15:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2013 01:10, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 22:12, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 16:59, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 08:41, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 06:14, Steve O wrote:
On 22/04/2013 22:45, Judith wrote:

snip

It is obvious it is the intent to deceive and make people believe
that the person is a police officer.
Therefore an offence has been committed - no ifs buts or maybes.
It matters not one jot whether it is an " honest" or "dishonest"
purpose.

Incorrect- see below.

I really cannot believe that some people cannot understand
something which is very straight forward. (OK there are the
usual ****wits - but they don't count)

You are missing the point and you haven't given the matter enough
thought.
The legislation does not specify what constitutes an intent to
deceive in these matters- it is still open for precedence.
Under normal circumstances for a prosecution for this offence
to be effective the prosecutor should be able to demonstrate
that some harm is likely to result as a consequence of the
defendant's actions.

Which bit of the Act provides that?

The act doesn't, but the CPS charging guidelines are very clear and
they do provide for it.

Are CPS "charging guidelines" the same as an Act of Parliament which
creates a criminal offence?

No, but they give an indication of what the CPS believe a court may
think on a particular matter.

You seem to be confused as between the role of the CPS and the role of
the courts.

Not in the slightest.
You seem a bit confused as to how courts cone to decisions on legal
precedent.

They don't come to legal decisions on cases which don't come for trial.

Granted, they do not follow the decisions of the CPS, but the decisions
of the CPS are a good indication of what a court may do.

Nonsense.
If CPS civil servants were capable of being judges, judges is what
they would be.

It is courts which set case-law, not the CPS.

Have you only just discovered that?

Hardly.

Once again, how do you think the courts come to a decision on a precedent?

They try cases which come before them. If the CPS can't be bothered to
charge offenders, the courts will never get the chance.

They do it by examining particular circumstances, and one of the
circumstances they might consider in this case is whether or not there
is likely to be any harm or loss as a result of the defendant's actions,
which echoes exactly on what the CPS have to say on the subject.

Rubbish.

Courts do not look at circumstances not taken into account by the law.
At least, not when directing juries as to guilt.

You surely must know that already.

This means the issue is open for precedence.

???

See above

I don't understand what your sentence meant, so sating that something
else means the same without saying what that something else might be is
no clearer.

????
Sorry, but I couldn't parse your statement here.
I take it you do understand what a legal precedent is?

Certainly.

No legal precedent was ever created by a case which never went to court.

BTW: cases cited in other (later) cases are known as a "precedent", not
a "precedence". The word "precedence", used either as an adjective or an
abstract noun, implies a pecking order. Pecking orders play no part in
this issue.

Unfortunately, there is no current precedence to go by which would
indicate that there would be a defence to someone who imitates a
police officer for an honest intention.

Impersonating a police officer is a dishonest act, by definition. What
honest intention justifies that dishonesty?

Maybe I should have been clearer- unless it is indicated that there is a
dishonest intention, why should someone be prosecuted for this offence,

There is always a dishonest intention in a dishonest action.

and by dishonest intention, I mean in the plain sense of the words?

So do I.

The legislation itself is not clear on what constitutes an intent to
deceive.

Intent to deceive a third party that the offender is/was a police
officer is the only intent to deceive necessary for the offence to have
been committed.

It needs clarification in a court.

Why?

It's clear enough.

Despite the CPS apparent belief that this is novel legislation, it most
certainly is not.

Which is why I originally stated it is open for precedent.
If you cannot see that or understand why, then it is not my fault.

It isn't "open for precedent", whatever that might mean.

I can accept - just - that intervening by dishonest means in order to
save someone's life from an imminent or current aggressive attack might
well be justified.

Well in that case, the matter is settled.
the cyclist was trying to save lives by using the words "POLITE request
to SLOW DOWN!"

Rubbish.

And highly *offensive* rubbish at that.

It is not for a private citizen to decide how to force other members of
the public to behave, whether by deceitful bullying (as you support) or
by direct bullying (which I assume even you don't support).

One might, for instance, pretend to have a deadly
weapon to use. But you still couldn't call it "honest" without being
guilty of an attack on the English language.

When you start examining it this closely, the words tend to get a bit
tangled and confused.

Not for me.

You speak only for yourself in your entanglement and (obvious) confusion.

There are certain imaginable extreme circumstances where one might be
able to concede that a small dishonesty might be the lesser of two evils.

But there have to be two evils in existence for the lie to the be the
lesser of them.

That is why I claimed that the legislation needed clarification- or
precedent...

....because you are confused and feel entangled.

I can see that.

[snip repetition]

All of parliamentary Law is open to interpretation and precedent.

Only within reason.

Don't you think it is reasonable to say that a cyclist who is making
efforts to slow traffic down below legal speeds is acting honestly, and
is not intending to cause any loss ir harm, and therefore should not
face prosecution?

Absolutely NOT.

Where would that end? With a private householder impersonating a police
officer cautioning you for cycling along the footway? Purporting to
issue you with a summons for it?

And that would be a REAL offence he was trying to prevent, not a
non-offence of travelling within the speed limit but still a bit too
fast for your liking.

[snip more repetition]

His intention is to deceive other members of the public so that
they will do something nearer to what he wants them to do rather
than what they wanted to do.

Yes of course.

Deceit.
Intent.
Impersonation.
All the elements of the offence.

I would not disagree with you, but as I originally stated, there is
still an opportunity for a precedent to be set under these
circumstances, which was all I was saying

A precedent to the effect that private individuals can disadvantage
others by deceit?

I'm beginning to suspect that you simply have an axe to f=grind against
cyclists, or else why would you bother with this converasation?

I am against anyone dishonestly purporting to be a police officer.

Why do you think it's illegal?

[snip even more and more repetition]

Do you have something against cyclists?

Against dishonest cyclists who use deceit in order to gain advantage
over others?

Of course.

Don''t you?

Depends on what you mean by an advantage.

It doesn't.

*Any* gaining of advantage by deceit (with a corresponding loss of
advantage by the victim) is wrong, outside of some fanciful Tony
Benn-type scenario.

Tony benn once memorably justified a small lie by giving the example (to
Robin Day): "If someone burst in here now, waving a pistol and shouting
that they were going to kill Robin Day and asking where he was, I'd say
that I hadn't seen him all day".

You have to get to that theoretical level before lying to third parties
is at all justifiable.

Impersonating a police officer is a serious offence which potentially
has very serious consequences for society (think of how it could
facilitate rape or robbery, for instance).

The correct approach to it is absolute zero-tolerance and severe punishment.

On 24/04/2013 18:10, Cynic wrote:

Steve O wrote:

If anyone could impersonate a police officer at any time to their
heart's content *unless* the CPS or the police could actively
demonstrate intention to facilitate the commission of crime, there'd be
no point in having a law against the impersonation of a police officer.

No one is suggesting that anyone could dress to their hearts content as
a police officer

But that is *exactly* what you *are* suggesting, by claiming that
people dressing in police uniforms are immune from prosecution unless
they are doing it for personal gain etc. Therefore it follows that
everyone in a town or village could wear police uniforms to their
heart's content so long as they intended no harm.

In any case, I can think of possible harm that the attire of the
cyclists could cause. A police officer directs a motorist to stop,
but the motorist ignores the police officer. When prosecuted, the
motorists defence is that he had no way of knowing that the uniformed
gentleman was a police officer, because there are so many people going
around dressed as police officers that it is unreasonable to expect a
motorist to recognise a real officer when he sees one.

+1.

On 24/04/2013 16:49, Steve O wrote:
On 24/04/2013 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2013 15:23, Rob wrote:
Steve O wrote:
|| On 24/04/2013 12:37, Cynic wrote:
||| On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:26:20 +0100, Steve O
||| wrote:
|||
|||||| Because of the CPS charging standards mentioned in my previous
|||||| post which would appear to show that the CPS would not prosecute
|||||| in the circumstances given, as it cannot be demonstrated that
|||||| the wearer was likely to cause harm by his actions.
|||
||||| Where in the law does it say that harm must be caused?
|||
|||| It doesn't.
|||| Read my last paragraph above again.
|||
||| In which you misinterpreted what the CPS guidelines actually mean.
|||
|| That was your misinterpretation, not mine.
|| In fact, as a result of this discussion I spoke to a Crown Prosecutor
|| yesterday, and raised this issue.
|| She was in agreement and confirmed that the meaning of the guideline
|| is- prosecute where there is evidence of an intent or likelihood to
|| cause harm or loss and do not prosecute if it is absent.

Then either she's talking complete cobblers or you are. If that really
were
the case then anyone could, with impunity, dress up as a copper and
interact
with the public provided their intentions were honest and not to cause
harm - for example stopping traffic to allow a child/pensioner to
cross the
road, slowing down traffic generally for everyone's safety, standing
around
school gates to 'ward off child-snatchers' etc. etc. - it would be
ridiculous.

Indeed.

If it were as SO suggests, there could never be a prosecution unless the
impersonator admitted that he did it in order to facilitate a criminal
offence.

Are you under the impression that all accused offenders have to admit
they were trying to commit an offence in order to be prosecuted?

If the offence were still at the intended stage (and therefore known
only to the pretend police officer) and if he was stopped before he got
to the intended scene of it, all he'd have to say is that he was going
to slow down a few drivers in order to "improve" road safety and
certainly for no personal gain.

Get out of jail free card.

Steve O wrote:
|| On 24/04/2013 15:07, JNugent wrote:
|||
||| Out of interest, why do you think we have such a law?
||
|| it was updated in 1996 to
|| prevent private security companies from being mistaken for police
|| officers, as it was around that time that they began to change their
|| clothing and vehicles to a close resemblance of police uniforms and
|| equipment.

Why update it though? What mischief, harm or loss do security guards cause,
surely the extra eyes and ears on patrol are a great help to the police and
public?
Do you not consider it illogical to draft legislation to specifically
include certain people whilst at the same time issue guidelines which,
according to YOUR interpretation, say that those same people should not be
prosecuted?


--
Rob

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:57:45 +0100, Steve O wrote:



Read my previous post to see what the CPS actually have to say about the
subject.


Why don't you go over to uk.legal.moderated and have the same discussion over
there.
You haven't found anyone to agree with you here - you may have better luck over
there. (However, I doubt it)

On 24/04/2013 19:29, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2013 16:23, Steve O wrote:

On 24/04/2013 15:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2013 01:10, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 22:12, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 16:59, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 08:41, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 06:14, Steve O wrote:


Do you have something against cyclists?

Against dishonest cyclists who use deceit in order to gain advantage
over others?

Of course.

Don''t you?

Depends on what you mean by an advantage.

It doesn't.

*Any* gaining of advantage by deceit (with a corresponding loss of
advantage by the victim) is wrong, outside of some fanciful Tony
Benn-type scenario.

Tony benn once memorably justified a small lie by giving the example (to
Robin Day): "If someone burst in here now, waving a pistol and shouting
that they were going to kill Robin Day and asking where he was, I'd say
that I hadn't seen him all day".

You have to get to that theoretical level before lying to third parties
is at all justifiable.

Impersonating a police officer is a serious offence which potentially
has very serious consequences for society (think of how it could
facilitate rape or robbery, for instance).

The correct approach to it is absolute zero-tolerance and severe
punishment.

But you still haven't explained why the cyclist is gaining an advantage
over the motorist.

On 24/04/2013 19:33, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2013 16:49, Steve O wrote:
On 24/04/2013 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2013 15:23, Rob wrote:
Steve O wrote:
|| On 24/04/2013 12:37, Cynic wrote:
||| On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:26:20 +0100, Steve O
||| wrote:



If it were as SO suggests, there could never be a prosecution unless the
impersonator admitted that he did it in order to facilitate a criminal
offence.

Are you under the impression that all accused offenders have to admit
they were trying to commit an offence in order to be prosecuted?

If the offence were still at the intended stage (and therefore known
only to the pretend police officer) and if he was stopped before he got
to the intended scene of it, all he'd have to say is that he was going
to slow down a few drivers in order to "improve" road safety and
certainly for no personal gain.

Get out of jail free card.

Look, there isn't anything inherently wrong with dressing as a police
officer.
The cast of "The Bill" used to do it every day, and they never got
arrested for it.
The point is that there should be some distinction between a person who
dresses as a police officer or similar to a police officer for a
harmless reason, and one who doesn't.
If the former isn't causing any harm, then why prosecute, unless their
garb is exactly similar to an officer in such a way as it would fool anyone.
What the cyclist was wearing was not in this category- a second glance
would confirm that he was not a police officer, unless you were
terminally stupid.

On 24/04/2013 20:44, Rob wrote:
Steve O wrote:
|| On 24/04/2013 15:07, JNugent wrote:
|||
||| Out of interest, why do you think we have such a law?
||
|| it was updated in 1996 to
|| prevent private security companies from being mistaken for police
|| officers, as it was around that time that they began to change their
|| clothing and vehicles to a close resemblance of police uniforms and
|| equipment.

Why update it though? What mischief, harm or loss do security guards cause,
surely the extra eyes and ears on patrol are a great help to the police and
public?

Perhaps you are not aware that rogue security guards and parking
attendants at the time were using the uniform to intimidate people into
paying on the spot fines for private parking charges, etc.

Do you not consider it illogical to draft legislation to specifically
include certain people whilst at the same time issue guidelines which,
according to YOUR interpretation, say that those same people should not be
prosecuted?


Yes, that would be illogical, which is why I never suggested it.

On 24/04/2013 21:45, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:57:45 +0100, Steve O wrote:



Read my previous post to see what the CPS actually have to say about the
subject.


Why don't you go over to uk.legal.moderated and have the same discussion over
there.
You haven't found anyone to agree with you here - you may have better luck over
there. (However, I doubt it)

Why don't you worry about where you post and I'll try not to worry where
I post, hmmm?

On 24/04/2013 23:02, Steve O wrote:
On 24/04/2013 19:33, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2013 16:49, Steve O wrote:
On 24/04/2013 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2013 15:23, Rob wrote:
Steve O wrote:
|| On 24/04/2013 12:37, Cynic wrote:
||| On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:26:20 +0100, Steve O
||| wrote:



If it were as SO suggests, there could never be a prosecution unless
the
impersonator admitted that he did it in order to facilitate a criminal
offence.

Are you under the impression that all accused offenders have to admit
they were trying to commit an offence in order to be prosecuted?

If the offence were still at the intended stage (and therefore known
only to the pretend police officer) and if he was stopped before he got
to the intended scene of it, all he'd have to say is that he was going
to slow down a few drivers in order to "improve" road safety and
certainly for no personal gain.

Get out of jail free card.

Look, there isn't anything inherently wrong with dressing as a police
officer.
Of course there isn't.

If that's what gives you pleasure, you are free to continue.

What you are NOT free to do is pretend to be a police officer with a
view to deceiving anyone that that is true.

The cast of "The Bill" used to do it every day, and they never got
arrested for it.

Quite so. They weren't trying to deceive.

The point is that there should be some distinction between a person who
dresses as a police officer or similar to a police officer for a
harmless reason, and one who doesn't.

But there isn't.

If the former isn't causing any harm, then why prosecute, unless their
garb is exactly similar to an officer in such a way as it would fool
anyone.
What the cyclist was wearing was not in this category- a second glance
would confirm that he was not a police officer, unless you were
terminally stupid.

If he wasn't trying to fool some people into thinking that he was a
police officer, it is he who is terminally stupid.

As well as anyone who supports him in his attempted deceit.