Imitating a Police man

Cynic wrote:
|| On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:44:59 +0100, "Rob"
|| 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?
||
|| Why should the general public not be given exactly the same powers as
|| police officers?
||
|| If you can answer that question, you will have answered the question
|| you posed.

The answer is fairly obvious the question was posed to make the PP think.

--
Rob

On 25/04/2013 09:19, Jeff wrote:

For the same reason, the Battenburg Design for high visibility police
vehicle markings was registered/copyrighted by the UK police to prevent
others from using it.


Can you provide some cite for that? The Police Scientific Development
Branch, which developed the scheme make no such claim. The only rule
governing such marking seem to be the RVLR and the colour of
retro-reflective material.

Jeff

Ah, my apologies, I have checked, and as you say, my information is
incorrect, I got it from a bad source.
You are also correct, the use of these colours in retro-reflective
material is controlled by the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989,
with vehicles only legally allowed the use of yellow retro-reflective
material.

On 25/04/2013 10:18, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:05:16 +0100, Steve O wrote:

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?


I was trying to help you.

You have not found a single person who agrees with you here.

Does that matter?
I was only offering an opinion.

I thought that because the issue is so clear cut from the legal point of view,
you could at least get the satisfaction of posting it there - and seeing every
other legal expert agreeing with you.

I am already posting from uk.legal.(un-moderated)
In that forum, the general trend is that people simply post when they
are in disagreement with something.
Silence is taken as acceptance.

I thought that if you did that and they agreed with you, it would help your
self esteem which must be at an all time low.

Judging by the silence, they must agree.
Besides, my self esteem is just fine,thanks. ;-)

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:06:59 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Judith wrote:
[snip]


I was trying to help you.

Telling pork pies makes you look silly Judith.


Oh dear, oh dear - I might have known that Filth could not understand sarcasm.

Why the **** would I want to help him - he is nearly as stupid as you are.

I guess it is the lack of education with both of you.

On 25/04/2013 22:26, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:06:59 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Judith wrote:
[snip]


I was trying to help you.

Telling pork pies makes you look silly Judith.


Oh dear, oh dear - I might have known that Filth could not understand sarcasm.

Why the **** would I want to help him - he is nearly as stupid as you are.

I guess it is the lack of education with both of you.

If I was looking for help I'd be looking for someone a little more
qualified who knows what they are talking about, thanks.

On Apr 22, 9:17*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
"John Benn" considered Mon, 22 Apr 2013
13:57:54 +0100 the perfect time to write:









"nik.morgan" wrote in message
...
Mel Rowing wrote:
On 22 Apr, 12:39, "John Benn" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

...

This could bring in some interesting claims against the Police force.
Cyclist dressed up like this and mows down a pedestrian and clears off
sharpish, what is anyone going to remember? *Police cyclist.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...hvis-polite-fo...

I am not entirely sure this is legal. *The cyclists run the risk of
being
stopped by the real police.

It would all boil down to that "reasonable person" so beloved by
lawyers.

Would a reasonable person justifiably believe that a person dressed
like that was a police officer.

For my money, no!

For my money, Yes, the public are notoriously unobservant, they 'see' what
they expect to see, everything says policeman except the spelling, most
will just see policeman.

I wonder if it's legal for me to dress my car up in the same colours as a
police patrol car complete with (non-working) blue lights on top and
"POLITE" written on the front, rear and sides. *I doubt it very much.

No, because all lights fitted to a motor vehicle must be working, and
the "battenburg" design used on current police vehicles is registered.


So what? He's not putting the guise in production, he's not selling
it, just decorating his own motor. The beacons can appear white but
show amber when lit and as such are convincing for the gullible 99.8%
of the population.

The reason they changed to that design was so that they could protect
it, as all previous designs had been widely copied.

On Apr 23, 12:41*pm, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 22/04/2013 14:00, Mel Rowing wrote:









On 22 Apr, 13:36, nik.morgan wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:

Would a reasonable person justifiably believe that a person dressed
like that was a police officer.

For my money, no!

For my money, Yes, the public are notoriously unobservant, they 'see' what
they expect to see, everything says policeman except the spelling, most
will just see policeman.

You would need to be bloody illiterate rather then merely unobservant
to mistake that guy for a policeman. The h-ivis jacket is widle worn
by all kinds of workmen. There are no insignia or badges that might
cause confusion.

The only "naughty" feature is the blue and white checked head band

Why "naughty", ambulance drivers and crew wear a blue and white checked
band on their working gear.

--
Moving Things in Still Pictures!

Kidnappers for the exchequer. They get you into "hospital" and they
find out you have been diagnosed with "incurable" disease(s) and are
over 45 and you get onto LCP without consultation. Pumped painKILLer
without hydration may lead to death in less than 24 hours. The not
so weak may last out up to10 days if family are close.

On Apr 22, 2:15*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 22/04/2013 13:36, nik.morgan wrote:









Mel Rowing wrote:
On 22 Apr, 12:39, "John Benn" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

...

This could bring in some interesting claims against the Police force..
Cyclist dressed up like this and mows down a pedestrian and clears off
sharpish, what is anyone going to remember? *Police cyclist.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...hvis-polite-fo....

I am not entirely sure this is legal. *The cyclists run the risk of being
stopped by the real police.

It would all boil down to that "reasonable person" so beloved by
lawyers.

Would a reasonable person justifiably believe that a person dressed
like that was a police officer.

For my money, no!

For my money, Yes, the public are notoriously unobservant, they 'see' what
they expect to see, everything says policeman except the spelling, most
will just see policeman.

The reasonable person is a red herring anyway. It is an offence to wear
anything that has the appearance of an article of Police uniform with
intent to deceive, whether anybody believes it or not.

Colin Bignell

Badge and number are the uniform requirements of all crown police
officers. I was under the impression this be common knowledge.

On Apr 22, 7:16*pm, Steve O wrote:
On 22/04/2013 17:01, Keith wrote:







On 22/04/2013 16:54, Nightjar wrote:
On 22/04/2013 15:14, Keith wrote:
On 22/04/2013 14:15, Nightjar wrote:

The reasonable person is a red herring anyway. It is an offence to wear
anything that has the appearance of an article of Police uniform with
intent to deceive, whether anybody believes it or not.

Colin Bignell

I always wear a yellow reflecting jacket and a white helmet when on my
motorbike. You are saying that is illegal?

I am saying that wearing anything that has the appearance of being an
article of Police uniform with intent to deceive is an offence under
Section 90 of the Police Act 1996. Do you think that a high visibility
jacket or a white helmet, by themselves, look like part of a Police
uniform, or do you think that they might need chequer tape and a word
that looks like Police to gain that appearance?

Colin Bignell

'With intent to deceive'. You got there in the end.

I think the question here was whether the cyclist was intending to
deceive anyone, and for what purpose.
Unfortunately, the Police Act does not specify any exemptions for an
honest purpose.
If the cyclist is intending to deceive others into believing he is a
police officer (albeit for a good purpose- to get people to slow down)
the question still remains whether or not he has impersonated a police
officer with intent to deceive.
So far, I can't find any strict definitions of any exemptions, as there
appears to be very few stated cases on the matter and they don't specify
whether an honest intention can negate the intent to deceive.

FFS the costume is used because it is known to be taken notice of.
There is no intended deception and when an officer says "I believe you
intend to deceive" he should be asked, since he is volunteering his
beliefs, does he believe in the tooth fairy, father christmas, the
freedom to travel unencumbered, oppressive taxation, a police state,
enslavement of the common man, the power of the common law court etc.

On Apr 22, 7:48*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
On 22 Apr, 17:09, Nightjar wrote:









On 22/04/2013 16:57, Mel Rowing wrote:
The wording of Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 is:

'Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police
uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly
resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to
deceive shall be guilty of an offence...

"article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any
distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued
to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having
the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document,'

So, high visibility jackets are not unique to the Police, but they
become an article of Police uniform if they bear any marking that gives
the appearance of being a distinctive badge or mark that appears on a
Police uniform, like the chequer markings or a word that can appear to
read Police.

But does not read "Police" and further in the absence of any badge or
mark, I don't think so!

I am not happy with your interpretation of this. For instance a black
tie is an item of police attire. So is a pair of black trousers, a
white or, in some areas, a light blue shirt. the fact that police
uniforms are not standardised across the country would not help with
this "calculation". *Rather common sense surely dictates that the
ambiguous articles above would need to be worn in conjunction with
more police specific articles like helmets or articles bearing
insignia like buttons accessory belts carrying batons, handcuffs CS
sprays etc. Under those circumstances the "calculation" becomes
obvious.

It so happens I saw an article on tonight's "Look North" *it would
appear as though a private security firm has been hired by Leeds City
Council to hand out fixed penalty notices to litter droppers. These
guys were wearing black trousers black body warmers (another common
item of police attire) black webbing, white shirts. There were no hats
insignia, collar numbers or the word 'police' of course but one could
be forgiven for believing during a cursory glance that they were

NAZIS - SS

looking at a group of police officers.

It seems unlikely that such dress is coincidental but the question is
whether if these people were put up before a court charged with
impersonating police officers would be convicted.

"MAy I have your identification?"

I fancy not because none of them were wearing any item that
specifically and unambiguously associates them with the police
service.