Teenager fined £80 for swear word

C_steam · 22-02-2006, 05:37 PM

I take a simplistoc view on this. Either it's legal or it isn't. It can't be contextualised to say it's OK to swear on TV but not in public, or to swear on radio but not to a police officer.

Christina · 22-02-2006, 05:57 PM

So if those placards had read "Massacre the f***ers!" and "Decapitate the f***ers!" they would have been arrested?

Isn't English eccentricity wonderful! :shock:

Westcountryman · 22-02-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

I take a simplistoc view on this. Either it's legal or it isn't. It can't be contextualised to say it's OK to swear on TV but not in public, or to swear on radio but not to a police officer.

Of course it can, otherwise there's no point in giving Police Officers discretion.

C_steam · 22-02-2006, 06:27 PM

You're right. There is no point giving police officers discretion.

Discretion is the role of the courts - the role of the police is to uphold the law, whatever that may be, not to make ad-hoc
and non-standard judgements depending on who they are talking to, or how they feel, or the colour of the person
bearing the placard.

Platoniuos · 22-02-2006, 07:04 PM

Though surely there should be some humanised discretion deployed by policemen. I understand that discretion is cheifly the role of the courts but a little common-sense in evaluating the severity of an incident would only aid the efficiency of the legal system. Like in the example of the rebel cursor, would it not have been more sensible to have a quite word with him. If policemen follow rigid rules when concerning themselves with such small, relatively insignificant things, they might aswell not be human. This is not for a second to infer that they should not follow the rules and laws fundamentally, though just to make humanly intuitive distinctions.

Westcountryman · 22-02-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platoniuos

Though surely there should be some humanised discretion deployed by policemen. I understand that discretion is cheifly the role of the courts but a little common-sense in evaluating the severity of an incident would only aid the efficiency of the legal system. Like in the example of the rebel cursor, would it not have been more sensible to have a quite word with him. If policemen follow rigid rules when concerning themselves with such small, relatively insignificant things, they might aswell not be human. This is not for a second to infer that they should not follow the rules and laws fundamentally, though just to make humanly intuitive distinctions.

I suspect that the Officer in question did ask/warn beforehand. He probably did it again.

C_steam · 22-02-2006, 09:56 PM

I don't buy it - sorry. No discretion with speed cameras is there?

By all means read the situation, try to defuse and try to prevent crime being committed BUT once the crime is committed, then discretion just means one rule for some. You can't slice this. The absolute BEST way to undermine a police force is to get the population to believe that they are only patchily enforcing the law.

I would prefer to see real clarity in enforcement, particularly for the petty laws where 'discretion' is used - i.e. if swearing, or littering, police must warn in the first instance but continued action or refusal to - for example - to pick up the litter is an instant fine. No if's, buts, maybes.

Westcountryman · 22-02-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

No discretion with speed cameras is there?

That's because a GATSO is not a Police Officer.

Quote:

or refusal to - for example - to pick up the litter is an instant fine.

Ah, summary Justice. Yep, that's allowing the Courts discretion...

Anthony Butcher · 22-02-2006, 11:36 PM

I don't understand why any discretion is required. When did swearing become a crime? And why is it only a crime if a police officer is present? It clearly isn't a crime if it is said one a television or fim set, or in one's home.

Westcountryman · 22-02-2006, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

I don't understand why any discretion is required. When did swearing become a crime? And why is it only a crime if a police officer is present? It clearly isn't a crime if it is said one a television or fim set, or in one's home.

It's a crime if a Police Officer is not present - it's just that no-one else can do anything about it. It is covered by S5. of the Public Order Act 1986.

There are lots of things that aren't allowed in public but get on tv - sex for example, or even violence. The law states that no-one should impersonate Police Officers - yet 'The Bill' is broadcast, and people go to parties dressed as Policemen. Should they be arrested?

Don't understand why Police Officers have/should have discretion? Take a look here for a start: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect09.htm

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

22-02-2006, 05:37 PM	#11 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,788	I take a simplistoc view on this. Either it's legal or it isn't. It can't be contextualised to say it's OK to swear on TV but not in public, or to swear on radio but not to a police officer.

22-02-2006, 05:57 PM	#12 (permalink)
Christina Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Eccleston, St Helens Posts: 1,529	So if those placards had read "Massacre the f*ers!" and "Decapitate the f*ers!" they would have been arrested? Isn't English eccentricity wonderful! :shock:

22-02-2006, 06:27 PM	#14 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,788	You're right. There is no point giving police officers discretion. Discretion is the role of the courts - the role of the police is to uphold the law, whatever that may be, not to make ad-hoc and non-standard judgements depending on who they are talking to, or how they feel, or the colour of the person bearing the placard.

22-02-2006, 07:04 PM	#15 (permalink)
Platoniuos Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South East Posts: 17	Though surely there should be some humanised discretion deployed by policemen. I understand that discretion is cheifly the role of the courts but a little common-sense in evaluating the severity of an incident would only aid the efficiency of the legal system. Like in the example of the rebel cursor, would it not have been more sensible to have a quite word with him. If policemen follow rigid rules when concerning themselves with such small, relatively insignificant things, they might aswell not be human. This is not for a second to infer that they should not follow the rules and laws fundamentally, though just to make humanly intuitive distinctions.

22-02-2006, 09:56 PM	#17 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,788	I don't buy it - sorry. No discretion with speed cameras is there? By all means read the situation, try to defuse and try to prevent crime being committed BUT once the crime is committed, then discretion just means one rule for some. You can't slice this. The absolute BEST way to undermine a police force is to get the population to believe that they are only patchily enforcing the law. I would prefer to see real clarity in enforcement, particularly for the petty laws where 'discretion' is used - i.e. if swearing, or littering, police must warn in the first instance but continued action or refusal to - for example - to pick up the litter is an instant fine. No if's, buts, maybes.

22-02-2006, 11:36 PM	#19 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,187 Party: None	I don't understand why any discretion is required. When did swearing become a crime? And why is it only a crime if a police officer is present? It clearly isn't a crime if it is said one a television or fim set, or in one's home.