http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5017444/Student-facing-trial-over-writing-on-pavement-in-chalk.html#
Quote
Student facing trial over writing on pavement in chalk
A university student is facing a trial for criminal damage after writing two civil liberties messages on the pavement in chalk.
Paul Saville, 23, a second-year sociology and criminology student at the University of the West of England, Bristol, was arrested, locked in a cell for two hours and forced to give DNA samples.
His "crime" was simply to write on a pavement "Liberty. The right to question it. The right to ask: "Are we free?" in protest over what he says in the "loss of civil liberties" in Britain.
Mr Saville has pleaded not guilty to a charge of criminal damage "under the value of £5,000" in Bristol, and is awaiting trial.
He said: "Children use chalk on the streets for hopscotch and some cafes advertise with chalk on the pavement so I don't understand why they treated me like this.
"I don't think I have done anything wrong. I considered it to be a fun way of conveying my message. The whole reason I was writing in chalk was because I wanted to get my message across without causing lasting damage."
Police confirmed that Mr Saville has been charged and is due to appear in court next month. A spokesman declined to comment further due to the pending court appearance.
Mr Saville said that on the first occasion he was staging a one-man protest near a new shopping centre in Bristol about the "loss of civil liberties" in Britain.
He wrote on a pavement: "Liberty. The right to question it. The right to ask: "Are we free?"
He claimed that a short time later four policemen approached him and asked him to stop. He said he wrote one more letter and was then arrested.
He says he was taken to the nearest police station in a van. He was then photographed, fingerprinted, forced to give DNA samples and kept in a cell for more than two hours.
Police also examined photographs on his digital camera before releasing him under caution, he said.
About a month later he carried out another similar pavement protest, during which he wrote: "As the buildings go up, the wages go down."
Police approached him and checked his records "to see who I was", he said. He was taken to a police station and underwent the "same procedures", before being charged, he added. He said he had pleaded not guilty to the charge.
He said: "This is normal playground chalk. I was merely highlighting the point that we are losing civil liberties in the UK. This is something we should be thinking about.
"To arrest and prosecute me is a waste of the court's time, police time and taxpayers' money."
He added: "You could say what I was doing was deviant behaviour but I never thought I would be arrested.
"If these really are such dangerous times surely the police could use their time and resources more effectively than this.
"I am sure people will say it was a bit daft getting caught twice but I feel adamant that I should be standing up and speaking out for my rights.
"I understand that if everyone started using chalk all over the place it would be a mess but surely people can see how ridiculous this is."
Mr Saville has been charged by police. The Crown Prosecution Service reviews each case it receives from police to make sure it is right to proceed with the prosecution.
A CPS spokesman said last night (Thurs): "We have requested all of the evidence from the police and will review the case when we receive it."
Thread title with intentional hyperbole.
Ok, that sounds weird, even for the UK.
So: Is this the full story? Did he resist the officers? Or block traffic or anything?
He got told to stop. He carried on. He then got cautioned - i.e. don't do it again or we'll arrest you again. He did it again and got arrested. He is surprised.
Fuck this guy. When they tell you not to graffiti, and you keep doing it, you're not into freedom. You're into being a douchebag.
When was the last time you saw children playing hopscotch or found a friendly stationers where you could purchase ordinary playground chalk?
My nieces are accomplished driveway chalk artists. BUT THEY DO IT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
Quote from: Neil on November 12, 2012, 08:29:33 AM
Fuck this guy. When they tell you not to graffiti, and you keep doing it, you're not into freedom. You're into being a douchebag.
Graffiti for writing in chalk? It will wash away as soon as it rains, and this is Britain so it will shortly. That just seems considerate to me, if he was using spray paint I could see you point. I am not sure the severity of a 'criminal charge' though. If this is like a community service small fine situation then no biggie.
Quote from: Brazen on November 12, 2012, 08:41:27 AM
When was the last time you saw children playing hopscotch or found a friendly stationers where you could purchase ordinary playground chalk?
Within the past year.
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 08:26:30 AM
He got told to stop. He carried on. He then got cautioned - i.e. don't do it again or we'll arrest you again. He did it again and got arrested. He is surprised.
Which seems to dovetail nicely into his point. We now must comply with police demands even when it is to desist a most innocuous action.
"Now"?
Anyone sensible does what they are told by the cops except in extremis. In the old days you'd get a kicking, these days you get arrested and suffer a small fine.
And, of course, this is all his side of the story. I bet he called them fascist pigs or similar.
It seems a shame that the police themselves can not be charged with wasting police time :hmm:
Or if it is American cops, you'll hear the CLICK CLICK of the tazer going off.
Another knobhead has been arrested for burning a poppy and posting it on facebook :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231660/Free-speech-row-man-ARRESTED-posting-image-burning-Poppy-Facebook-page-Remembrance-Sunday.html
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 12, 2012, 08:59:29 AM
It seems a shame that the police themselves can not be charged with wasting police time :hmm:
In Poland last weekend a guy was fined for wearing a horse mask while standing near a memorial service in the street.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.natemat.pl%2Fecf94b6fb44694e749f500829eba290f%2C641%2C0%2C0%2C0.jpg&hash=dab056335ae009ae86398bea091865e1445c12be)
I fully agree with you that the police should be penalized more often for being idiots.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 12, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Another knobhead has been arrested for burning a poppy and posting it on facebook :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231660/Free-speech-row-man-ARRESTED-posting-image-burning-Poppy-Facebook-page-Remembrance-Sunday.html
What the fuck. It seems as if the UK is a police state or something. At least here people usually just get fines (and it's too much imo anyway).
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 08:58:56 AM
"Now"?
Anyone sensible does what they are told by the cops except in extremis. In the old days you'd get a kicking, these days you get arrested and suffer a small fine.
And, of course, this is all his side of the story. I bet he called them fascist pigs or similar.
I thought you were a lawyer. The police do not have a right to demand a citizen to do anything they please - they can only ask within the bounds of law.
a) It is illegal to write on the public highway.
b) It's got nothing to do with being a lawyer. It's just common sense that if a cop tells you to stop doing something you stop. Take his badge number and complain later if you like but don't just carry on regardless and expect nothing to happen.
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 09:29:46 AM
b) It's got nothing to do with being a lawyer. It's just common sense that if a cop tells you to stop doing something you stop. Take his badge number and complain later if you like but don't just carry on regardless and expect nothing to happen.
Which again just reinforces what the man was writing. I don't like the idea that the police can as us to stop doing anything they feel like.
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 08:58:56 AM
"Now"?
Anyone sensible does what they are told by the cops except in extremis. In the old days you'd get a kicking, these days you get arrested and suffer a small fine.
And, of course, this is all his side of the story. I bet he called them fascist pigs or similar.
Gups, thanks for that thoroughly unbiased post.
Quote from: Brazen on November 12, 2012, 08:41:27 AM
When was the last time you saw children playing hopscotch or found a friendly stationers where you could purchase ordinary playground chalk?
When was the last time you saw someone standing on a street corner handing out political pamphlets ?
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 09:32:02 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 09:29:46 AM
b) It's got nothing to do with being a lawyer. It's just common sense that if a cop tells you to stop doing something you stop. Take his badge number and complain later if you like but don't just carry on regardless and expect nothing to happen.
Which again just reinforces what the man was writing. I don't like the idea that the police can as us to stop doing anything they feel like.
Garbon, this is England; timid people get a vicarious satisfaction in seeing others slap down if they step out of line.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 12, 2012, 08:59:29 AM
It seems a shame that the police themselves can not be charged with wasting police time :hmm:
Right? 'OH MY CHALK ON OUR SIDEWALKS!!!111'
Anyway, a quick google search reveals that this story is from March 2009 and the charges were all dropped. According to Saville he was awarded compensation as well. He was later arrested for stroking a horse. :ph34r:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/26/student-protester-stroked-police-horse
I only reported the latest headlines from EUOT. :blush:
Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2012, 10:35:16 AM
I only reported the latest headlines from EUOT. :blush:
Thanks Euro-Tim :P
Apparently it cost about £5k to investigate this "crime" and then the Crown Prosecution service dismissed the case due to "lack of evidence" :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168813/Police-chalk-5-000-failed-case-student-civil-liberties-graffiti.html
I guess it rained :P
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 10:29:43 AM
Anyway, a quick google search reveals that this story is from March 2009 and the charges were all dropped. According to Saville he was awarded compensation as well. He was later arrested for stroking a horse. :ph34r:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/26/student-protester-stroked-police-horse
But it's still illegal to chalk on the highway right ?
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Brazen on November 12, 2012, 08:41:27 AM
When was the last time you saw children playing hopscotch or found a friendly stationers where you could purchase ordinary playground chalk?
When was the last time you saw someone standing on a street corner handing out political pamphlets ?
Thankfully not often here in New York. Happened daily in SF. <_<
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 11:24:25 AM
Thankfully not often here in New York. Happened daily in SF. <_<
'Fight against the evils of Capitalism! Join the Marxist revolution today!'
Yes...I got this once in Austin, Texas.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 11:24:25 AM
Thankfully not often here in New York. Happened daily in SF. <_<
'Fight against the evils of Capitalism! Join the Marxist revolution today!'
Yes...I got this once in Austin, Texas.
Most common for me was look at this photo of sad Palestinian children. Stop their evil Zionist oppressors!
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 10:29:43 AM
Anyway, a quick google search reveals that this story is from March 2009 and the charges were all dropped. According to Saville he was awarded compensation as well. He was later arrested for stroking a horse. :ph34r:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/26/student-protester-stroked-police-horse
Is "stroking a horse" some sort of wacky British euphemism? ;)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 12, 2012, 08:59:29 AM
It seems a shame that the police themselves can not be charged with wasting police time :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisiscornwall.co.uk%2Fimages%2Flocalpeople%2Fugc-images%2F275776%2FArticle%2Fimages%2F15050798%2F3498979.png&hash=dc27f7fea672dc79e8b88650917a9f9aece12ce1)
Dixon wouldn't have been ignored and dixon wouldn't have ended up in a shitstorm like this.
Quote from: Brazen on November 12, 2012, 08:41:27 AM
When was the last time you saw children playing hopscotch or found a friendly stationers where you could purchase ordinary playground chalk?
:lol:
Around here, the campus sidewalks are so full of chalk messages, drawings, and yes, sometimes even hopscotch, that you can't spit without hitting someone's artwork. There is constantly chalk writings in front of bars, restaurants, and even the public libraries. It's so ubiquitous that I notice when it's missing more than I notice when it's there.
This seems beyond ridiculous. He wasn't writing anything that was offensive. He was using walk-away chalk. And unless he was in some way blocking traffic or affecting the general flow of passersby, I really don't see the point of this.
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 03:08:46 PM
Quote from: Brazen on November 12, 2012, 08:41:27 AM
When was the last time you saw children playing hopscotch or found a friendly stationers where you could purchase ordinary playground chalk?
:lol:
Around here, the campus sidewalks are so full of chalk messages, drawings, and yes, sometimes even hopscotch, that you can't spit without hitting someone's artwork. There is constantly chalk writings in front of bars, restaurants, and even the public libraries. It's so ubiquitous that I notice when it's missing more than I notice when it's there.
This seems beyond ridiculous. He wasn't writing anything that was offensive. He was using walk-away chalk. And unless he was in some way blocking traffic or affecting the general flow of passersby, I really don't see the point of this.
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
And it seems the officers feel completely comfortable wasting thousands in public funds to teach a singular random person this lesson.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
Most of the time, I'm willing to agree with that. In this case, however, it seems like harassment on the part of the officers. Kind of like arresting the one black kid for jaywalking while ignoring the 12 whites ones who do it. (Which does happen here with some regularity.) The guy may have been annoying, but arrest-worthy? Hmm, no.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
And it seems the officers feel completely comfortable wasting thousands in public funds to teach a singular random person this lesson.
A rule of thumb that has always stood me in good stead is to always follow instructions from police officers, security guards, wait staff at bars and restaurants and bouncers. I never get into trouble.
And you call yourself "Viking" :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2012, 03:30:18 PM
And you call yourself "Viking" :rolleyes:
Modern Scandinavia /= Early Medieval Scandinavia
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:27:16 PM
A rule of thumb that has always stood me in good stead is to always follow instructions from police officers, security guards, wait staff at bars and restaurants and bouncers. I never get into trouble.
I am not disagreeing with the principle. I do the same and have never got into trouble either. Of course I do not live under the oppressive tyranny of the British Government so I have no reason to rebel.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 03:34:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:27:16 PM
A rule of thumb that has always stood me in good stead is to always follow instructions from police officers, security guards, wait staff at bars and restaurants and bouncers. I never get into trouble.
I am not disagreeing with the principle. I do the same and have never got into trouble either. Of course I do not live under the oppressive tyranny of the British Government so I have no reason to rebel.
No person living in a polity that denies beer to 18 year olds can call one that doesn't an oppressive tyranny.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
And it seems the officers feel completely comfortable wasting thousands in public funds to teach a singular random person this lesson.
That's what public order is based on. You libertarians can go fuck yourselves.
Quote from: Neil on November 12, 2012, 03:45:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
And it seems the officers feel completely comfortable wasting thousands in public funds to teach a singular random person this lesson.
That's what public order is based on. You libertarians can go fuck yourselves.
Public order is based on spending lots of money to teach one person a lesson?
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:27:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
And it seems the officers feel completely comfortable wasting thousands in public funds to teach a singular random person this lesson.
A rule of thumb that has always stood me in good stead is to always follow instructions from police officers, security guards, wait staff at bars and restaurants and bouncers. I never get into trouble.
Just to echo P.W. comment, you're seriously need to change you username to something more appropriate, may I suggest 'Wuss'.
So a guy puts on a yellow high-vis jacket with 'security' written on it and you feel obliged to do and say what he 'thinks' appropriate. :blink:
I've had security people say the most ludicrous things to me on occasion, like "oh you can't hand out leaflets on the high street as it breaks health an safety regulations" or "what if you upset someone" etc.
Should I kowtow to any tom,dick and harry and be grateful at the same time.
Think I could just petition for the 5000 pounds and promise not to write in chalk? I need it for dental work. :)
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 03:54:42 PM
Think I could just petition for the 5000 pounds and promise not to write in chalk? I need it for dental work. :)
Truly you are British in spirit and all, saving just the passport. :cheers:
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 03:54:42 PM
Think I could just petition for the 5000 pounds and promise not to write in chalk? I need it for dental work. :)
Truly you are British in spirit and all, saving just the passport. :cheers:
:hug:
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 03:54:18 PM
Just to echo P.W. comment, you're seriously need to change you username to something more appropriate, may I suggest 'Wuss'.
So a guy puts on a yellow high-vis jacket with 'security' written on it and you feel obliged to do and say what he 'thinks' appropriate. :blink:
I've had security people say the most ludicrous things to me on occasion, like "oh you can't hand out leaflets on the high street as it breaks health an safety regulations" or "what if you upset someone" etc.
Should I kowtow to any tom,dick and harry and be grateful at the same time.
First of all I do know my rights. I don't just do what I am told in any place at all times. Persons of authority have scopes to that authority and when I am within that scope I listen. I don't argue with barmaids, I do what they tell me. I don't argue with bouncers, I do what they tell me. I don't argue with airline stewardesses and stewards, airport safety screeners, policemen, policewomen or teachers. I don't get angry, I do what I am told and get their credentials.
The consequences of this is that I get tremendous leeway in my local bars and clubs. The staff know me and know if they ask me to take a walk around the block or drink a pint of water or go home I will, it also means that they always err on my side. If I get into a drunken shouting match about Individual transferrable quotas or the leninist islamist who just got the norwegian version of the OBE I don't get dirty looks from the bouncer, I get told to be less loud and get asked if I want another beer.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 12, 2012, 03:45:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
And it seems the officers feel completely comfortable wasting thousands in public funds to teach a singular random person this lesson.
That's what public order is based on. You libertarians can go fuck yourselves.
Public order is based on spending lots of money to teach one person a lesson?
Yes.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 12, 2012, 03:45:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
And it seems the officers feel completely comfortable wasting thousands in public funds to teach a singular random person this lesson.
That's what public order is based on. You libertarians can go fuck yourselves.
Public order is based on spending lots of money to teach one person a lesson?
How much is it worth to society that a person be well behaved?
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:11:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 12, 2012, 03:45:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
And it seems the officers feel completely comfortable wasting thousands in public funds to teach a singular random person this lesson.
That's what public order is based on. You libertarians can go fuck yourselves.
Public order is based on spending lots of money to teach one person a lesson?
How much is it worth to society that a person be well behaved?
I don't see how that's relevant considering that I don't think chalking a side walk is an example of bad behavior.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:07:33 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 03:54:18 PM
Just to echo P.W. comment, you're seriously need to change you username to something more appropriate, may I suggest 'Wuss'.
So a guy puts on a yellow high-vis jacket with 'security' written on it and you feel obliged to do and say what he 'thinks' appropriate. :blink:
I've had security people say the most ludicrous things to me on occasion, like "oh you can't hand out leaflets on the high street as it breaks health an safety regulations" or "what if you upset someone" etc.
Should I kowtow to any tom,dick and harry and be grateful at the same time.
First of all I do know my rights. I don't just do what I am told in any place at all times. Persons of authority have scopes to that authority and when I am within that scope I listen. I don't argue with barmaids, I do what they tell me. I don't argue with bouncers, I do what they tell me. I don't argue with airline stewardesses and stewards, airport safety screeners, policemen, policewomen or teachers. I don't get angry, I do what I am told and get their credentials.
The consequences of this is that I get tremendous leeway in my local bars and clubs. The staff know me and know if they ask me to take a walk around the block or drink a pint of water or go home I will, it also means that they always err on my side. If I get into a drunken shouting match about Individual transferrable quotas or the leninist islamist who just got the norwegian version of the OBE I don't get dirty looks from the bouncer, I get told to be less loud and get asked if I want another beer.
Wuss, it is then.
I note you haven't addressed you're sucking up to security guards.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:22:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:11:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 12, 2012, 03:45:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
The lesson here is that one should listen to police officers when they ask nicely. Piss one off and he can fuck your day up.
And it seems the officers feel completely comfortable wasting thousands in public funds to teach a singular random person this lesson.
That's what public order is based on. You libertarians can go fuck yourselves.
Public order is based on spending lots of money to teach one person a lesson?
How much is it worth to society that a person be well behaved?
I don't see how that's relevant considering that I don't think chalking a side walk is an example of bad behavior.
Respecting the police is.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Respecting the police is.
I'm not sure it is good for public order if the police can request you to do anything and you must comply.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Respecting the police is.
I'm not sure it is good for public order if the police can request you to do anything and you must comply.
When it comes within the scope of their authority then you should. It is within the authority of the police to confront those who are defacing public property. The public sidewalk is public property.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Respecting the police is.
I'm not sure it is good for public order if the police can request you to do anything and you must comply.
When it comes within the scope of their authority then you should. It is within the authority of the police to confront those who are defacing public property. The public sidewalk is public property.
I believe the question is whether it's truly "defacing public property" when it's sidewalk chalk.
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 04:45:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Respecting the police is.
I'm not sure it is good for public order if the police can request you to do anything and you must comply.
When it comes within the scope of their authority then you should. It is within the authority of the police to confront those who are defacing public property. The public sidewalk is public property.
I believe the question is whether it's truly "defacing public property" when it's sidewalk chalk.
I believe that when it comes to public property then it is the responsible local officer of the state that gets to decide that.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Respecting the police is.
I'm not sure it is good for public order if the police can request you to do anything and you must comply.
His username broke his irony meter.
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 04:52:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Respecting the police is.
I'm not sure it is good for public order if the police can request you to do anything and you must comply.
His username broke his irony meter.
So, which special commodity do you deal in?
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Respecting the police is.
I'm not sure it is good for public order if the police can request you to do anything and you must comply.
When it comes within the scope of their authority then you should. It is within the authority of the police to confront those who are defacing public property. The public sidewalk is public property.
Disagree when things like this are so unevenly applied. Then it just becomes a method by which the police can terrorize citizens.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 04:45:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Respecting the police is.
I'm not sure it is good for public order if the police can request you to do anything and you must comply.
When it comes within the scope of their authority then you should. It is within the authority of the police to confront those who are defacing public property. The public sidewalk is public property.
I believe the question is whether it's truly "defacing public property" when it's sidewalk chalk.
I believe that when it comes to public property then it is the responsible local officer of the state that gets to decide that.
But that's not even true. The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:59:25 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Respecting the police is.
I'm not sure it is good for public order if the police can request you to do anything and you must comply.
When it comes within the scope of their authority then you should. It is within the authority of the police to confront those who are defacing public property. The public sidewalk is public property.
Disagree when things like this are so unevenly applied. Then it just becomes a method by which the police can terrorize citizens.
The police have substantial power and can already terrorize civilians and means to deal with that already exist. In this case the police officer didn't terrorize this civilian, the police officer first asked politely. The policeman was acting within the scope of his power.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:02:45 PM
The police have substantial power and can already terrorize civilians and means to deal with that already exist. In this case the police officer didn't terrorize this civilian, the police officer first asked politely. The policeman was acting within the scope of his power.
I'm within my "scope of power" if I beat my son for mouthing off to me, but that doesn't mean that it's the appropriate response to the situation. One would hope that someone in that position of power would use better judgment. That, I think, is the point.
As has been shown, those above the officers decided that the officers were incorrect in their application of said powers, so I'm not sure how you can continue to defend their actions.
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:02:45 PM
The police have substantial power and can already terrorize civilians and means to deal with that already exist. In this case the police officer didn't terrorize this civilian, the police officer first asked politely. The policeman was acting within the scope of his power.
I'm within my "scope of power" if I beat my son for mouthing off to me, but that doesn't mean that it's the appropriate response to the situation. One would hope that someone in that position of power would use better judgment. That, I think, is the point.
As has been shown, those above the officers decided that the officers were incorrect in their application of said powers, so I'm not sure how you can continue to defend their actions.
:yes:
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:02:45 PM
The police have substantial power and can already terrorize civilians and means to deal with that already exist. In this case the police officer didn't terrorize this civilian, the police officer first asked politely. The policeman was acting within the scope of his power.
I think his subsequent arrest can count as being terrorized.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:02:45 PM
the police officer first asked politely.
Where did it say the officer asked politely? And it sure escalated quickly from request to arrest.
Not questioning that the cop can arrest people I was questioning his judgement.
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 03:23:46 PM
Kind of like arresting the one black kid for jaywalking while ignoring the 12 whites ones who do it. (Which does happen here with some regularity.)
He looked like he was up to something.
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:02:45 PM
The police have substantial power and can already terrorize civilians and means to deal with that already exist. In this case the police officer didn't terrorize this civilian, the police officer first asked politely. The policeman was acting within the scope of his power.
I'm within my "scope of power" if I beat my son for mouthing off to me, but that doesn't mean that it's the appropriate response to the situation. One would hope that someone in that position of power would use better judgment. That, I think, is the point.
As has been shown, those above the officers decided that the officers were incorrect in their application of said powers, so I'm not sure how you can continue to defend their actions.
The appropriate response was to ask this kid to stop, the officer did that. The kid refused to stop. The kid was then warned. The kid ignored the warning. The kid was the arrested.
So what if the police hierarchy decided to try and make this go away. This is on the lower end of the scale of what is defacing public property but it is still public property and it is being defaced. The fact that the chalk will disappear next rainstorm is beside the point. Permanent Markers and Paint eventually fade away too, the only difference is time.
You can argue that the policeman showed poor judgement, I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying the policeman acted within the scope of his powers and responsibilities guided by his professional judgement.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:02:45 PM
The police have substantial power and can already terrorize civilians and means to deal with that already exist. In this case the police officer didn't terrorize this civilian, the police officer first asked politely. The policeman was acting within the scope of his power.
The policeman's sergeant would've told the policeman that he's got more important fucking things to do.
WOTS ALL THIS THEN?
:blush:
MOVE ALONG THERES A GOOD CHAP
Why are we imitating how Jos speaks? :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 05:22:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:02:45 PM
The police have substantial power and can already terrorize civilians and means to deal with that already exist. In this case the police officer didn't terrorize this civilian, the police officer first asked politely. The policeman was acting within the scope of his power.
The policeman's sergeant would've told the policeman that he's got more important fucking things to do.
To be fair some of the London drug gangs are somewhat scary, so these sort of cases generate lots of paperwork, time in the station and the prospect of brownie point with the higher-ups for political policing.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:21:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 05:06:19 PM
I'm within my "scope of power" if I beat my son for mouthing off to me, but that doesn't mean that it's the appropriate response to the situation. One would hope that someone in that position of power would use better judgment. That, I think, is the point.
You can argue that the policeman showed poor judgement, I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying the policeman acted within the scope of his powers and responsibilities guided by his professional judgement.
Please to re-read the bolded part. Thanks. :)
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:21:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:02:45 PM
The police have substantial power and can already terrorize civilians and means to deal with that already exist. In this case the police officer didn't terrorize this civilian, the police officer first asked politely. The policeman was acting within the scope of his power.
I'm within my "scope of power" if I beat my son for mouthing off to me, but that doesn't mean that it's the appropriate response to the situation. One would hope that someone in that position of power would use better judgment. That, I think, is the point.
As has been shown, those above the officers decided that the officers were incorrect in their application of said powers, so I'm not sure how you can continue to defend their actions.
The appropriate response was to ask this kid to stop, the officer did that. The kid refused to stop. The kid was then warned. The kid ignored the warning. The kid was the arrested.
So what if the police hierarchy decided to try and make this go away. This is on the lower end of the scale of what is defacing public property but it is still public property and it is being defaced. The fact that the chalk will disappear next rainstorm is beside the point. Permanent Markers and Paint eventually fade away too, the only difference is time.
You can argue that the policeman showed poor judgement, I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying the policeman acted within the scope of his powers and responsibilities guided by his professional judgement.
You fail at your first assumption.
There's no law regarding "defacing public property" here,it would be a question of if it were criminal damage or not.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 05:27:41 PM
Why are we imitating how Jos speaks? :unsure:
I can't do Geordie.
Baby talk.
I can see why Millwall supporters liked to beat the snot out of Northerners.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:21:09 PM
The fact that the chalk will disappear next rainstorm is beside the point.
What is the point? To blow thousands of public money to keep pavement from suffering zero damage?
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2012, 05:35:55 PM
I can see why Millwall supporters liked to beat the snot out of Northerners.
Most Millwall fans are fine exemplars of the old London tradition of "all mouth and no trousers", I beat on an equal number of Mancunians any day of the week.
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 05:42:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2012, 05:35:55 PM
I can see why Millwall supporters liked to beat the snot out of Northerners.
Most Millwall fans are fine exemplars of the old London tradition of "all mouth and no trousers", I beat on an equal number of Mancunians any day of the week.
Are you saying that Panarama doc from '77 lied to me? :cry:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2012, 05:44:54 PM
Are you saying that Panarama doc from '77 lied to me? :cry:
Not nearly as much as Airport '77 lied to you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2012, 05:44:54 PM
Are you saying that Panarama doc from '77 lied to me? :cry:
Not nearly as much as Airport '77 lied to you.
Is that the one where they crashed into the water, sank and they survived?
Yeah, Grey Lady Down meets The Poseidon Adventure.
Like that aluminum fuselage wouldn't fold like a beer can on Siegy's forehead.
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 05:06:19 PM
I'm within my "scope of power" if I beat my son for mouthing off to me, but that doesn't mean that it's the appropriate response to the situation. One would hope that someone in that position of power would use better judgment. That, I think, is the point.
Indeed. The best solution would be to do absolutely nothing. Your kind of moral cowardice is what makes the world a worse place for everyone.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 05:40:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:21:09 PM
The fact that the chalk will disappear next rainstorm is beside the point.
What is the point? To blow thousands of public money to keep pavement from suffering zero damage?
The point isn't the damage to the pavement. The point is that the guy is a malcontent piece of shit who needs to be hammered back into line, or killed.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 05:40:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 05:21:09 PM
The fact that the chalk will disappear next rainstorm is beside the point.
What is the point? To blow thousands of public money to keep pavement from suffering zero damage?
How does that argument not apply to prosecuting murderers who are in no danger of re-offending?
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 09:49:19 PM
How does that argument not apply to prosecuting murderers who are in no danger of re-offending?
HOw is murder zero damage?
The key to Viking's whole outlook in this thread is that it is rooted entirely in the importance he attaches to his status as a public drunk. If you are routinely drinking yourself insensate and wandering around town arguing with people, it is indeed a good rule to just obey any order anyone in the least position of authority gives you, since they probably have the better judgment and since you're already immediately suspect for being sopping drunk. This is especially reinforced when you frequently encounter helpful authority figures like bar staff telling you what to do, since they will keep you from getting physically attacked and maintain you at a sufficiently high level of inebriation to satisfy your needs.
Now if you don't organize your life around public binge drinking, you might wish to organize your interactions with authority figures differently. But when you're staggering drunk, it's both appropriate and socially desirable to submit completely to any show of authority.
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 12, 2012, 03:54:42 PM
Think I could just petition for the 5000 pounds and promise not to write in chalk? I need it for dental work. :)
Truly you are British in spirit and all, saving just the passport. :cheers:
If she was truly British in spirit she'd pocket the money and skip the dental work.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 13, 2012, 01:33:31 AM
The key to Viking's whole outlook in this thread is that it is rooted entirely in the importance he attaches to his status as a public drunk. If you are routinely drinking yourself insensate and wandering around town arguing with people, it is indeed a good rule to just obey any order anyone in the least position of authority gives you, since they probably have the better judgment and since you're already immediately suspect for being sopping drunk. This is especially reinforced when you frequently encounter helpful authority figures like bar staff telling you what to do, since they will keep you from getting physically attacked and maintain you at a sufficiently high level of inebriation to satisfy your needs.
Now if you don't organize your life around public binge drinking, you might wish to organize your interactions with authority figures differently. But when you're staggering drunk, it's both appropriate and socially desirable to submit completely to any show of authority.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 13, 2012, 01:33:31 AM
The key to Viking's whole outlook in this thread is that it is rooted entirely in the importance he attaches to his status as a public drunk. If you are routinely drinking yourself insensate and wandering around town arguing with people, it is indeed a good rule to just obey any order anyone in the least position of authority gives you, since they probably have the better judgment and since you're already immediately suspect for being sopping drunk. This is especially reinforced when you frequently encounter helpful authority figures like bar staff telling you what to do, since they will keep you from getting physically attacked and maintain you at a sufficiently high level of inebriation to satisfy your needs.
Now if you don't organize your life around public binge drinking, you might wish to organize your interactions with authority figures differently. But when you're staggering drunk, it's both appropriate and socially desirable to submit completely to any show of authority.
Damn! :lmfao:
POTM
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a while, or possibly Doctor Pangloss.
The UK has 63m people and 136k police officers. Every couple of months the police get heavy-handed with some gormless twit or other, there is a furore, the CPS decides not to prosecute or the twit gets his sentence quashed on appeal. The director of the CPS is holding an extensive review into social media so that proper revised guidance can be issued to police officers and future heavy-handed errors avoided. The system is working much as it ever did but needs to update some of its procedures to allow for the rise of social media. Meanwhile, in beacons of freedom such as Russia, the police very rarely misbehave......ha!
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 02:59:38 AM
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a while, or possibly Doctor Pangloss.
The UK has 63m people and 136k police officers. Every couple of months the police get heavy-handed with some gormless twit or other, there is a furore, the CPS decides not to prosecute or the twit gets his sentence quashed on appeal. The director of the CPS is holding an extensive review into social media so that proper revised guidance can be issued to police officers and future heavy-handed errors avoided. The system is working much as it ever did but needs to update some of its procedures to allow for the rise of social media. Meanwhile, in beacons of freedom such as Russia, the police very rarely misbehave......ha!
Surely you recognize that the "it's worse in other parts of the world so stop complaining" argument is intellectually and morally bankrupt, right? :P
That wasn't my point though. My point was that, possibly, the media being full of stories of police incompetence is a good thing; as an absence of such stories can hardly be taken as good news. Or are there brilliant police forces elsewhere that are impossible to criticise?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 05:17:44 AM
That wasn't my point though. My point was that, possibly, the media being full of stories of police incompetence is a good thing; as an absence of such stories can hardly be taken as good news. Or are there brilliant police forces elsewhere that are impossible to criticise?
Another positive point of view is that such things are only reported because they're the exception, not the rule. If it happened all the time, it wouldn't be in the news.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 10:13:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 09:49:19 PM
How does that argument not apply to prosecuting murderers who are in no danger of re-offending?
HOw is murder zero damage?
Maybe he thinks the next rain will wash the dead off the victim.
Quote from: Brazen on November 13, 2012, 05:39:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 05:17:44 AM
That wasn't my point though. My point was that, possibly, the media being full of stories of police incompetence is a good thing; as an absence of such stories can hardly be taken as good news. Or are there brilliant police forces elsewhere that are impossible to criticise?
Another positive point of view is that such things are only reported because they're the exception, not the rule. If it happened all the time, it wouldn't be in the news.
Or the vast majority of the population is sufficiently cowered to not step out of line, like Wuss (formerly 'viking') , that people actively exercising their 'rights' to free speech are a now vanishing small minority, hence the rarity of these stories.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
Or the vast majority of the population is sufficiently cowered to not step out of line, like Wuss (formerly 'viking') , that people actively exercising their 'rights' to free speech are a now vanishing small minority, hence the rarity of these stories.
I know. Look at the internet. Nobody dares say
anything.
Quote from: Gups on November 13, 2012, 11:00:44 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
Or the vast majority of the population is sufficiently cowered to not step out of line, like Wuss (formerly 'viking') , that people actively exercising their 'rights' to free speech are a now vanishing small minority, hence the rarity of these stories.
I know. Look at the internet. Nobody dares say anything.
Well they won't if your govt continues its plan to punish people for 'malicious telecommunications'.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 13, 2012, 01:33:31 AM
The key to Viking's whole outlook in this thread is that it is rooted entirely in the importance he attaches to his status as a public drunk. If you are routinely drinking yourself insensate and wandering around town arguing with people, it is indeed a good rule to just obey any order anyone in the least position of authority gives you, since they probably have the better judgment and since you're already immediately suspect for being sopping drunk. This is especially reinforced when you frequently encounter helpful authority figures like bar staff telling you what to do, since they will keep you from getting physically attacked and maintain you at a sufficiently high level of inebriation to satisfy your needs.
Now if you don't organize your life around public binge drinking, you might wish to organize your interactions with authority figures differently. But when you're staggering drunk, it's both appropriate and socially desirable to submit completely to any show of authority.
And people were accusing me of being a wuss... :P
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 10:13:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 09:49:19 PM
How does that argument not apply to prosecuting murderers who are in no danger of re-offending?
HOw is murder zero damage?
You brought up prevention of damage to public property. Prosecuting a murderer with no risk of re-offending prevents no murders and costs a lot of money. Why doesn't the same logic apply here?
Quote from: Viking on November 13, 2012, 11:08:51 AM
Prosecuting a murderer with no risk of re-offending prevents no murders
Are there really that many prosecutions of dead murder suspects going on?
And even if we accept your stipulation that a murderer has no risk of re-offending, prosecuting him makes others less likely to follow suit.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on November 13, 2012, 05:39:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 05:17:44 AM
That wasn't my point though. My point was that, possibly, the media being full of stories of police incompetence is a good thing; as an absence of such stories can hardly be taken as good news. Or are there brilliant police forces elsewhere that are impossible to criticise?
Another positive point of view is that such things are only reported because they're the exception, not the rule. If it happened all the time, it wouldn't be in the news.
Or the vast majority of the population is sufficiently cowered to not step out of line, like Wuss (formerly 'viking') , that people actively exercising their 'rights' to free speech are a now vanishing small minority, hence the rarity of these stories.
Well we are voting for our police commissioners on thursday. My plan is to engage in e-mail correspondence with whoever gets the post in Lancashire whenever the local constabulary steps out of line. Which, to be fair, is pretty rare; though you do have to be careful if you are blind, as a slim white cane is easily mistaken for a katana.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 13, 2012, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 13, 2012, 11:08:51 AM
Prosecuting a murderer with no risk of re-offending prevents no murders
Are there really that many prosecutions of dead murder suspects going on?
And even if we accept your stipulation that a murderer has no risk of re-offending, prosecuting him makes others less likely to follow suit.
OK, so getting the chalk wielding brat does have value over and above just this one situation.
Quote from: Viking on November 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
OK, so getting the chalk wielding brat does have value over and above just this one situation.
Except that the chalk itself wasn't doing any damage, whether it's one guy or a hundred.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 13, 2012, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 13, 2012, 11:08:51 AM
Prosecuting a murderer with no risk of re-offending prevents no murders
Are there really that many prosecutions of dead murder suspects going on?
And even if we accept your stipulation that a murderer has no risk of re-offending, prosecuting him makes others less likely to follow suit.
I prosecuted a murderer who it was generally agreed would never commit another murder. It's not terribly uncommon. If you really, really hate, say, your spouse, then once your spouse is dead you have no reason to kill anyone else.
Who's to say he won't hate his next spouse? :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 13, 2012, 12:41:01 PM
Who's to say he won't hate his next spouse? :P
It's usually a she in these cases. And they've done studies.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2012, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 13, 2012, 12:41:01 PM
Who's to say he won't hate his next spouse? :P
It's usually a she in these cases. And they've done studies.
Drew Peterson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Peterson) :whistle:
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 08:26:30 AM
He got told to stop. He carried on. He then got cautioned - i.e. don't do it again or we'll arrest you again. He did it again and got arrested. He is surprised.
Late to the thread, but gotta say if the police tried to stop someone from writing "Liberty" in chaulk on the sidewalk in this city that would be an issue of some note. If the police officer offered the excuse for the arrest that the person didnt do as he was told the officer would likely be disciplined.
If you are interested in the limits of police power in restricting free speech in this country you might want to take a look at the Hughes report regarding the police intervention at the APEC summit many years ago.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 12, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Another knobhead has been arrested for burning a poppy and posting it on facebook :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231660/Free-speech-row-man-ARRESTED-posting-image-burning-Poppy-Facebook-page-Remembrance-Sunday.html
This is much more egregious IMO. Really gross on the the part of the U.K.
It's a criminal offence to draw on the pavement in this country. Maybe it shouln't be, and maybe it isn't in most countries, but it is here. I can't see what the cop did wrong here.
You fuckers made me check the law without anyone paying me for it.
Section 132, Hoghways Act 1980
1)A person who, without either the consent of the highway authority for the highway in question or an authorisation given by or under an enactment or a reasonable excuse, paints or otherwise inscribes or affixes any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £100 or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding £200. .
Where are you from so that I know not to bring my sidewalk chalk to its overly-authoritarian shores? :)
Quote from: Gups on November 13, 2012, 01:50:01 PM
It's a criminal offence to draw on the pavement in this country. Maybe it shouln't be, and maybe it isn't in most countries, but it is here. I can't see what the cop did wrong here.
You fuckers made me check the law without anyone paying me for it.
Section 132, Hoghways Act 1980
1)A person who, without either the consent of the highway authority for the highway in question or an authorisation given by or under an enactment or a reasonable excuse, paints or otherwise inscribes or affixes any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £100 or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding £200. .
Stuff and nonsense.
It is also illegal to walk in a laneway or otherwise obstruct traffic. But people do when they are protesting. Again, look at the Hughes report. Silly laws like that are trumped in a democratic society when Freedom of Speech is engaged.
Most potest marches have a licence. And enforcement is discretionary.
And I'm fucked if I'm looking at the Hughes report, whatever that is.
Other things you can't write on pavements in the UK in chalk or anything else:
"No Parking"
"Free parking"
"Kill the Jews"
"Go to work on an egg"
"Big hairy cock"
I bet such inscriptions are discouraged in many countries.
Quote from: Gups on November 13, 2012, 11:00:44 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
Or the vast majority of the population is sufficiently cowered to not step out of line, like Wuss (formerly 'viking') , that people actively exercising their 'rights' to free speech are a now vanishing small minority, hence the rarity of these stories.
I know. Look at the internet. Nobody dares say anything.
So you're happy that 'this' should replace the former ?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 11:53:01 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on November 13, 2012, 05:39:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 05:17:44 AM
That wasn't my point though. My point was that, possibly, the media being full of stories of police incompetence is a good thing; as an absence of such stories can hardly be taken as good news. Or are there brilliant police forces elsewhere that are impossible to criticise?
Another positive point of view is that such things are only reported because they're the exception, not the rule. If it happened all the time, it wouldn't be in the news.
Or the vast majority of the population is sufficiently cowered to not step out of line, like Wuss (formerly 'viking') , that people actively exercising their 'rights' to free speech are a now vanishing small minority, hence the rarity of these stories.
Well we are voting for our police commissioners on thursday. My plan is to engage in e-mail correspondence with whoever gets the post in Lancashire whenever the local constabulary steps out of line. Which, to be fair, is pretty rare; though you do have to be careful if you are blind, as a slim white cane is easily mistaken for a katana.
Good plan, that's supposing they can manage to elect someone and keep him in post, without being brought low for a 45 year old conviction for swiping 1'6" worth of pick'n'mix from Woolies.
Quote from: merithyn on November 13, 2012, 01:55:50 PM
Where are you from so that I know not to bring my sidewalk chalk to its overly-authoritarian shores? :)
The UK I believe.
Quote from: Gups on November 13, 2012, 01:50:01 PM
It's a criminal offence to draw on the pavement in this country. Maybe it shouln't be, and maybe it isn't in most countries, but it is here. I can't see what the cop did wrong here.
You fuckers made me check the law without anyone paying me for it.
Section 132, Hoghways Act 1980
1)A person who, without either the consent of the highway authority for the highway in question or an authorisation given by or under an enactment or a reasonable excuse, paints or otherwise inscribes or affixes any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £100 or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding £200. .
So why wasn't he convicted ?
And why are you using pavement when referring to the highway, as any given piece of pavement might be part of the highway or perhaps local authority land not deemed so or private land or indeed a small area where ownership isn't easy to establish.
Quote from: Gups on November 13, 2012, 02:02:02 PM
Other things you can't write on pavements in the UK in chalk or anything else:
"No Parking"
"Free parking"
"Kill the Jews"
"Go to work on an egg"
"Big hairy cock"
I bet such inscriptions are discouraged in many countries.
I bet that the judiciary in many countries (the UK included) care more about political speech then they do about big hairy cocks. I would like to believe that Marti still represents a minority of thought on these issues.
I'd rather sidewalk artists write "Big hairy cock" than draw one. :lol: