little rant
- Thread starter Lister
- Start date
Well done. The most sensible comment on this thread.
Why oh why do people want more regulation and control, are you afraid of freedom, or more likely jealous of some one else having freedom you don't.
Seems there was a bloke somewhere down south who rides a white Pan European (like some police bikes) who wears one of those and stops other riders and gives them a bollocking if he considers them to be riding badly. He has no authority to do this, just righteous indignation and a personality disorder.
One of these days if he's lucky he will be arrested for impersonating a police officer, not so lucky would be him getting a good shoeing for being a tool..
One of these days if he's lucky he will be arrested for impersonating a police officer, not so lucky would be him getting a good shoeing for being a tool..
I agree that this means little either way and matters even less to me, I also think there are too many rules and laws. But I can't accept that any of this means I should break the rules or laws. These jackets are designed to look like Police high viz jackets, to suggest otherwise is silly and people buy them for that reason. You can get high viz vests for a tenth of the price. No one should be prosecuted but that doesn't make it legal.
If I get to choose what should apply to me how do I get to say to people who think they have a right to live by other rules, for example by Sharia law, that they have to obey the state laws?
If I get to choose what should apply to me how do I get to say to people who think they have a right to live by other rules, for example by Sharia law, that they have to obey the state laws?
Last edited:
Of course it is legal and so what law would you be choosing not to obey? In no way would you lose your right to dismiss the idea of Sharia in the UK as an abomination.
Well according to ACPOs lead on mounted policing, he obtained legal advice, and it seems that it is illegal; one company have already stopped making them as a result and will refund people. Trying to wear something that looks like police uniform so people pay attention is obviously impersonating police. So the 2 choices are obey or break the law. Of course I could pretend that I am not wearing it because it looks like police wear but then I would be a liar which for me is worse than a truthful law breaker.
Last edited:
Actually as I posted earlier, that letter from the leagal advice was ambiguous at best. Far from stating it was outrught illegal.
Interestingly I saw one of these for the first time earlier before seeing this thread. The woman also had battenburg on her helmet and looked all the world like mounted police. I don't know if horses are classed as 'vehicles' but in the UK, according to the "Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989" reflecting graphics are classed as lights, and only the police (and other emergency services) are allowed blue lights to show on their vehicles, flashing, stationary or reflective.
"The conclusion of these enquiries is that any item of clothing that has been manufactured to match these characteristics of police uniform is at risk of contravening legislation"... "but the legal standard as enacted is an objective measure of whether the clothing worn by an individual, and/or their horse, would give the impression that that rider is a police officer when they are not. As such, any wording displayed on clothing which is similar in appearance to ‘POLICE’ (i.e. in a shape, format or font used on police uniform), even if is spelt differently, would leave the wearer at risk of breaching the law, particularly if the other characteristics are present. " It may allow some wriggle room but hardly ambiguous. But the fact remains if it's worn with the intention of being mistaken for law enforcement then how is that anything other than impersonating police, and if that is not the intention why wear them?
Last edited:
Let the courts decide. Oh, the Police don't think they have a case to take someone to court. Would anybody care to prosecute themselves? No, then its legal regardless of the Mens Rea, a guilty mind cannot make a legal action illegal.
Actually it was interesting how the manufacturer quoted a letter from the lead mounted police representative in ACPO which had a different name from the BHS quoted letter. Who knows which officer was the current one. If the current one was in the letter posted on the BHS site based on latest advice then it would appear that ACPO believe these vests to be illegal.
The only confusing thing is why the manufacturer is defending their premium vest business using outdated reference letter.
Well I for one think the manufacturer who replied to BHS stating they'd withdrawn such products and Wld replace them for their customers had a responsible attitude. Whether legal or not takes a court to decide. It only takes one of their customers to fall foul of that to open it up for other users to be prosecuted. By replacing this product range shows a degree of conscience that most manufacturers don't have. That is irrespective of the legality in this.
Put it this way, they've kind of issued a product recall. How many cases on watchdog have there been of say car makers denying a problem with their car when the show has many cases on record. Only for them to later back down. This company sees a potential issue and offers replacement off their own back. Even with valid reasons to return product I've had to jump through hoops, prove date of purchase or prove location of purchase.
Put it this way, they've kind of issued a product recall. How many cases on watchdog have there been of say car makers denying a problem with their car when the show has many cases on record. Only for them to later back down. This company sees a potential issue and offers replacement off their own back. Even with valid reasons to return product I've had to jump through hoops, prove date of purchase or prove location of purchase.
I wasn't aware that ACPO was a law-making body nor that they could give legal opinions. They may legitimately discuss and publicise what action they think constables may take. What is this obsession with "conscience" now? That which is not illegal is legal and you may do whatever it is with a clear conscience. If a manufacturer obeys a diktat from ACPO and this is acceptable then we might as well close Parliament and the Courts down.
Parliament has made a law. ACPO take the lead on enforcing it. The courts decide guilt. ACPO has a bunch of lawyers they consult for legal advice on how best to do that, I read it that it was not the officers opinion he was passing that on. Many of the same advisers spend a good portion of their time being judges in court when not doing that. Surely it makes sense for them to pass the opinion on to inform the debate?
Yes that's the bit I read too. They say it would leave the wearer "at risk" of breaching the law. When I said that was ambiguous, I was being generous. What it actually says to me is:
"It MIGHT be illegal but we honestly have no idea if it is or if it isn't so we're going to wait and see rather than making a definitive statement either way that the public will remember if it's wrong."
There's usually only "intent" to impersonate if said wearer also actually approaches someone as if they were whatever official they're impersonating and uses any authority the real official would have had for personal gain. As you said, it's up to the court to decide, but the standard to prove "intent" is usually a difficult one to meet.
Last edited:
My point was that if you intend to then you are guilty and that anyone who does is guilty. Yes it may be hard to prove the intent but that doesn't change the intent and to thwart that proof you would have to lie. But you are probably guilty in the absence of that proof to the lessor offences of wearing or possessing an article of police uniform.
"(1)Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any
statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member
or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding
level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(2)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 and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the
standard scale.
(3)Any
person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in
his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he
obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a
lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a
fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
(4)In
this section—
(a)“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,"
"(1)Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any
statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member
or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding
level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(2)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 and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the
standard scale.
(3)Any
person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in
his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he
obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a
lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a
fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
(4)In
this section—
(a)“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,"
Just seems to me to be another wooly written statute that means anything and nothing at the same time and that will only benefit lawyers.
