pt.2 To find floral tributes being left for Harry Vincent offensive

[lostjanni]

We reached the post limit so if anyone wants to carry on the discussion...

Wrong dadd'sstepdaddy.

I asked you to look it up yourself because I'll have to type it all out

And it's a ball ache on a phone.

Has someone we actually know really is a police officer said that they won’t enter the site?

Regardless of who died, I’d not let anyone turn the outside of my home into a mock cemetery! It’s crass.
Imagine having to stare at dead flower and piles of sellophane outside your home?
Why the hell cant people go plant a tree or some bulbs in their own areas - a living and dignified tribute

....and this crapology will be an annual event for this street!

im in my 40's,speak my mind and am able to stand up for myself but do you know what since this has happened i feel less safe in general

im guessing but it wouldnt surprise me if people upped security on their homes (not a bad thing) but should they have to,just hearing people on the bus and local shops many elderly are looking at things in a very differrent light

i also told my children home is the one place you will feel safe and happy,im not so sure now

t is now widely accepted that the correct definition for breach of the peace is that which was given in the case R v. Howell (1981), ie, that the behaviour of the person involved caused the police officer (or private citizen) to believe that:

a breach of the peace had or would occur; and that
it related to harm which was actually done or likely to be done to a person or, in his/her presence, their property.

i cant see how BOP can be used to stop people laying flowers.

and to those saying police are not doing anything to look for the other suspect:

he is just another burglary suspect much the same as i and many of my colleagues have on their crime list. the fact he is a traveller is irrelevant and he will now be circulated as wanted on PNC. i have colleagues who have been to sites to lock up travellers - the police are not frightened of them - but you need enough officers to do it and the right kind of tactical option to do it. and first - you need to find them.
what usually happens with wanted people is that they "drop" - there are literally thousands of people circulated wanted - not all can be actively sought out else its all response groups would be doing.
in my force area they have a specialist "team" who look and conduct warrants etc.
Jeeves is just another suspect wanted for burglary in the bigger picture. he will be found. they all are.

It is not really wrong though is it? Sure it may not have the legalise of a full definition (including great words like barratous and affray), but in reality there is no statute that unambiguously defines a breach of the peace or indeed what a public disturbance is and the common law also is not so clear beyond establishing that an officer may arrest and individual to prevent further breaches of the peace (but the case law isn't umabiguous) and that individual can be bound over to keep the peace by a judge for a defined period of time.

So, as such, I'd say that there is enough interpretation room here for a deliberately provocative act with the potential to cause further violence and disturbance to be a breach of the peace.

I'll just mention this again - some or all of the laws below have been broken. The Police could act decisively as they often do, for example, in relation to demonstrations. They are making a choice.

It is not accurate to say "no laws have been broken so the poor old Police cannot act" The Police are choosing this course - and yes I know they are in an almost impossible position as someone's going to dislike whatever they do.

Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
The Criminal Damage Act 1971
and
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - as it relates to trespass.

BTW on a small point of pedantry trespass can be a criminal offence since changes to the law - it's no longer purely a civil matter. This is used against demonstrators. Also Police use conspiracy allegations as a way to discourage people doing things they want to stop.

...and as soon as the breach is passed you have to de arrest.

practically speaking arresting to prevent a BOP is an odd one - its under common law so not under pace - and you can arrest someone and take them round the corner to the car - by which time the breach has passed.

seriously if the police were arresting to prevent a BOP in this instance then theyd soon run out of cops.

while no law has been broken it is not the job of the police to say flowers are allowed or not.
as i have stated - opinion does not constitute law! thank god.

ok.
frank.
as a police officer, what would you have me do. ?

then ill turn to the cousin of Vincent and ask them shall i - to be fair to all and ask what they would have me do.

now - can you begin to see the problem?

as far as i am aware no law has been broken. you can all sit and be armchair lawyers or cops and says "well id do this" or "they should be doing ..."
but actually the police are bound by the law not public opinion. thats just that im afraid.
if a law is broken - no matter by which "side" the law will be impartial and the police will be duty bound to act.

please - also before quoting chapter and verse and getting busy on the internet looking up criminal damage etc....

if you are going to do that look at the very definition.

what damage has been permanently caused to the fence? for criminal damage to occur the fence would need to be permanently damaged and the victim (owner of the fence) make that complaint - not a million third parties over mumsnet!!

is the fence permanently damaged? i doubt it so criminal damage wouldnt stick and would be laughed out of court.

if the fence owner wants to do something about it it is down to him/her and ONLY him/her - not a few angry mums who think they know the law because theyve just googled it.

Jeeves is just another suspect wanted for burglary

Aggravated burglary, and probably other offences too

I'm interested that vicar, a police officer, acknowledges that in order to enter a traveller site there needs to be a certain number of officers and tactics used. That really belies the idea that travellers are judged wrongly on the actions of a few rotten apples and the vast majority don't cause any trouble.

yes probably alpine
but much like a million others on PNC at this moment in time.

as a police officer, what would you have me do.

Tell the offenders to stop littering and damaging the fence. Why can't you do that?

I'm staying off the subject of the missing accomplice as I don't share the view of inaction on that - I get it that you really can't find someone who is hiding so easily - there are plenty of examples in the past and far from all of them were hiding on traveller sites.

well if the travellers who are harbouring JEEVES,and the chances are pretty high that thats where he is why dont tthey do the decent thing and hand him in

oh wait!!

"i doubt it so criminal damage wouldnt stick and would be laughed out of court." But not every case even gets as far as court, does it? Let's have a think about that a minute............

If they had entered the site don’t you think it would be all over the press??

stitch - i cover an area with a large site and plenty of travellers.

ive been on the site a few times looking for stolen cars etc with just me and the other in the car - no problem and no issue. (other than hard stares)

to actively go and search a site and look for a wanted male it wouldnt be sensible to go in like that. the more the merrier as far as im concerned for safety. id be looking at tactical options, but with any pre planned arrest id do the same and look at my subject, any previous arrests etc and plan on from there. sometimes you can go in a pair. sometimes you need a few of you. sometimes you need a few of you a taser and a dog. maybe more - it all depends. thats true of any arrest attempt.

frank.
taping some flowers to a fence does not constitute a criminal damage.

look -personally i find it distasteful in the extreme. but my opinion is not the law.
(which is a good thing. or there would have been a number of arrests already on these threads for stupidity. which also isnt the law, and is also just my opinion - see the difference? )

Still

As much as I respect you and all police officers, you do a bloody good job, your seeming capitulation to these events puts me in mind of Rotherham and Telford.

what would you have me do isn’t really good enough is it?

If police resources are big enough to investigate Christian couples that refused a same sex couple to stop st their hotel ( snd I think they are wrong) and be there in force to protect royal weddings and investigate teeets sent to famous people surely to God they can see s way around removing these flowers and entering the travellers sides to find this man or at least look as if they are trying?

By the way if those flowers were erected on the royal wedding route they would be gone in a flash law or no law.

taping some flowers to a fence does not constitute a criminal damage.

look -personally i find it distasteful in the extreme. but my opinion is not the law.
OK, what about littering under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990?

You are being a little silly in claiming there is no choice and no discretion - Police use it all the time, and with good reason - like a football ref who judges minor stuff can go sometimes and not others, it's about context. But don't continue to patronise me and everyone else by pretending this is simple and clear cut, it isn't - the Police here are making a clear choice about what to enforce.

As for Police not acting on the basis that something would be "laughed out of court" I hope you can see the irony.

...not a few angry mums who think they know the law because theyve just googled it...

...or there would have been a number of arrests already on these threads for stupidity...see the difference?

I really hope the police are not taking this sneering attitude with the frightened residents near the shrine

look frank - its not littering. if the police were to start forbidding floral tributes left at at sites then do you not think there would be uproar next time there is a fatal accident near you?

we are not puppets im afraid to use by people who think we should be doing x y and z.

as a police officer i want to be fair to everyone and ill act when a law is broken.
if i were to agree with you on the littering issue then id be duty bound wouldnt i to start telling all bereaved relatives that their flowers are "litter".

im sorry you are so upset by this issue - but the police are there to protect the peace for ALL, not just people who you like.

it would actually be quite likely to cause more trouble if the police waded in and took a side.

im going to leave the thread now as i can see nothing i say and no explanation will be enough.