Police accuse cyclist of public order offence because he swore at an unmarked police car parked in a bus line - his swearing could have upset his children and it could have led to him being stabbed

[cakeorwine]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11474195/Moment-cyclist-swears-unmarked-police-car-officer-accuses-public-order-offence.html

This is interesting

Cyclist with children on the back had to swerve to get out of the way of a vehicle parked in a bus lane

He swore at the occupants.

Turns out to be an unmarked police vehicle.

Advised not to swear in public with his children as it could cause them upset. So that's a public order offence.

And also it's dangerous to swear at people in Wandsworth because he could get stabbed.

So I admit that I have sworn at vehicles on the road who don't seem to understand the Highway code. With DS present.

And it probably is dangerous to swear at people because you don't know how they would react.

Police can park there. Another cyclist thinking they can police the roads again, unfortunately tried policing the police

Constantly repeating the law is the law doesn't make you sound anymore convincing. Swearing in public needs to meet the criteria you said before it's considered a crime. Telling someone to get out the fucking road doesn't qualify but any stretch.

Police can enforce traffic offenses including parking

This.

So the police were on an operation but could risk it by getting out and shouting bullshit at a cyclist. Yeah must have been real important police work

What don’t you get?

1.	Swearing in public is an arrest able offence. Doesn’t matter if it’s at a police officer, member of the public or simply shouting a swear word because you stubbed your toe 
2.	Tickets for being in a bus lane are enforced by the COUNCIL NOT THE POLICE

No there is no offence, arrestable or otherwise, of swearing in public.

There are some circumstances in which swearing in public might be relevant to the commission of an offence but that would require you to fulfil all of the elements of the offence. This situation is not even close to doing so.

But the reality is that if a police officer wants to make life difficult for someone they can throw around suggestions of public order offences to get the other person to back down or comply. That's what's happening here.

if he is unable to see a large, stationary obstruction in time to avoid it without "swerving" he is going too fast for the road or needs glasses. That obstruction could have been anything, the fact that it was a parked police car is irrelevant.

which isn't to say the whole swearing/public order offence thing is not a ridiculous overreaction.

Here is a case for you quietnightmare www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/B1.html

A number of cases establish that expletives such as "fuck" or "fucking" are potentially abusive words, whether the addressee is a police officer or a member of the public.

"Frequently though they may be used these days, wehave not yet reached the stage where a court is required to conclude that those words are of suchlittle significance that they no longer constitute abuse. Questions of context and circumstance mayaffect the court's ultimate conclusion as to whether, in an individual case, they are abusive

Where witnesses have given oral evidence of an incident which forms the basis of a charge under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, but have said nothing and been asked nothing about experiencing harassment, alarm or distress, there is no sound basis for the court to reach that conclusion for itself. This is particularly so in the case of police officers because, as Glidewell LJ observed in Orum, they hear such words all too frequently as part of their job. This is not to say that such words are incapable of causing police officers to experience alarm, distress or harassment. It depends, as the court said in Orum and Southard, on the facts; but where a witness has been silent on the point it is wrong to draw inferences.

Excerpts from the case quoted by @Mia85 . Which doesn't, in fact, say that swearing isn't illegal (even to/at police) but dependent on the circumstances of individual cases and potential witnesses to the act.

@SoupDragon
was it a yes or a no?

@Mia85

It is an arrestable offence to swear in public

It is an arrestable offence to swear in public

Around 1982/3 I can remember being with a friend who made his own T shorts and had a T short with Fuck written upon it

the police in town stopped him and told him to either take the shirt off or cover it up as they would otherwise arrest him. The exchange was particularly low key and calm and my friend turned it inside out so the writing couldn't be seen

You just keep on an on repeating the same thing but that doesn't make it true.

The actual legal position is the one I have posted above i.e. "There are some circumstances in which swearing in public might be relevant to the commission of an offence but that would require you to fulfil all of the elements of the offence." The case I have posted is an example where there was swearing to a police officer but the elements of the offence were not made out.

As the judge in that case said "Parliament has not made it an offence to swear in public as such."

This example in the video is nowhere near being a public order offence.

After all of the evidence of police abusing their position that we have seen I despair that people are so sanguine about the criminal law being distorted to intimidate members of the public.

It was "it is totally irrelevant". If you can't control the "vehicle" you are riding in time to avoid a large stationery object you should not be riding/driving that "vehicle" be it a bike, bike with trailer, car or huge lorry. If I was driving a car and had to swerve to avoid something large and stationery it would be my fault entirely and the same applies here. You have to be able to avoid hazards - as a lot of cyclists are also drivers, this cyclist should be aware of hazard perception.

but you never ever see that a cyclist is at fault so it's pointless. Dog with a bone.

if a lorry driver said "oh, but have you ever driven a lorry...?" to a cyclist you would
tell them it was irrelevant. (That said, there was a very interesting segment on a news programme where they took cyclists in lorries to show them the blind spots/turning requirements and vice versa.)

If anything eroded my trust in the police it was the Sarah Everard vigil. It was inviting a women’s activist for a ‘voluntary’ interview, under threat of arrest for non-participation (therefore not in anyone’s language voluntary), because someone reported her for ‘hate speech’. Precisely what she’d said, and exactly what offence she’d committed, Sussex Constabulary refused to say

Well it is voluntary, as in its giving someone the opportunity to avoid being arrested, it’s up to them to decide whether to cooperate or not.

As for what she said, that’s her business surely? If she wanted the public to know, there’s nothing stopping her saying so. It’s not up to the police to put that information out there.

@SoupDragon it was a simple question, for those saying that the man swerved have they used a bike with a trailer. I haven't ridden a bike with a trailer, only a bike with a child seat on it.

You seem to have your own complete and detailed agenda as to what the question is, rather than what it actually asks and haven't answered. I'll take it you haven't ridden a bike with a trailer?

@Mia85

It is an arrest-able offence to swear in public. The police officer simply explained to the cyclist that swearing in public is a public order offence. It really is that simple

Oh good. A cyclist getting his come-uppance for once.

The woman concerned recorded the call, which she later put put into the public domain. On that recording the Sussex Constabulary refused to tell her, personally, what she'd been reported for saying.

Surely if they were were issuing her with a 'cooperate or you face arrest' ultimatum she had a right to know these very basic, fundamental facts.

Lol as if your kid gives a shit or even notices what paper you read

Shell beach, just what cyclists need, more come uppance

I’m usually the first to say the police are generally scummy but TBH good for them for not tolerating abuse from the CycleStasi - too right he should have been pulled up on that behaviour. It does seem to be the attitude of cyclists that they think they are the judge jury and executioner of the highway

I am not sure whether you've actually read and understood the responses and the case I linked to but as you've @ me I will have one last go at explaining why it's not that simple.

Some things are not illegal in themselves but can become so if they are done in a particular way. E.g. it is not an offence to carry a cricket bat but it might become so if it were carried with the intention of attacking someone. That would be because the elements of another offence were made out, not because it was illegal to have a cricket bat.

So it is with swearing. It is not an offence to swear in public but it might become so if the other elements of an offence are proven. The police officer is here referring to s5 Public Order Act. It is extremely unlikely that the cyclist here would be convicted under s5 before a court. For a start there's no evidence that anyone was harassed, alarmed or distressed. Certainly the police did not look remotely perturbed. As in the (much more serious) case I linked this would mean there was no offence. The courts are generally fairly sceptical that police officers are distressed by mild swearing.

The problem with s5 is that it is ludicrously vague and no-one actually wants to risk of being fined or going to a trial even if it's clear that it's absurd. Like many other minor offences, that makes it very easy for the police to abuse if they wish to. It's extremely easy for the police to warn people that their perfectly lawful behaviour is unlawful under some vague law. Few people want to run the risk of it escalating so they will be bullied into backing down. Of course the safeguard against this is having a professional police force that always acts in the public interest and never attracts aggressive bullies who delight in intimidating people...

Ah well I see that the Met have themselves said that the officers were 'clearly wrong' and will be spoken to twitter.com/MPSRTPC/status/1596890042991284230?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1596890042991284230%7Ctwgr%5Ead878f0c1d6267ae0845c4b551eb6f14d3ca7b2c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Froad.cc%2Fcontent%2Fnews%2Fmet-police-admit-officer-wrong-over-cyclist-video-297681

Cyclist was mouthing off- and probably does it frequently. This time Billy big bollocks mouthed off at a policeman who pulled him up- all laughs and sorry mate, wouldn't have mouthed off if I'd known you were the police. Police man who is also a bit of a big Billy bollocks points out (slightly poorly) that mouthing off at people full stop isn't a good move as it could lead to a more violent confrontation if the other party is also an arsehole and you probably don't want that, especially in front of your kids.....