[0-0]

Yesterday, I watched this video on the BBC site, in it, the Police stopped the lad and ask for his details.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-55842241

In the article itself, there’s a link to a Government site, which says you don’t have to give your info to them or even stop.

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

It made me wonder, if in the unlikely event you’re stopped when cycling outside your “local area”, and asked for your details.

Do the above rules apply, or are there newer “Covid rules” which means you must get your details, and therfore face a possible fine or not?

Thanks.

Topic

[Mungecrundle]

My non legal understanding is
My non legal understanding is that you are not required to provide the Police with details unless they are stopping you for a specific suspicion of an offence, wish to issue you with a fixed penalty notice or having first arrested you.

My pragmatic view would be to ask if you are required to give details and if they say “yes you are” then to give them and get on with your business. Then if you want to make some sort of citizens rights protest about it afterwards make a formal complaint and escalate that as far as your social conscience and willingness to devote your energies allow.

[Captain Badger]

Recoveryride wrote:

Recoveryride wrote:

….

You also seem to have shown exactly what I suggested; that if you politely give your name and explain what you’re doing, there’ll be no issue.

Why would there be an “issue” for exercising your legal right to withhold your name?

The issue was the copper’s, not the law’s.

[Hirsute]

You put ‘if you politely give
You put ‘if you politely give your name, there will be no problem’.
Only rendel didn’t have to give his name as he said in his posts. They asked where he was going and were happy with his answer.

[Recoveryride]

The OP asked this: “if in the

The OP asked this: “if in the unlikely event you’re stopped when cycling outside your “local area”, and asked for your details.

Do the above rules apply, or are there newer “Covid rules” which means you must get your details, and therfore face a possible fine or not?”

I answered his question. His question is clearly related to the subject of the video, but he didn’t say ‘will I be treated like the guy in the video?’ In the same way, I  very clearly didn’t say ‘don’t act like the guy in the video’. If you have (independently) drawn the conclusion that the behaviour I advised is different to that shown by the individual in the video, that’s a separate issue.

A post-hoc argument doesn’t change the fact I (very deliberately) made no comment on the behaviour of either individual in the video, and stuck instead to actually answering the question asked. Not a very popular strategy, obviously.

[Rendel Harris]

Recoveryride wrote:

 

Please point out which of my posts commented on the video. Thanks.

The OP asked whether one would face the same thing as the guy in the video did when out for a ride. You posted a (perfectly reasonable) comment saying you didn’t think you would if you behaved somewhat differently to the guy in the video. You’re de facto commenting on the question and therefore the video then, aren’t you?

[Recoveryride]

[/quote]

 

Please point out which of my posts commented on the video. Thanks.

[Rendel Harris]

Recoveryride wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

If the copper in the video had accepted the young man’s (true) statement that he was going to work instead of trying unlawfully to force him to disclose his name and address the incident wouldn’t have happened.

I didn’t dispute that, and didn’t comment on it.

You also seem to have shown exactly what I suggested; that if you politely give your name and explain what you’re doing, there’ll be no issue.

But I didn’t politely give my name and had they asked for it I would, like the chap in the video, have asked what the justification was for doing so. They politely asked what my reason for being out was, I politely explained what it was, and they left it at that. They knew the law and acted entirely legitimately and politely and professionally within it, whereas that cop in the video clearly didn’t know the law and got very unecessarily aggressive when challenged on the fact.

[Captain Badger]

grOg wrote:

Having watched the video, Nino antagonised the officer by asking him why he wasn’t questioning other people.. if he had just politely answered the questions asked, he would have been on his way quickly but then Nino wouldn’t have had any ‘interesting’ content for filming with his mobile phone.

It’s a reasonable question. Only antagonising if you don’t have a reasonable response.

[Recoveryride]

ktache wrote:

Or if only the officer of the law hadn’t overeached his powers and hadn’t acted like a jumped up bully boy then he wouldn’t be facing any form of disaplinary procedure.  Do you know how hard it is for a police authority to say that one of their officers had done something wrong?

As noted elsewhere, I never commented on the video: I answered the question the OP asked. I think my feelings about the majority of the police were made very clear in my post. Quite why I have suddenly been seen as defending the copper in the video is genuinely beyond me.

[Recoveryride]

hirsute wrote:

You should really read what Rendel actually wrote, then compare his experience with the chap in Birmingham.

 

Why? I’d politely suggest you go back and do some re-reading.

The OP asked this: “

It made me wonder, if in the unlikely event you’re stopped when cycling outside your “local area”, and asked for your details.

Do the above rules apply, or are there newer “Covid rules” which means you must get your details, and therfore face a possible fine or not?”.

I outlined a very clear response to this.

Rendell’s experience tallied with exactly what I said would happen.

Where exactly is the dispute?

 

[Hirsute]

You should really read what

You should really read what Rendel actually wrote, then compare his experience with the chap in Birmingham.

 

[ktache]

Or if only the officer of the

Or if only the officer of the law hadn’t overeached his powers and hadn’t acted like a jumped up bully boy then he wouldn’t be facing any form of disaplinary procedure.  Do you know how hard it is for a police authority to say that one of their officers had done something wrong?

With the admission from the WMP the victim here could potentially sue the police.  And for me, I reckon that this officer should be prosecuted for wasting police time, his and his partners.

[Recoveryride]

Rendel Harris wrote:

If the copper in the video had accepted the young man’s (true) statement that he was going to work instead of trying unlawfully to force him to disclose his name and address the incident wouldn’t have happened.

I didn’t dispute that, and didn’t comment on it.

You also seem to have shown exactly what I suggested; that if you politely give your name and explain what you’re doing, there’ll be no issue.

[Rendel Harris]

Recoveryride wrote:

I think you’re most unlikely to be stopped on the road.

I was stopped on the road through Hyde Park recently by a foot patrol – they asked why I was out (exercise), where I’d come from (Peckham) and where I was going (lap round the park and back home) and they said that’s fine, enjoy your ride. They didn’t ask for my name or proof of address. If the copper in the video had accepted the young man’s (true) statement that he was going to work instead of trying unlawfully to force him to disclose his name and address the incident wouldn’t have happened.

[Rendel Harris]

grOg wrote:

Having watched the video, Nino antagonised the officer by asking him why he wasn’t questioning other people.. if he had just politely answered the questions asked, he would have been on his way quickly but then Nino wouldn’t have had any ‘interesting’ content for filming with his mobile phone.

He “antagonised” the officer by exercising his legal right not to give his name. Seeing as the police have apologised and admitted that the officer was well out of order, it’s a bit late to try and dredge up a defence for him.

[Author]

Replies