[quiff]

I was pleased this week that,

I was pleased this week that, although Operation Snap can’t tell you the outcome of individual reports (beyond “positive action taken”) they did proactively respond to some of my reports to tell me how I can better evidence the offence so they can take further action. Turns out they prefer video evidence to prove beyond doubt a car is parked on zig zag lines; a still won’t do.  

[quiff]

Perhaps the speed

Perhaps the speed differential not quite as bad as it looks though – the section of M32 (Maja Rd?) before and after the Mina Rd turn-off has a 40mph limit anyway.

[quiff]

Looks like the school is

Looks like the school is split site, and it’s the other part of the site on Mogg St that’s getting a school street: https://travelwest.info/projects/bristol-school-streets-st-werburghs-primary-school/

[quiff]

I was going to suggest the

I was going to suggest the Fairlight Strael too, and went to check if it came in on budget. While there, I finally ordered the frameset I’ve been hankering after. Merry Christmas to me! 

[quiff]

If the sashes are original

If the sashes are original (single glazed?) then it’s likely any company quoting will be quoting for new, sympathetic, double-glazed sashes. It’s not cheap. And unless you’re in some sort of similar industry, it’s not something I would DIY.      

[quiff]

I would guess Jem PT, below,

I would guess Jem PT, below, might also have been thinking of one of the fully reflective ones (happy to be corrected), but didn’t get the same short shrift.

[quiff]

Strictly speaking that blog

Strictly speaking that blog is correct to say they do not need to prove intention but it looks like they do need to prove either intent or awareness:

s.6(4) POA 1986: A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening [F1or abusive], or is aware that it may be threatening [F1or abusive] or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly.

But I think it’s right that only a likelihood of alarm is required, not actual alarm.  

   

[quiff]

I think that relates to a

I think that relates to a different offence under s.4A – causing intentional distress. It’s quoted from here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard#:~:text=This%20can%20usually%20be%20proved,or%20distress%20as%20a%20result.

However, I’m an interested amateur and this speculation probably isn’t helping the OP! Get a qualified solicitor if it goes to court!

[quiff]

My reading of the offence is

My reading of the offence is that you don’t need to prove actual distress – only that the swearing was within hearing of a person likely to be caused distress etc. HoarseMann’s link below says so too. So while you need to prove there was an actual (not hypothetical) person to hear the words, you don’t need to prove that they were actually distressed by them. In theory therefore video evidence of the swearing could be enough, without needing to establish the driver was actually alarmed. In practice I don’t know, this is just speculation.

[quiff]

Not sure the driver would

Not sure the driver would necessarily need to be present for the police to prosecute the public order offence? In theory they just need to prove someone was proximate who was likely to be alarmed etc. However, also spotted that you also need to have intended your words to be threatening or abusive, or aware that they may be – s.6(4) Public Order Act. (IANA(Crime)L)

[quiff]

the little onion wrote:

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about – in other incidents where people involuntarily swear, they sometimes NFA it based purely on what they mutter. The example was someone exclaiming “F***er” during a close pass

That’s what I was getting at – I wonder if would make any difference if it was “f***” (exclamation) rather than “f***er” (arguably directed at the individual). I suspect their reasoning doesn’t get into that level of detail though and, either way, it’s nonsense. But I will do my best to restrain my mouth in future…  

[quiff]

I was referring to your point

I was referring to your point 2 – where they told you they’d NFA’d others for swearing during a pass.

[quiff]

So, so depressing. Thank you

So, so depressing. Thank you for reporting back though. I wonder what they NFAd – I’d hope that it was directed profanity (“you f***ing c***”) and not just an involuntary exclamation (“F***ing hell!”)  

[quiff]

Rendel Harris wrote:

quiff wrote:

Hurrah! Any other editorial policy we want to influence?!

If we could use our newfound leverage to educate reporters not to say “it was at 3 am this morning” or “the news broke at 4 pm this afternoon” that would be great.

Niche irritant – their insistence on using “judgement” (2 e’s) to describe a legal judgment (1 e).

[quiff]

Yeah, I should have pointed

Yeah, I should have pointed that out to be fair to them. But it’s very much an afterthought, after having written a whole article which says “e-bikes” while picturing only motorbikes. Would it be so hard to use “e-motorbike”?!

EDIT – looks like they moved the explainer higher up the article at the same time they changed it to e-motorbike.

[Author]

Replies