Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
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.
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!
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.
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)
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 passThat’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…
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.
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!”)
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).
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.
Hurrah! Any other editorial
Hurrah! Any other editorial policy we want to influence?!
They’ve relapsed. “Dangerous
They’ve relapsed. “Dangerous e-bike riders putting town under siege”: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981d8n7452ostonojnr wrote:
[quote=stonojnr]After a two for the price of one offer at Tescos ? (Yes it’s the same car, same crash) https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/24627798.delays-car-crashes-civic-drive-tesco-ipswich/ https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/24627982.ipswich-tesco-remains-open-car-crash-civic-drive/%5B/quote%5D
Disappointed it wasn’t a Honda
BBC got the memo – this one
BBC got the memo – this one tries to distinguish between EAPCs and others: BBC – Delivery Riders getting illegal e-bikes seized:
The broad term ‘e-bike’ is commonly used for any electric-powered bike, but it can actually refer to very different types of equipment which are covered by different laws.E-bikes: What is the law and is there an age limit?
Bikes which have a small electrical motor which helps cyclists to move the pedals have the 15.5mph (25 kph) speed limit, and their motors cannot exceed 250 watts of power.
These are electrically assisted pedal cycles (EAPC), and under the law these are treated the same as a bicycle and therefore riders do not have to seek insurance.
Illegal e-bikes are more powerful and reach higher speeds, and are not necessarily illegal in themselves – but under the law they are classified as motorcycles, and should not be driven without a licence on the roads.
Just thinking – Wick and
Just thinking – Wick and Penzance must have a potentially problematic number of one way hires…
Came to this late; nearly
Came to this late; nearly posted the same!
