Thread: Safe Streets ? My experiance yesterday

Yeah - You know best mate

Locking up in a pub/club for a BOP is not Ejecting someone from a pub/club. Stop "trying" whilst you are ahead. You will find we have the same powers to eject people from a licensed premises as the staff however if offences are committed inside that is a different matter. Such as failing to leave (Refusing to be ejected) Section 140 odd of the Licensing act (I'm not entirely certain of the section so I won't guess... I'm a disgusting piece of vermin and will have to confirm this as I dared to forget a detail of the law)

Football offences are a different issue with COMPLETELY different powers so why you have added them to cloud the issue is beyond me.

Now do keep quiet as your knowledge of the law appears more half baked than the Inspectors you insulted.

If you want to play "Law Bore" all day then PM and I'll bore you to sleep with what I know (Not what I guess about: take the hint). Otherwise do the honourable thing and stop piddling all over this thread.

Originally Posted by Closet_Jibber

Yeah - You know best mate

Locking up in a pub/club for a BOP is not Ejecting someone from a pub/club. Stop "trying" whilst you are ahead. You will find we have the same powers to eject people from a licensed premises as the staff however if offences are committed inside that is a different matter. Such as failing to leave (Refusing to be ejected) Section 140 odd of the Licensing act (I'm not entirely certain of the section so I won't guess... I'm a disgusting piece of vermin and will have to confirm this as I dared to forget a detail of the law)

Football offences are a different issue with COMPLETELY different powers so why you have added them to cloud the issue is beyond me.

Now do keep quiet as your knowledge of the law appears more half baked than the Inspectors you insulted.

If you want to play "Law Bore" all day then PM and I'll bore you to sleep with what I know (Not what I guess about: take the hint). Otherwise do the honourable thing and stop piddling all over this thread.

I ask a question - to wit, "Do they"? You respond as you have. Mmmm and you reckon you have the dispositions to keep the peace? Really? What would anyone think about your likely response to anything you felt "provoking" given the written evidence you've been good enough to supply?

I'm genuinely curious. Where do the police get the power to eject someone from premises, as opposed to the powers which they would have in the circumstances I related? I'm honestly interested. Certainly Scottish cops (in my experience) draw a distinction between assisting in order to deter assault and prevent a breach. And someone who refuses to move commits a breach. If you want to stretch a point they can be arrested and then (presumably) be de-arrested outside.

But, only if you think a measured response is within your grasp

Having just done a bit of reading (Cheating):

Section 143 Licensing Act: a person who is drunk and disorderly commits a summary offence, if they fail without reasonable excuse to leave the premises or they enter or attempt to enter after being requested not to enter the relevant premises at the request of: a police constable, any person who works at the premises, whether paid or
unpaid, the premises licence holder or the designated premises supervisor.

Or words to that effect. However the staff normally reserve the right to eject anyone.

I've also just learned it is an offence for a Police Officer to refuse to assist in ejecting someone with out reasonable grounds to believe, to do so would contrevene licensing or other legislation. I assume thats going to take into account racial discrimination and things like that but will be worth a read when I next have a poo in work. Every days a school day.

Originally Posted by gaijin

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Originally Posted by gaijin

Just one of the reasons that I love living in Tokyo, these sorts of things simply do not happen here.

Yes, as Japanese society is inherently conformist.

OK, the salarymen drink themsleves into a gutter-collapsing, hog-whimperingly drunken mess & the teens have some pretty wierd dress-sense, but there is still an underlying climate of respect (rather than "respeck") for their elders, society etc.

I'm prepared to be corrected if I have an overly rose-tinted view based on my limited experience in Tokyo...

No, you are pretty bang on. They are conformist but, I suspect, that the reason that the salarymen get so massively drunk like they do is because it is the only release they get, either at home or work, and is the only way that they can express themselves. Whatever happens in the bar or at the karaoke stays there, the next day it is business as usual and whatever happened the night before is no longer mentioned.

But however drunk they get there is never any agression. It is perfectly safe to walk around Tokyo at any time of the night and not worry about some drunken gobshite having a pop just because he thinks he can.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does'nt the attitude of the Japanese police also play a part? I seem to remember reading that the Japanese coppers are very polite and respectful of citizens...right up until the citizen commits an arrestable offence, at which point the cops get Samurai on his ass.

A bit like the late Mr Swayze's lines in Roadhouse: "I want you to be nice...until it's time to NOT be nice."

Originally Posted by sixty_three

The wife and me went up to see my Daughter yesterday who is at University and have been really looking forward to it.
We had a great day lunch, shopping and generaly catching up on news.
We was walking back to the campus around 16.30hrs yesterday afternoon when a scumball approached us and started demanding money obviously to fund his drug use.
I just said "No" and carried on walking with my wife and daughter under a hail of abuse from the scum bag which was not a problem to me.Next thing there was glass falling around us.The scum was that pissed off he had thrown somthing at me and it broke a small window.
This really frietend my wife and daughter so I gave chase to kick feck out of this scumer who wanted to hurt my family.He managed to give me the slip but Im sure he knew he was going to get a good kicking off me.
On reflection and having calmed down if I had caught this scum and laid in to him most likely it would have been me seen as the scum in the Courts and the drug addict getting compensation, counceling and me the "Veteran" in deep s***.

As per neu liarbour guidelines... you should have handed the disadvantaged, narcotically challenged youth (who hasn't had the same chances in life as you) all of your hard earned cash, and your bank cards with pins in order for him to empty to your account.

After which you are to meekly lie down on the pavement and accept the rightous indignation of those less fortunate than yourself. A sort of penenance if you will, for getting off your arrse and doing something for yourself and family.

To do anything else shows you are bigotted, possibly raciest and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You are scum in neu liarbours modern distopia.

Originally Posted by Closet_Jibber

I've also just learned it is an offence for a Police Officer to refuse to assist in ejecting someone with out reasonable grounds to believe, to do so would contrevene licensing or other legislation..

Now that's the interesting bit. I can't see where that comes from - maybe a police disciplinary rule - but let's take it as read. Presumably the authority cops then rely on is the authority anyone would have in the circumstances to help another maintain their rights (rather than a statute that specifically empowers the police) - you could help your neighbour eject someone from their home, if they refused to leave. And yet (unlike the citizen) the cops choice is constrained by their positive obligation to assist. Almost as if they are obliged by police rules to momentarily cease to be constables. What you have are cops helping to eject people, but not qua cops in the act.

God, I love a wanky distinction

My sympathies to you & your family, CJ. Alas chavs being able to flout the law has been around for a lot longer than the period they've been given that monicker.

In the mid-90's I returned home from work to find a yoof sitting on my front doorstep complete with can of Tennants and roll-up smoke. When I asked him to move on, he got abusive, and when I suggested, more firmly, that he to do one, he took a swing at me. Luckily, I managed to duck it, at which point he did take off, with me in pursuit. But pursuit in a pinstripe doesn't work, so I abandoned that & called the police instead.

They advised me that, although I was able to ID the bloke to them, and that he was already known to them, were I to press charges, the chances were that we would both be bound over, and in the case of a return fixture I could well end up with a criminal record.

I thought this sucked the big one back then, and I still do today when anyone else has a similar experience. But Kevin Bridges' perspective on chav aggression makes me giggle & I hope it will do the same for you, if the nerves aren't still too raw. Start at about the 1'43" mark.

Obligatory mong-spelling edit completed

There is no end of alarmist shyte talked about the subject raised by the OP, by people like the Chocolate Frog.

The rubbish they spout conforms with their own stupid view of the world but bears absolutely no relevance to the real one.

Unfortunately the idiots make so much noise that it genuinely confuses the ordinary citizen who, when faced with a difficult situation, is unsure of how to act.

You are allowed to defend yourself to the max, absolutely, whatever you need to do, fill your boots, turn savage, but once the threat has passed you must stop, simple.

And I defy any of the above nobs to come up with a real example where someone was genuinely in fear of being hurt and were sucessfully prosecuted for defending themselves.

(T)hat eccentric nutter Peter Martin does not count because he was not defending himself, he was lying in ambush.

Attacking someone after the immediate threat has passed is, however, illegal. Again, very simple.

As ever I am open to persuasion, but I am certain the above is true and if you are defending yourself then the level of force is set by the defender as he perceives the situation to be - EVEN IF HE IS MISTAKEN.

So if you come down stairs in the night and find someone holding a broom handle, mistake it for a sword and then blow him out of his burgling boots with a 12 bore the fact that you were wrong about the danger you were in does not matter, you are still fine under the law.

Moving on the following is a good point made to me by a prison officer and although I believe he is correct you have to bear in mind he is Scottish and tends to nurse and polish a grievance like a personal treasure.

It involves handing out slaps to young toerags. He tells me that what the public know as the 'Sex Offenders' list is actually a list of people who commit Schedule One offences against children - which includes both sex and violence.

So when you wander out of the pub to find some hooded yob has just keyed your car you really must not follow your instinct by smashing him straight in the face.

Because by the time the 14 year-old little darling has had his jaw re-set and his teeth fixed your name will be nestling beside the peados on the list of those who have inflicted Schedule One offences on children and young people. Bloomin outrageous, really.

What I do not know is just how far you are able to go to town on somebody who has stolen your property and refuses to give it back.

For example if someone who has just nicked your car radio refuses to hand it back but simply says 'come and get it' can you wade in with all guns blazing and keep going until he is unconcious enough to let go of your goods?

Does the law allow any violence under these circumstances?

BTW, a Japanese police officer is not allowed to tell a lie - so many tricks of the trade that are regarded as standard by Western cops, such as under-cover work and sting operations, are outlawed in the Land of Nippon.

Edited to repeat the challenge in my opening remarks.

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

Originally Posted by Closet_Jibber

I've also just learned it is an offence for a Police Officer to refuse to assist in ejecting someone with out reasonable grounds to believe, to do so would contrevene licensing or other legislation..

Now that's the interesting bit. I can't see where that comes from - maybe a police disciplinary rule - but let's take it as read. Presumably the authority cops then rely on is the authority anyone would have in the circumstances to help another maintain their rights (rather than a statute that specifically empowers the police) - you could help your neighbour eject someone from their home, if they refused to leave. And yet (unlike the citizen) the cops choice is constrained by their positive obligation to assist. Almost as if they are obliged by police rules to momentarily cease to be constables. What you have are cops helping to eject people, but not qua cops in the act.

God, I love a wanky distinction

I've just read S143, and had a look at a book on police law, and if this is the only legislation then (at the risk of boring on) the cops don't have a right to eject people from licensed premises. What they have is an obligation to "assist" a specified class of people eject someone in a narrowly defined set of circumstances - the person is drunk or disorderly, or (presumably) both. So, absent the staff's request, or absent drunkness or disorder, (the staff request but you don't see drunkeness or disorder) the cops cannot act to eject. What "assist" amounts to is a whole nightmare of complexity - the Act must be read as a whole, consistent with HRA and other acts........arguably being present to prevent a breach is the only "assistance" a cop can engage in.

Now (and relevant to the thread) dare to make this distinction to cops (especially as a trainee cop) and I'll bet you're a "dick", "knobhead", "logic chopper", "difference splitter".....

Tell cops that it was only recently that making off without payment became arrestable by constables, although it was arrestable by citizens, and they think you daft.

The assumption is that they are all-powerful, citizens are powerless, it stands to reason that there can be no set of circumstances in which a cop could be less powerful than a citizen, and so on.

This is the mentality that allows cops to believe that there is (or is not) a "citizen's arrest". In fact, there is only "arrest" and "a constable's arrest" - arrest predates (and postdates) the contabulary, but that ain't the culture.

Consequently, a pissartist throws things at you in the street and you are worried about what the cops will do to you should you apprehend them. Only in Britain...

The Police National Legal Database says:

Failure to leave licensed premises
The personal licence holder or their agents are responsible for the
conduct of people when inside their licensed premises. Section 143
of the Act provides that a person who is drunk and disorderly
commits a summary offence, if they fail without reasonable excuse
to leave the relevant premises or they enter or attempt to enter after
being requested not to enter the relevant premises at the request of:
• a police constable
• any person who works at the premises, whether paid or
unpaid, in a capacity which authorises them to make such a
request
• the premises licence holder or
• the designated premises supervisor (if any) under the
premises licence.

That is not Obligation to assist mate, that is a clearly defined summary offence which in the age of Section 24 (5) of PACE means that like all offences these days, its arrestable.

Now please stop with this "Bobbies refuse to believe citizens have powers" lark. You're not a Citizen, you are a crown subject, you do have power and nobody can take them away. There is no assumption that the Police are all powerful... If there was any one of Peels principles repeated whilst I was in training it was this:

"The Police are the Public and The Public are The Police." Without the assistance of the public in the detection of crime and the apprehension of offenders The Police would not cease to exist but the job would be made ten times harder... Now do stop assuming. We all know the story about it making an ass out of U and Me

It was actually written above the door to one of the first lecture rooms you go into until it was taken down and some tosh about diversity was put in its place.

Stop regurgitating this crap about all bobbies are out to lock up the victim. I think the majority of people realise this is not the case, even when they read ridiculous stories in the papers about "Have a go Heroes" (Who more than likely stamped on the offenders head).

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Originally Posted by gaijin

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Originally Posted by gaijin

Just one of the reasons that I love living in Tokyo, these sorts of things simply do not happen here.

Yes, as Japanese society is inherently conformist.

OK, the salarymen drink themsleves into a gutter-collapsing, hog-whimperingly drunken mess & the teens have some pretty wierd dress-sense, but there is still an underlying climate of respect (rather than "respeck") for their elders, society etc.

I'm prepared to be corrected if I have an overly rose-tinted view based on my limited experience in Tokyo...

No, you are pretty bang on. They are conformist but, I suspect, that the reason that the salarymen get so massively drunk like they do is because it is the only release they get, either at home or work, and is the only way that they can express themselves. Whatever happens in the bar or at the karaoke stays there, the next day it is business as usual and whatever happened the night before is no longer mentioned.

But however drunk they get there is never any agression. It is perfectly safe to walk around Tokyo at any time of the night and not worry about some drunken gobshite having a pop just because he thinks he can.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does'nt the attitude of the Japanese police also play a part? I seem to remember reading that the Japanese coppers are very polite and respectful of citizens...right up until the citizen commits an arrestable offence, at which point the cops get Samurai on his ass.

A bit like the late Mr Swayze's lines in Roadhouse: "I want you to be nice...until it's time to NOT be nice."

The Japanese police are useless at most times. The uniformed variant are little more than traffic cops and directions givers. They will also stop and search people on the street (especially if you are not Japanese or 'professional looking' westerner). I saw one last night at a crossroads, he was a big fat old boy and he was stopping cyclists to warn them about having no lights. More than one person just sailed on past him at full speed whilst he huffed and puffed in indignation. It was actually very funny.

Plenty of them are corrupt and in the pay of local Yakuza so a blind eye is given to many activities, especially dodgy hostess bars etc. They may mount a token raid or two but not on the Yakuza clubs obviously. It is said, for this reason, that Roppongi police station is the most lucrative posting that a policeman can receive.

You are right though, if you are arrested for something then you should be worried. There is a 99% conviction rate here - which has little to do with guilt in many cases. You can be held for 23 days without being charged - and this can be extended to 28 I believe. I know 2 guys who have been arrested and they will hold you for the full 23 days regardless (both were released without charge after the full 23). They tell me that immense pressure is put upon you to sign a confession (in Japanese) - after which its a done deal.
I am reliably told that a Japanese prison is really not somewhere that you want to be either. They are highly regimented, work is compulosry for 8 hours a day (during which time you cannot speak to anybody else), cells are shared and cramped - smokers get one 10 min smoke break a day - and the lights are on 24 hours. Speaking in any other languange than Japanese (including with visitors) is prohibited. If you do not speak the language then tough.

British prisons could learn a lot

All you need to know:

Originally Posted by Closet_Jibber

The Police National Legal Database says:

Failure to leave licensed premises
The personal licence holder or their agents are responsible for the
conduct of people when inside their licensed premises. Section 143
of the Act provides that a person who is drunk and disorderly
commits a summary offence, if they fail without reasonable excuse
to leave the relevant premises or they enter or attempt to enter after
being requested not to enter the relevant premises at the request of:
• a police constable
• any person who works at the premises, whether paid or
unpaid, in a capacity which authorises them to make such a
request
• the premises licence holder or
• the designated premises supervisor (if any) under the
premises licence.

That is not Obligation to assist mate, that is a clearly defined summary offence which in the age of Section 24 (5) of PACE means that like all offences these days, its arrestable.

Now please stop with this "Bobbies refuse to believe citizens have powers" lark. You're not a Citizen, you are a crown subject, you do have power and nobody can take them away. There is no assumption that the Police are all powerful... If there was any one of Peels principles repeated whilst I was in training it was this:

"The Police are the Public and The Public are The Police." Without the assistance of the public in the detection of crime and the apprehension of offenders The Police would not cease to exist but the job would be made ten times harder... Now do stop assuming. We all know the story about it making an ass out of U and Me

It was actually written above the door to one of the first lecture rooms you go into until it was taken down and some tosh about diversity was put in its place.

Stop regurgitating this crap about all bobbies are out to lock up the victim. I think the majority of people realise this is not the case, even when they read ridiculous stories in the papers about "Have a go Heroes" (Who more than likely stamped on the offenders head).

Er.....the stick's over here, mate.

S143 - "(4) On being requested to do so by a person to whom subsection (2) applies, a constable must—
(a) help to expel from relevant premises a person who is drunk or disorderly;"

The interesting question is what this amounts to.

On the subject of how the cops perceive themselves (and again, locating the actual stick), you said earlier that the doorstaff have the same powers as the police. No - they have vastly greater powers. My claim is that the failure of cops to understand this (and it would be impolite to suggest where such a failure might be readily seen ] is indicative of a general attitude.

Imagine a soldier walking down the street, hackle on headgear. Ned/Chav makes a remark. Soldier walks over, "Sorry, mate, what did you say?"

"You heard, brush head".

"Listen, son, I expect to be able to walk down the street without listening to any snash from you or anyone else. Wind your neck in".

Kid becomes aggressive, soldier kicks the legs out from under him, arm up his back, cops arrive.

What happens next? You, I, and everyone else know that the soldier is getting charged with assault.

Now imagine cops walking down the street. "Oi, tithead" says our chav.

What do the cops do? Challenge, kick legs out from under, arrest.

It is absolutely hardwired into the culture that the public are expected to tolerate behaviour which the cops themselves would not tolerate for one second.

A female burns herself and her disabled daughter to death, and most of the stuff she has complained about is "not a police matter", and she has an "unrealistic expectation of what the police can do". Yet if the same kids tried it on the cops what would happen?

The police really need to avoid documentaries. Last night's "The Farce", for example. Jesus, did you see it? F*ckmegently. Was anybody there doing a 40-50k job? There was a Home Office report in the 90's which included the following pearl (in essence) - "There is a perception that there are very few bright policemen". Now that's obviously false, but what seems true is that if a cop is bright it's a bonus, not a requirement. You could have turned up as a civilian with no training and bluffed your case as a detective in the "Crystal" rape unit. There is no similarly remunerated job where this would be possible.

Originally Posted by Reversionary_Modes

My sympathies to you & your family, CJ. Alas chavs being able to flout the law has been around for a lot longer than the period they've been given that monicker.

In the mid-90's I returned home from work to find a yoof sitting on my front doorstep complete with can of Tennants and roll-up smoke. When I asked him to move on, he got abusive, and when I suggested, more firmly, that he to do one, he took a swing at me. Luckily, I managed to duck it, at which point he did take off, with me in pursuit. But pursuit in a pinstripe doesn't work, so I abandoned that & called the police instead.

They advised me that, although I was able to ID the bloke to them, and that he was already known to them, were I to press charges, the chances were that we would both be bound over, and in the case of a return fixture I could well end up with a criminal record.

I thought this sucked the big one back then, and I still do today when anyone else has a similar experience. But Kevin Bridges' perspective on chav aggression makes me giggle & I hope it will do the same for you, if the nerves aren't still too raw. Start at about the 1'43" mark.

Obligatory mong-spelling edit completed

A mate of mine was in a similar situation. Alec is an ex-Royal who got heavily into bodybuilding after he left the Marines; a nice guy but a real Roidosaurus. He could Bench 165k.

Alec looks out his window and sees a teenager sitting in his garden, drinking beer.

Alec: "Get the fcuk out of my garden, son."

Ned: "Fcuk you!"

Alec picked the kid up like a sack of potatoes and threw him over the garden hedge. On to the pavement.

The Ned limps off crying and threatning to get his dad. About half an hour later, someone starts banging on Alec's front door. He answers it to find an angry Daddie Ned.

Daddie Ned: "Did you throw my laddie over your hedge?!"

SMACK!!!

Alec(to now barely concious and heavily bleeding Daddie Ned)"Aye."

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Originally Posted by Reversionary_Modes

My sympathies to you & your family, CJ. Alas chavs being able to flout the law has been around for a lot longer than the period they've been given that monicker.

In the mid-90's I returned home from work to find a yoof sitting on my front doorstep complete with can of Tennants and roll-up smoke. When I asked him to move on, he got abusive, and when I suggested, more firmly, that he to do one, he took a swing at me. Luckily, I managed to duck it, at which point he did take off, with me in pursuit. But pursuit in a pinstripe doesn't work, so I abandoned that & called the police instead.

They advised me that, although I was able to ID the bloke to them, and that he was already known to them, were I to press charges, the chances were that we would both be bound over, and in the case of a return fixture I could well end up with a criminal record.

I thought this sucked the big one back then, and I still do today when anyone else has a similar experience. But Kevin Bridges' perspective on chav aggression makes me giggle & I hope it will do the same for you, if the nerves aren't still too raw. Start at about the 1'43" mark.

Obligatory mong-spelling edit completed

A mate of mine was in a similar situation. Alec is an ex-Royal who got heavily into bodybuilding after he left the Marines; a nice guy but a real Roidosaurus. He could Bench 165k.

Alec looks out his window and sees a teenager sitting in his garden, drinking beer.

Alec: "Get the fcuk out of my garden, son."

Ned: "Fcuk you!"

Alec picked the kid up like a sack of potatoes and threw him over the garden hedge. On to the pavement.

The Ned limps off crying and threatning to get his dad. About half an hour later, someone starts banging on Alec's front door. He answers it to find an angry Daddie Ned.

Daddie Ned: "Did you throw my laddie over your hedge?!"

SMACK!!!

Alec(to now barely concious and heavily bleeding Daddie Ned)"Aye."

Of course, he had to be a muscle bound Royal and not an RLC postie.

For a civilian trolley collector you have an unhealthy obsession of all things military.