Is there nobody left in our police service with a sense of proportion? The heavy handed attempt to lean on a newsvendor for displaying Private Eye is the latest idiocy that will give great comfort to the Fleet Street fat cats as well as making the whole force look silly.
Here's some free advice chaps:-
If you don't want to look foolish, and if you don't want to be mocked on prime-time telly, for heaven's sake don't pick on Private Eye. They will make mincemeat of you.
I do so hope that the fool behind this nonsense receives some very frank advice from someone of rank.
I don't get it. They just told them that it was possibly contempt of court - which it possibly is - and didn't do anything else (according to The Metro). How is that heavy handed? Surely it would be irresponsible of them to see somebody possibly breaking the law and not informing them of it - after all, they could get prosecuted. Indeed, if somebody does think that is inappropriate behaviour of the police then I would question their own sense of proportionality.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think the police should choose to do something based on the political power of the subject. I hope that the police would never act in such a manor.
Not in my manor anyway!
DeleteKate Caveat
Totally uncalled for and well over the top.
ReplyDeleteYou are right- the police look like nobs
HOW DARE THE POLICE WARN PEOPLE THEY MIGHT BE COMMITTING AN OFFENCE
ReplyDeleteThey can certainly do that, but only if there is an offence. In this case it appears that there is not.
DeleteIt was close enough to contempt of court that the judge felt he had to mention it at the start of the trial. Perhaps you have a better grasp of the facts than the mere Crown Court judge.
DeleteThese "the police told me to stop doing something" articles seem to be a favourite with the press. I think last week it was an article about a man being told to consider toning down his Halloween display outside his house.
ReplyDeleteThe key to all of these is the police don't just wander around finding people to pick on. The officer who spoke to the newspaper vendor was acting on the request of the CPS according to an article I just read. The Halloween bloke was reported by a member of the public. I fail to see how a police officer speaking to someone is ever newsworthy or heavy-handed. Obviously the conversation shouldn't be laced with false threats of arrest or other consequences, which would be heavy handed, but pointing out a law and asking someone to consider how that might impact on them is anything but.
The CPS denied they had anything to do with it.
Deletehttp://order-order.com/page/4/
Friendly advice given,can't see the problem here.It's not a massive conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteJaded
There is a problem, though it is quite a subtle one. There's a defence of innocent distribution to a charge of strict-liability contempt, and that defence would, without the intervention of the police, have been available to - and almost certainly successful for - the newsvendor.
DeleteThe "friendly advice" by the police would have the effect of removing that defence from the newsvendor. So, far from being friendly and helpful, it actually creates a (potential) offence where there was none before.
And that leaves me feeling rather uncomfortable about the whole thing, though probably not as uncomfortable now as whichever police gave the advice.
Is there such a thing as 'friendly advice' when it is being 'offered' by someone in a police uniform. Who might follow up with some unwanted action if you dont humbly comply.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. It's been the corner stone of our society for decades.
DeleteMany years past, every year, a house in my town was decorated - totally - at Christmas. The council didn't like it because it was close to a roundabout and thought would be a distraction. So they had it removed. They didn't tell the owner themselves, they got the police to do it.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming the removal was of the house and not the roundabout. In any case it seems a bit extreme.
Delete"Chilling effect"?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what this is about. How about a link or some context please!
ReplyDeleteGoogle is your friend. Try private Eye and newsvendor and Brooks.
DeleteHaving scrutinized the picture in question, I believe it to be showing Rebecca outside the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, not the Old Bailey. I feel the newspaper seller may have a defence here.
ReplyDeleteThe suggestion of contempt seems to stem from proximity to the court, which raises the question: how close is too close? Does the gravity of the offence attenuate with the square of the distance just like real gravity? Are "Eye" sellers in Aberdeen still committing a very minor offence? We should be told.
Are "Eye" sellers in Aberdeen still committing a very minor offence?
DeleteGood question, are they outside the jurisdiction of English law in this, being in Scotland?