Can a off duty policeman prosecute?

[yawny]

Because you're a copper, your job is to gather evidence, and act on it to bring a case in court against the offenders. If you've witnessed these youths racing then you have all the power you need to bring a case in court against them. You as a copper are not by virtue of the law of this land given the power to punish, you can only bring an offence to the attention of those whose job that is.

Section 59 is in direct contravention of civil liberties in this country. I support the police fully in what they do to maintain law and order, but giving them these sort of powers is beyond acceptable.


This is all well and good lozzo and if i had an offence to go with the off roaders then i would be sending them to court for them to deal with as they see fit. However sometimes this is not the case........if they are not on a public road then it becomes harder to get a conviction based on off road nusience

[Lozzo]

I also dont know what happens with the recovery money when it is paid however not every copper is bent lozzo........

I'm not suggesting that many are, or even a few, but it's certainly more than likely in some cases.

When I smashed my Bandit 600 up in Norfolk the scene was attended by two traffic coppers. They did the usual breath test etc, told me the reason the bike spat me off was a mechanical failure of the rear suspension and beyond my control and then said they were arranging for recovery. I told them not to bother because I'd already sorted for Carole Nash's contracted recovery firm to take the bike directly to my home in Bedfordshire. They were insistent that their firm had to do the recovery and badgered me to call Carole Nash and cancel the recovery. I told them in no uncertain terms to leave the bike alone and that I had already sorted it, they were holding up the ambulance from leaving and I was lying there with a broken ankle - they only gave in and went away when I asked quite openly and in front of a number of independent witnesses "Why are you insisting that your firm recovers my bike to your compound, are you on commission or something?"

Carole Nash's recovery agent appeared 10 minutes later and took my bike the 120 miles home for free.

Now tell me they weren't on a backhander

[yawny]

again all im saying is when its used for the right reasons then it is a good tool to have. if for argument sake we didnt have it, and on a weekly bases you took your young son to play in the local football team and every time you were there some idiot decided to ride rings around all the kids and the adults watching on an off road motorcycle. Only to be told by the police on their arrival that they couldnt do anything other than ask them to leave. What would happen i wonder?????

The adults would get annoyed( and quite rightly so) and the little sod on the bike(once he returned because the police have now left) would get pulled off the bike by the public and probably given a good **** kicking........

[yawny]

I'm not suggesting that many are, or even a few, but it's certainly more than likely in some cases.

When I smashed my Bandit 600 up in Norfolk the scene was attended by two traffic coppers. They did the usual breath test etc, told me the reason the bike spat me off was a mechanical failure of the rear suspension and beyond my control and then said they were arranging for recovery. I told them not to bother because I'd already sorted for Carole Nash's contracted recovery firm to take the bike directly to my home in Bedfordshire. They were insistent that their firm had to do the recovery and badgered me to call Carole Nash and cancel the recovery. I told them in no uncertain terms to leave the bike alone and that I had already sorted it, they were holding up the ambulance from leaving and I was lying there with a broken ankle - they only gave in and went away when I asked quite openly and in front of a number of independent witnesses "Why are you insisting that your firm recovers my bike to your compound, are you on commission or something?"

Carole Nash's recovery agent appeared 10 minutes later and took my bike the 120 miles home for free.

Now tell me they weren't on a backhander

i cant comment on this pal......all i can say is if it was me attending the scene and your vehicle was in no way blocking the road and you wanted to sort your own recovery out, then that would be what was happening.....
why should you be charged when you can sort it yourself for free :)

[ophic]

Section 59 just seems to be a sticking plaster over a more important fundamental flaw in the system. Perhaps we should address the real issue, whatever it might be. Kids should not be out running riot on powered vehicles in public areas - however section 59 should not be required to prevent this.

[Red Herring]

Lozzo, is it the medication or are you just challenging everything today? I happen to agree with you, Sect 59 is abused and yes it does need to be challenged, the problem is it tends to be used against little scrotes who are just being little scrotes and they don't have the knowledge or confidence to take on the authorities. I challenge it whenever I get the opportunity but the officers who work for me are professional enough to use it properly and on the occasion we get involved in a second instance (where we are potentially seizing a vehicle) we always prosecute the driver/rider for the substantial offence. The officers know that if they can't prove the main offence they aren't going to get away with using sect 59 and that is the way it should be. The issue here is far more deep rooted than a simple misuse of a power. Like Yawny says it's a great piece of legislation when used properly and use proper use has a huge impact on the lives of many people.

With regard to your other digs about recovery firms most forces have a contracted service for each area, the officer doesn't get a say on the matter, and please don't make out that officers are corrupt enough to take backhanders unless you've got some evidence of it. If you have please send it to me, if there is one thing coppers hate more than a villain it a bent copper.....

[Lozzo]

This is all well and good lozzo and if i had an offence to go with the off roaders then i would be sending them to court for them to deal with as they see fit. However sometimes this is not the case........if they are not on a public road then it becomes harder to get a conviction based on off road nusience

Harder but not impossible, so you use Section 59 as an easy way out of doing more paperwork. Seems to me that Section 59 is favoured by the lazier and more vindictive coppers. Sorry if this makes it sound like you're in that group, but to my mind any copper worth his warrant card would prefer to police properly and gain a fair prosection through working for it, rather than take the more unpopular and easy way out.

You know who the offenders are, you have seen them comitting the offence, you've approached them and determined who they are and where they live, you have laws in place under which to bring about a prosecution against them and yet you choose to slap a Section 59 on them because it's easier and you won't need witnesses or anyone to back you up. Don't the courts take the word of coppers any more? Is putting verbal evidence from a copper in front of a magistrate not the way to secure a prosecution in this country?

Nuff said.

[Red Herring]

You know who the offenders are, you have seen them comitting the offence, you've approached them and determined who they are and where they live, you have laws in place under which to bring about a prosecution against them and yet you choose to slap a Section 59 on them because it's easier and you won't need witnesses or anyone to back you up. Don't the courts take the word of coppers any more? Is putting verbal evidence from a copper in front of a magistrate not the way to secure a prosecution in this country?

Nuff said.

OK Lozzo, you're the copper dealing with this. 13 year old riding his pit bike across the local playing field. What are you going to prosecute him for?

[Lozzo]

again all im saying is when its used for the right reasons then it is a good tool to have. if for argument sake we didnt have it, and on a weekly bases you took your young son to play in the local football team and every time you were there some idiot decided to ride rings around all the kids and the adults watching on an off road motorcycle. Only to be told by the police on their arrival that they couldnt do anything other than ask them to leave. What would happen i wonder?????

The adults would get annoyed( and quite rightly so) and the little sod on the bike(once he returned because the police have now left) would get pulled off the bike by the public and probably given a good **** kicking........

Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986). Gives you all the power you need to bring about a conviction in court.

[simesb]

Don't the courts take the word of coppers any more? Is putting verbal evidence from a copper in front of a magistrate not the way to secure a prosecution in this country?

Is that an attempt at irony, given your recent posts regarding an unmarked Audi?

[davepreston]

the fact is no matter what sphere of society it is there are barstewards who abuse there position
also there in most cases is no or little protection from said people
its how things are and lets be honest how they will always will be
in this situation i'd be luckier than seggs cos i have some more experiance with these people and knowledge on my side than him, but this doent mean that me or any of us are immune to such abuses of position, ive been lucky that my dealings with muppet coppers have be few and infequent and with me being in a position to defend myself when they have occured
some day i will be out of my depth and someone will screw me over ,such is life
plod are a obvious target cos with the good they do for you, the double edge sword means that more than likely at some stage they will have to give you a slap on the wrist for doing something naughty
and lets be honest everyone has bad days too

in this instance seggs got messed with (acorrding to his account which i cant verify) so yes he has a right to be upset, tbh i think this will help him in future if such a thing arises again abite is shouldnt have happed but ca sara sara

most laws are written by people who dont concider the possible abuse of said power, and to be fair most dont abuse it and do use it for its intend helpful purpose, unfortunately this is one of the occasions where it wasnt

imho there will never be a perfect set of laws but i try to live as close as i can to the ones we have, i will disagree with some and others i will disreguard , the truth is we can only hope that the people who have the powers use them correctly, having said that i will always make sure i have some basic knowledge ,even if its just shut up dont sign anything or do anything till ive spoke to a brief, to cover my own ar5e

theres my 50p
make of it what you will
dave

[yawny]

Lozzo, is it the medication or are you just challenging everything today? I happen to agree with you, Sect 59 is abused and yes it does need to be challenged, the problem is it tends to be used against little scrotes who are just being little scrotes and they don't have the knowledge or confidence to take on the authorities. I challenge it whenever I get the opportunity but the officers who work for me are professional enough to use it properly and on the occasion we get involved in a second instance (where we are potentially seizing a vehicle) we always prosecute the driver/rider for the substantial offence. The officers know that if they can't prove the main offence they aren't going to get away with using sect 59 and that is the way it should be. The issue here is far more deep rooted than a simple misuse of a power. Like Yawny says it's a great piece of legislation when used properly and use proper use has a huge impact on the lives of many people.

With regard to your other digs about recovery firms most forces have a contracted service for each area, the officer doesn't get a say on the matter, and please don't make out that officers are corrupt enough to take backhanders unless you've got some evidence of it. If you have please send it to me, if there is one thing coppers hate more than a villain it a bent copper.....

+1

[Lozzo]

OK Lozzo, you're the copper dealing with this. 13 year old riding his pit bike across the local playing field. What are you going to prosecute him for?

First offence - If there's no-one else on the field at the time, you give him a warning, tell him what he/she is doing is technically illegal and accompany him home with the bike and warn the parent that he faces prosecution next time. If there are people on the field, same warning, stressing the fact that if he hurts someone he's in major trouble, then same visit home to see parent.

Second or further offences - Section 5 Public Order Act 1986. If the tw4t won't listen to a warning from you, he can listen to a sentencing from the beak.

[Lozzo]

Is that an attempt at irony, given your recent posts regarding an unmarked Audi?

When a copper lies and can be caught out on it, then there's no irony involved. That copper made the mistake of making his lie too outrageous and easily disproven.

Me and my mate denied the 90-130 speeding because we knew he could never get a conviction for it. Truth be known I actually was at 130 mph on the dual and my mate flew past me, but the copper hadn't seen any of that and we knew it.

I may have comitted an offence, but a copper lying in court is a far worse offence in my book.

[Lozzo]

As an aside to the copers who are reading this - I'm not in any way shape or form anti-police. to my mind the police in this country have a difficult and often thankless task, and I don't like making their life any more difficult - except when I know they are in the wrong and then I'll use whatever I can to prove this. I have very strong views on the insiduous implementation of unnecessary legislation we've suffered in the last 15 years, especially any that give the police powers of judge and jury. I don't believe that is how British justice should be run, and it goes against all the civil rights we had (until the Blair government slowly but surely took them all away).

I despise the use of such powers as Section 59. it has no right in our society at all. It's not a dig at all coppers, I think some are less honest than others, but giving any of them the power to use something like this isn't giving them a useful tool, it's giving them an easy way out of a lot of paperwork with no need for evidence or court visits. In the case of a d1ckhead copper, of which there are some around, it gives them the opportunity to abuse this power, and that's just downright wrong when the accused has no power or recourse to challenge it.

[Red Herring]

First offence - If there's no-one else on the field at the time, you give him a warning, tell him what he/she is doing is technically illegal and accompany him home with the bike and warn the parent that he faces prosecution next time. If there are people on the field, same warning, stressing the fact that if he hurts someone he's in major trouble, then same visit home to see parent.

Second or further offences - Section 5 Public Order Act 1986. If the tw4t won't listen to a warning from you, he can listen to a sentencing from the beak.

Been there, done that, got the T shirt but not the conviction. Magistrates held the view that simply riding a motorcycle around a public playing field didn't fall within what Sect 5 was all about unless it was done deliberately to annoy someone, which it isn't, it's done to have fun!

This is exactly why Sect 59 was introduced. You don't have to show that the "offender" knew, or should have known, of the problem they were causing.

[ophic]

This is exactly why Sect 59 was introduced. You don't have to show that the "offender" knew, or should have known, of the problem they were causing.
The problem is the fact that the police can award it. If section 59 had to be handed out by a magistrate, I would have no problem with it.

[Lozzo]

Been there, done that, got the T shirt but not the conviction. Magistrates held the view that simply riding a motorcycle around a public playing field didn't fall within what Sect 5 was all about unless it was done deliberately to annoy someone, which it isn't, it's done to have fun!

This is exactly why Sect 59 was introduced. You don't have to show that the "offender" knew, or should have known, of the problem they were causing.

I have never come across a public playing field that isn't covered by local bylaws prohibiting the use of motor vehicles on that field. You prosecute under that bylaw, surely?

[Lozzo]

The problem is the fact that the police can award it. If section 59 had to be handed out by a magistrate, I would have no problem with it.

+1

[timwilky]

Section 59 was quoted at my nephew when two plod tried to stop him and his mates riding in the field behind his house. They were told to do one by my brother, the kids have permission to ride.

Oh, who by?. Me.

It took them some time and a couple of radio calls to get it into their thick heads that my brother owned the field the kids were using and they could be as "anti social" as they wanted to be as they had lawful authority to ride there.

[Red Herring]

I agree with both points. Local bylaws are generally a pretty toothless weapon, worst case scenario they get a small fine and the problem continues whilst it's all going through. I did point it out earlier but sect 59 is not an offence, it's a power to allow the police to stop an offence continuing. Yes it is attached to an offence, and i agree that every time sect 59 is used that offence should be prosecuted, which would bring the incident before a magistrate and allow the circumstance to be examined. I'm fairly sure that if it was being misused such practice would soon put a stop to it.

By the way there is an oddball around Sect 59 and use of vehicles off road. The offence of using a vehicle off road applies to motor vehicles (those intended or adapted for use on roads), but Sect 59 specifically redefines a motor vehicle for the purpose of Sect 59 as being one that is mechanically propelled. What this means is although you can use sect 59 against something like a Pit bike you can't actually then prosecute the rider for the offence of riding off road...... and you thought this was easy!

[Lozzo]

I agree with both points. Local bylaws are generally a pretty toothless weapon, worst case scenario they get a small fine and the problem continues whilst it's all going through. I did point it out earlier but sect 59 is not an offence, it's a power to allow the police to stop an offence continuing. Yes it is attached to an offence, and i agree that every time sect 59 is used that offence should be prosecuted, which would bring the incident before a magistrate and allow the circumstance to be examined. I'm fairly sure that if it was being misused such practice would soon put a stop to it.

By the way there is an oddball around Sect 59 and use of vehicles off road. The offence of using a vehicle off road applies to motor vehicles (those intended or adapted for use on roads), but Sect 59 specifically redefines a motor vehicle for the purpose of Sect 59 as being one that is mechanically propelled. What this means is although you can use sect 59 against something like a Pit bike you can't actually then prosecute the rider for the offence of riding off road...... and you thought this was easy!

Sounds like Section 59 needs scrapping and a proper piece of legislation put in its place. One that allows the police to bring about a proper prosecution through the courts to counter the offences you outline in your previous posts.

In other words - section 59 has no place in our justice system.

[yawny]

Sounds like Section 59 needs scrapping and a proper piece of legislation put in its place. One that allows the police to bring about a proper prosecution through the courts to counter the offences you outline in your previous posts.

In other words - section 59 has no place in our justice system.

Thats a fair comment.........because section 59 by all accounts is used for the wrong reasons sometimes.

[Red Herring]

But it is used for the right reasons far more often. Sure it's not perfect, but it does work.

[ophic]

But it is used for the right reasons far more often. Sure it's not perfect, but it does work.
You could say that about hanging :reaper:

[yawny]

But it is used for the right reasons far more often. Sure it's not perfect, but it does work.

+1

[Lozzo]

You could say that about hanging :reaper:
+1

Or the myriad of anti-terrrorism laws we suffer because of

[Lozzo]

I did point it out earlier but sect 59 is not an offence, it's a power to allow the police to stop an offence continuing. Yes it is attached to an offence, and i agree that every time sect 59 is used that offence should be prosecuted, which would bring the incident before a magistrate and allow the circumstance to be examined. I'm fairly sure that if it was being misused such practice would soon put a stop to it.



Unfortunately, in every case I've heard of a Section 59 being used there has not been a prosecution to follow it up. This what gets my back up - its trial by copper, which is wrong on so many levels.

[SoulKiss]

Unfortunately, in every case I've heard of a Section 59 being used there has not been a prosecution to follow it up. This what gets my back up - its trial by copper, which is wrong on so many levels.

I dunno - a plumber on callout of the near future...

http://www.bulletproofcomics.co.uk/media/gallery_plugin/753882545583553/large/567_Dredd_on_Lawmaster.jpg

[Biker Biggles]

OK Lozzo, you're the copper dealing with this. 13 year old riding his pit bike across the local playing field. What are you going to prosecute him for?

Thats an interesting point and possibly the answer is that if the kid is not actually breaking the law then leave him alone?Most of us would like to think that if we were doing something that is not illegal we have a right to be left alone by the police.Or am I living in some imaginary golden age of liberty that never existed?

[yorkie_chris]

Here I'd say prosecute the council for closing the local land where for the past 50 years you could take off road bikes for a play.

[Lozzo]

Here I'd say prosecute the council for closing the local land where for the past 50 years you could take off road bikes for a play.

When I lived in Worksop, North Notts there was a similar piece of land called Manton Pit Tip. If you wanted to find your stolen bike you just drove down there and you'd find some scrote ragging it around. They werent fussy, I saw what was previously a lovely GSXR1100L being taken round by what looked like 14 year olds and a nearly new R1 with all the bodywork smashed off once.

[Red Herring]

Thats an interesting point and possibly the answer is that if the kid is not actually breaking the law then leave him alone?Most of us would like to think that if we were doing something that is not illegal we have a right to be left alone by the police.Or am I living in some imaginary golden age of liberty that never existed?

Good point very well presented. It's something to do with "quality of life" and the fact that "antisocial behaviour" is top of the list of things that the public want the police to deal with. Perhaps we just live in a less tolerant society these days, or maybe it's because when I was younger we had a bit more respect for each other and if an adult told me to stop ragging around the village green on an unsilenced bike on a Sunday afternoon I'd actually listen instead of throwing a brick through his window...

[neio79]

Have not rad any more than the OP, but cant believe you stood there and took that for ma n off duty copper. If it was me i would have told hin to **** off in no uncertain terms unless he wanted the full force of a helmet to spread his nose across his face. Copper or not sounded like a right cnut!!

Nothing he can really do other than gob of in a petrol station, no evidence to show anyone. ont worry at all just laugh at this ***** and fel sorry for him.

remember its not what you think you know its what you can prove ,and he cant prove a dammed thing!!

[454697819]

Have not rad any more than the OP, but cant believe you stood there and took that for ma n off duty copper. If it was me i would have told hin to **** off in no uncertain terms unless he wanted the full force of a helmet to spread his nose across his face. Copper or not sounded like a right cnut!!

Nothing he can really do other than gob of in a petrol station, no evidence to show anyone. ont worry at all just laugh at this ***** and fel sorry for him.

remember its not what you think you know its what you can prove ,and he cant prove a dammed thing!!

sort of not true,

an officers word in court can be enough if your unlucky, particularly for dangerous driving as this is purly objective, and an officers word is taken over that of pleb public.

speeding, no, not unless he followed you for a fixed length of time, then had his car calibrated could charges actually be bought.

[Stu]

Have not rad any more than the OP, but cant believe you stood there and took that for ma n off duty copper. If it was me i would have told hin to **** off in no uncertain terms unless he wanted the full force of a helmet to spread his nose across his face. Copper or not sounded like a right cnut!!

Nothing he can really do other than gob of in a petrol station, no evidence to show anyone. ont worry at all just laugh at this ***** and fel sorry for him.

remember its not what you think you know its what you can prove ,and he cant prove a dammed thing!!
That's pretty harsh on the OP. I haven't dealt with off duty coppers, only those in uniform. But one occasion I stood my ground and argued back that I'd done nothing wrong. That cost me 3 points and £60 whereas when I'm all apologetic I get away (sometimes scot free) with a lot worse. It doesn't cost you anything to bite your tongue and live to fight another day.
Unfortunately, IME the Police I've dealt with have to get one over on you, and they always will, one way or another.

[ophic]

Have not rad any more than the OP, but cant believe you stood there and took that for ma n off duty copper. If it was me i would have told hin to **** off in no uncertain terms unless he wanted the full force of a helmet to spread his nose across his face. Copper or not sounded like a right cnut!!
Probably find yourself on the floor with your arm twisted up your back. Lots of pain and prospect of assault charges. Wouldn't be my Plan A.
remember its not what you think you know its what you can prove ,and he cant prove a dammed thing!!
perhaps you should read the rest of the thread. Section 59 does not seem to fit into this idea.

[Noble Ox]

Do you have to stop for him? I would of probably laughed, filled up, payed, and got on my way!


(But who knows untill you're actually in that situation)

[Lozzo]

Probably find yourself on the floor with your arm twisted up your back. Lots of pain and prospect of assault charges.

He'd have to be a good one to catch me like that without ending up tasting concrete first. If he was off duty and out of uniform he'd just be any other idiot having a go with the intention of hurting me, I'd regard any touching of me as an assault and I'd have the blokes face hard into the deck quicker than he could think - done it before, can easily do it again. It's nice to be properly trained in such things ;)

[Lozzo]

Do you have to stop for him? I would of probably laughed, filled up, payed, and got on my way!


(But who knows untill you're actually in that situation)

I'd have to get in his face first, it's my nature. Then I'd ignore him and carry on my business as if he didn't exist, unless he laid a hand on me or my bike - that's when things would change dramatically, and not for his good either.

[ophic]

It's nice to be properly trained in such things ;)
Indeed. Had I the capability it might well be Plan A. We can't all be marines :p

[Noble Ox]

Fair enough I suppose. I would be the same if I thought he were to lay a hand on me or my bike.

In this case I would of laughed, then told him to go home, put his uniform on, get to his police station, get in a cop car, turn on his blues and twos, pull me over and then I will listen. Then tell him to hurry, you have about 5 minutes untill I have fueled the bike, put my gear back on and started my engine!

Back to original q, can he detain/arrest me off duty?

[Lozzo]

Indeed. Had I the capability it might well be Plan A. We can't all be marines :p

Indeed not, but if someone the size of MBK can be trained in self defence and restraint then so can you. I learned the restraint part when I was teaching scrote teenagers (you can call them whatever the current pc term is, but they're just scrotes to me) and at that time I was 45 and a bit overweight for my height having 3 years previously had a mini-stroke. Anyone can learn.

[yorkie_chris]

Aren't the police taught all that humane restraint stuff?

I've seen some quite amusing ones in town where a doorman has thrown someone out all on his own and it then takes 5 coppers half an hour to get them into the van. Pretty sure they do it a lot easier when there's no CCTV.


In a case like that it's just applying all that aggression in the right way with surprise and in a way that looks half-plausibly self defence.

[Stu]

Back to original q, can he detain/arrest me off duty?
Out of uniform he can't make you stop your vehicle. Once you've stopped for him, well anyone can make a citizen's arrest if justified so He could at least do that. :p

[Lozzo]

Aren't the police taught all that humane restraint stuff?

I've seen some quite amusing ones in town where a doorman has thrown someone out all on his own and it then takes 5 coppers half an hour to get them into the van. Pretty sure they do it a lot easier when there's no CCTV.

Sure they are, but for every action there's a counter-action. Trouble with the Police's training is it's all geared around causing no damage to the suspect and just getting them down and stabilising them, inadvertantly breaking an arm because you're not being as restrained in your actions would mean a hell of a lot of paperwork and an enquiry of sorts, whereas when you don't GAF about who you're up against and there's no comeback of that sort, the sky's the limit... or in this case the concrete is

[ophic]

Indeed not, but if someone the size of MBK can be trained in self defence and restraint then so can you.
This much I know. Miss Ophic is knee high to a grasshopper and also happens to be 3rd Dan. I let her deal with the rough stuff :D

[flymo]

Out of uniform he can't make you stop your vehicle. Once you've stopped for him, well anyone can make a citizen's arrest if justified so He could at least do that. :p

I was reading the section 59 text and there's a part that seems unclear. It states that an officer must be in uniform to then have the power to order you to stop your vehicle or to seize said vehicle.

It doesnt state wether or not the officer needs to be in uniform or on duty to issue a warning. I think it does state that the warning must be a written warning but I may be wrong.

As I read it the OP was already stopped.

Totally unfair that you can effectively have a police officer have a s59 warning listed against you without any opportunity to challenge that. I know that a warning carries little weight and no punishment but it is still a blemish on a persons record and could influence an officer sitting on the fence over something in the future. Seems to me like an s59 warning issued as some sort of grudge is a form of defamation or libel.

[Telford_Tim]

Dont worry about it. If he were to prosecute you he would have had to tell you that you would be reported for an offence then caution you. Which I take it he didnt do.

What the other copper told you about the sec 59. Thats section 59 of the police reform act which does give an officer the grounds to seize your bike if you were riding without due care and attention but... he should warn you first which is best issued in writing and that warning will stand for 12 months. If he didnt warn you when he spoke to you the warning will not stand.

He sounds a bit daft, because he didnt know who you were and his kids were in the car. I bet the local officers were well pleased to come out to deal with this guys rant.

You said you were making progress :) he may have had cause to be a bit pi**ed off at your speed even if you did slow down for the cameras but I should put it behind you and dont stress ;)

[Seggons]

If he were to prosecute you he would have had to tell you that you would be reported for an offence then caution you. Which I take it he didnt do.

Something I forgot to mention. After he flashed me his police ID he did say, "Your not currently under arrest but I am going to caution you. <he starts with the caution>"

[yawny]

Something I forgot to mention. After he flashed me his police ID he did say, "Your not currently under arrest but I am going to caution you. <he starts with the caution>"

did he actually say he was going to report you????

If he didnt and you dont here anything in the two weeks( ie in the form of an NIP) from when it all happened then dont worry about it.

[Seggons]

It's all a bit confusing on what he actually said. He started off with the caution, then said I was going to loose my licence and that he has enough evidence to do it etc... Then the other officer says I have 2 options which are up to the off duty cop which he goes for when he's back in work.

When the police turned up that was the last I spoke to the off duty cop because he went off with the other police. At least on the stop and search yellow form thingy it has the important part written down, "Stopped By Off Duty Herts Officer Riding Dangerously".

Nothing as of yet, so far so good. :D

[yorkie_chris]

Well that'd be a start anyway, as he didn't stop you.

[Bibio]

i'm sorry but the plod has no evidence. if it even had a whiff of going to court any half brained breiff should get you off. no calibrated speedo, no video evidence, him going to fast in a private vehicle with children on board to try and catch you etc.etc.

so far so good for him. you have nothing to worry about m8.

sorry segg but when the officer pulled you in the petrol station you should have said 'what, who, when and where' wasn't me. when his collogues showed up i would have turned it around.

you will know better next time, wont you..............................

[Lozzo]

sorry segg but when the officer pulled you in the petrol station you should have said 'what, who, when and where' wasn't me.

Why waste words when a simple loud "F*CK OFF" right in his face will do

[Ch00]

Back to original q, can he detain/arrest me off duty?

Yes an off duty officer can detain and arrest in the the same way that they would if they were in uniform at work.

[Bibio]

yup you and me would both do that. but poor old Seggs has had a sheltered life...

[Red Herring]

Why waste words when a simple loud "F*CK OFF" right in his face will do

Why be rude and aggressive when you don't need to be. All the advice and comments on here about how you did well to stay calm and not rise to the bait are spot on, you acquitted yourself well and in the very very unlikely event that this copper is stupid enough to try and generate any process out of the events you have everything going in your favour.

If you had followed Lozzo's or any of the other keyboard warriors advice you would have got yourself nicked for sure, even if the original allegation was unfounded there would have been public order/assault charges.

As I said right at the beginning if you didn't like his behaviour you should/could have just walked/ridden away, but staying as you did will have done you no harm either.

[Bibio]

Why be rude and aggressive when you don't need to be. All the advice and comments on here about how you did well to stay calm and not rise to the bait are spot on, you acquitted yourself well and in the very very unlikely event that this copper is stupid enough to try and generate any process out of the events you have everything going in your favour.

If you had followed Lozzo's or any of the other keyboard warriors advice you would have got yourself nicked for sure, even if the original allegation was unfounded there would have been public order/assault charges.

As I said right at the beginning if you didn't like his behaviour you should/could have just walked/ridden away, but staying as you did will have done you no harm either.


i agree that police officers should not have to put up with violent behaviour, but when its the officer that is doing the intimidating then i think its justified that the intimidated get to do the same. now if an officer then arrests the person then that said officer is a complete hitler and deserves to be brought down a peg or two as he has obviously flaunted his authority. works both ways. like an officer going out for a pint and getting a punch in the face for slagging someone's missus off. that said officer then arrests assailant even though he caused the problem.

after all police officers are all public servants, its not the other way round.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Why be rude and aggressive when you don't need to be. All the advice and comments on here about how you did well to stay calm and not rise to the bait are spot on, you acquitted yourself well and in the very very unlikely event that this copper is stupid enough to try and generate any process out of the events you have everything going in your favour.

If you had followed Lozzo's or any of the other keyboard warriors advice you would have got yourself nicked for sure, even if the original allegation was unfounded there would have been public order/assault charges.

As I said right at the beginning if you didn't like his behaviour you should/could have just walked/ridden away, but staying as you did will have done you no harm either.


+1

At the end of the day, this guy has over reacted and would be a fool to take this any further. He probably now realises he over reacted and won't even bother doing anything about it.

[flymo]

Why be rude and aggressive when you don't need to be. All the advice and comments on here about how you did well to stay calm and not rise to the bait are spot on, you acquitted yourself well and in the very very unlikely event that this copper is stupid enough to try and generate any process out of the events you have everything going in your favour.

If you had followed Lozzo's or any of the other keyboard warriors advice you would have got yourself nicked for sure, even if the original allegation was unfounded there would have been public order/assault charges.

As I said right at the beginning if you didn't like his behaviour you should/could have just walked/ridden away, but staying as you did will have done you no harm either.

totally agree. good post.

[Red Herring]

I was about four years old when i learnt that two wrongs don't make a right!

The police officer can be the biggest tool in the world but that doesn't give you the right to smack him one, even if he does deserve it! The police regularly have to deal with public order incidents where some to55er has started something and been given a pasting, and it's the ones using their fists that end up getting nicked! There are ways of dealing with things properly, if you don't like the way the officer behaved then there is due recourse to be had.

[Dave20046]

When the police turned up that was the last I spoke to the off duty cop because he went off with the other police. At least on the stop and search yellow form thingy it has the important part written down, "Stopped By Off Duty Herts Officer Riding Dangerously".

Nothing as of yet, so far so good. :D

That would have ****ed me off, shouldn't it be 'suspicion of driving dangerously' or in 'copper's distorted opinion; driving dangerously' (assuming what you've wrote is right). Like has been said you'll be fine, watching roadwars etc. it appears depressingly hard to get the CPS to go with anything against genuine scummy nobheads. So one coppers opinion (which I guess will be weakened by whether the camera went off or not) vs. you ,you'd hope would be fine.

And can he actually search you just because of your riding? Would he not have to have reason to believe a further offence was being committed?

Bet he's not in traffic...

[Red Herring]

it's called a stop and search form because it can be used for people you have stopped, and people you have searched, you don't necessarily have to have done both to use it, although I conceed it's quite hard to search someone you haven't stopped, although technically they wouldn't have needed one on this occasion as it was road traffic related.

[Dave20046]

it's called a stop and search form because it can be used for people you have stopped, and people you have searched, you don't necessarily have to have done both to use it, although I conceed it's quite hard to search someone you haven't stopped!

Well I assumed he did the searching after colleagues turned up, but even so just wondered if thinking you were driving dangerously is reason enough to search someone. Would there not need to be evidence or reasonable suspicion he'd have something on him he shouldn't have?

[Milky Bar Kid]

Well I assumed he did the searching after colleagues turned up, but even so just wondered if thinking you were driving dangerously is reason enough to search someone. Would there not need to be evidence or reasonable suspicion he'd have something on him he shouldn't have?

Dave, he won't have been given the form for a search, he will have been given it because of being stopped!

[Bibio]

if you don't like the way the officer behaved then there is due recourse to be had.


baaaaahhhhaaaaaaaahahhaaaaaaaa. good one. try proving that in court and see how far someone from a council scheme gets on.

yes your honer the police officer was very intimidating towards me.. ooohhh do you have evidence of such an allegation? and because police officers deal with going to court on a regular occurrence they know all to well that such an allegation wouldn't have two legs to stand on.

i'm not trying to bash the police force in any way i actually have a liking for officers of the law as i would in no way do the job they have to do (you deal with scum all day). but there are the odd few who are just complete tozzers that abuse their position too often hence why there is a lot of animosity amongst the general public.

[Dave20046]

Dave, he won't have been given the form for a search, he will have been given it because of being stopped!

doh! sorry, with you now.
Thought it was the copper just clutching at straws/trying to break seggy's composure by dragging out the ordeal searching him.

[Biker Biggles]

Well I assumed he did the searching after colleagues turned up, but even so just wondered if thinking you were driving dangerously is reason enough to search someone. Would there not need to be evidence or reasonable suspicion he'd have something on him he shouldn't have?

I bet he thought the bulge in your underpants was nitrous kit and wanted a ahem closer look.:smt076:smt012

[Seggons]

As MBK said, no search was done it was just for being stopped. :)

[Red Herring]

baaaaahhhhaaaaaaaahahhaaaaaaaa. good one. try proving that in court and see how far someone from a council scheme gets on.

yes your honer the police officer was very intimidating towards me.. ooohhh do you have evidence of such an allegation? and because police officers deal with going to court on a regular occurrence they know all to well that such an allegation wouldn't have two legs to stand on.

i'm not trying to bash the police force in any way i actually have a liking for officers of the law as i would in no way do the job they have to do (you deal with scum all day). but there are the odd few who are just complete tozzers that abuse their position too often hence why there is a lot of animosity amongst the general public.

Actually I was referring to the police complaints procedure.

[Lozzo]

Why be rude and aggressive when you don't need to be.

Because it's probably the last thing he's expecting after approaching Seggs in such a rude and aggressive manner. It certainly lets the arrogant tw4t know he's not going to get an easy time of it so he may as well pack up and p1ss off.

I don't condone unnecessary violence upon anyone, not least coppers, but as far as I'm concerned when he's driving his own car with his wife and kids and he's out of uniform he's just another member of the public and gets treated as such. I'd only have him tasting concrete if, and it's a big if, he laid a hand on me or my bike while I was trying to leave. Up until then I can match his aggressiveness all I like as long as no contact or threat to harm is made

I don't dislike coppers, I dislike sh1tbag coppers who give the rest a bad name and make life hard for people without good reason. Let me put it this way, I've been like this since I was a kid, I've had plenty of run-ins with the law in my life, but apart from a few minor traffic offences I've still got a clean sheet. I don't get bullied by anyone, it works for me.

[the_runt69]

Sorry if this is a bit late, But if the person concerned accused you of speeding in his own car which is not calibrated and then confronted you in a petrol station and called the on duty officers for the afore said "crine" the off duty officer has no grounds to complain if you have not set off any speed camera's on the route concerned,
I would complai to his bosses

[Red Herring]

Because it's probably the last thing he's expecting after approaching Seggs in such a rude and aggressive manner.......

Actually no it probably isn't, he's expecting you to get all apologetic, or retaliate exactly as you are advocating. What he isn't expecting is you to remain calm and level headed, tell him to calm down and start acting professionally and that he has your number plate so if he wants to take it any further feel free to write to you. Goodbye.

[davepreston]

my responce would have been
first please step out of my personal space
now can i have
your name ,number, duty station, and duty inspectors number please
also would you mind before you continue if i just grab a few people to witness your threating behaviour to back up the cctv footage im going to request from the petrol station

my question to all the org plumbers what would your reaction be to the above

[lukemillar]

it's called a stop and search form because it can be used for people you have stopped, and people you have searched, you don't necessarily have to have done both to use it, although I conceed it's quite hard to search someone you haven't stopped, although technically they wouldn't have needed one on this occasion as it was road traffic related.

I don't get it- What were they searching for? Evidence for riding dangerously!? A motorbike with lack of chicken strips? :lol: I don't understand why the need for a search!?

EDIT: Just read MBK's post

[Dave20046]

my question to all the org plumbers what would your reaction be to the above
what as Seggons or as the officer?

it reads like an incident of road rage. you'd hope most wouldn't react like that!

[yawny]

my responce would have been
first please step out of my personal space
now can i have
your name ,number, duty station, and duty inspectors number please
also would you mind before you continue if i just grab a few people to witness your threating behaviour to back up the cctv footage im going to request from the petrol station

my question to all the org plumbers what would your reaction be to the above

i would like to think that most situations wouldnt need these questions answered because the officer at the time would be more professional than the one in this post..............

I think this thread is starting to get some silly comments though, to be honest.

There is a few cops on here, and i think we have all pretty much said that what this particular bobby did was wrong, and we wouldnt have done the same would we have been involved.

Ok so the cop was rude and aggresive. Yes...... he is out of order. But he identified himself as a police officer as he approached seggs. They didnt get into a heated argument and then he said "oh by the way im a cop".
Therefore seggs was aware he was a police officer and seems to have more common sense as to start assaulting the cop and face getting locked up himself.

I think everyone on here now knows the answer to the original question, which is yes.

Hes a police officer...........on duty or off..........he is not employed as a police officer, he is in the "office of constable". Therefore he is never off duty.

If he didnt identify himself and came over into to my personal space and acted like that, he would have ended up on his **** and id have locked him up myself for public order.......
......to me it would have just been another person who cant control their emotions whilst behind the wheel of a car who wanted to put their two pennies worth into the way i was driving/riding.

Yes he dealt with it poorly. If it bothered him that much maybe he just should have noted the reg and sent seggs an NIP.
Then it could have just been dealt with in court without the confrontation.

seggs.....good luck to you. i hope everything works out which im sure it will.
if your still not happy, make a complaint, even if just to make sure this particular officer doesnt act in this manner again.

[neio79]

my responce would have been
first please step out of my personal space
now can i have
your name ,number, duty station, and duty inspectors number please
also would you mind before you continue if i just grab a few people to witness your threating behaviour to back up the cctv footage im going to request from the petrol station

my question to all the org plumbers what would your reaction be to the above
Or to have once you knew he was an of duty copper, just calmley completlely ignored him carried on your business as if he was not there.

laughing your tits off as he slowely boiled his **** untill he snapped :lol:

[Luckypants]

<snip>Therefore seggs was aware he was a police officer and seems to have more common sense as to start assaulting the cop and face getting locked up himself....

<snip>

If he didnt identify himself and came over into to my personal space and acted like that, he would have ended up on his **** and id have locked him up myself for public order.......

So if a member of the public does this to you it's OK to assault them? But if an off-duty copper does it to you and you put him 'on his ****' you get locked up?

The one rule for us and one rule for them on show for all to see! And you guys wonder why there is so much scepticism about the integrity of the police? :rolleyes:

I know I come across as anti-police but I'm not. I am anti-double standard. All this 'trust us we are police officers' ******** don't wash with me as it gets found lacking time and time again. The police officers on here in general seem to be decent blokes and decent coppers, shame not every copper is like that.

[yorkie_chris]

I don't understand why there is an offence of "assaulting a police officer"

[Lozzo]

I don't understand why there is an offence of "assaulting a police officer"

Bygone from a past age when police officers were seemingly above the public. Recent changes have made this less so and they are recognised as being normal citizens who do a particularly difficult job (especially when I'm around).

I'm not sure why this offence is still there either. 'Assaulting a Police officer in the course of his duty' should be more to the case, because when they aren't in uniform or on duty I see them as just like me or thee.

The fact that Police officers are seemingly never off duty is cobblers. That's discretionary for them, because out of uniform they can just walk on by if it looks like too much hassle, or the donut shop is about to close

[yorkie_chris]

Run to a fire, walk to a fight and all that ;)

[yawny]

So if a member of the public does this to you it's OK to assault them? But if an off-duty copper does it to you and you put him 'on his ****' you get locked up?

The one rule for us and one rule for them on show for all to see! And you guys wonder why there is so much scepticism about the integrity of the police? :rolleyes:

I know I come across as anti-police but I'm not. I am anti-double standard. All this 'trust us we are police officers' ******** don't wash with me as it gets found lacking time and time again. The police officers on here in general seem to be decent blokes and decent coppers, shame not every copper is like that.

hang on a minute....where an earth do you get one rule for a one and one for another.

bearing in mind i have already said on a number of occations that i dont agree with what this officer did.......

The man identified himself as a police officer. Im saying as a member of the public or as a police officer(not like it matters) you have the right to defend yourself in law.
So if some one pulls into a petrol forecourt behind you, gets out of there car and starts screaming at you. This person then approaches you in a threatening manner and you dont know what is going to happen...what should you do?????

If i was in this situation and this happened to me and the person DIDNT identify themself, then i would consider that they were going to attack me and i would defend myself. Just as much as i would expect anybody else to do......

If once i had knocked this person onto his **** and when he got up he said "im a police man".............yes i would probably get arrested(for an investigation) but again it would be for me to prove that i acted in self defence and it was a pre-emptive strike.

Like Lozzo said earlier, he seems to have been in the military and i would imagine if this was the case and they DIDNT show any id prior to approching him and become aggresive.....instint would take over.
i have not been in the military but putting aside that im in the police and have had police training. i have also trained in many different martial arts throughout my life.........if i put the police training next to my other training i know which one i would instintively use.......

which again is perfectly leagal..............

[yorkie_chris]

but again it would be for me to prove that i acted in self defence and it was a pre-emptive strike.

...Or for the courts to prove that you didn't, you'd hope.


In my (limited) experience, if you hit the right nerves in statement then it won't go beyond station or CPS anyway as too much hassle.

[yawny]

The fact that Police officers are seemingly never off duty is cobblers. That's discretionary for them, because out of uniform they can just walk on by if it looks like too much hassle, or the donut shop is about to close[/QUOTE]

discretionary is the wrong word. As it isnt........we can not pick and choose when we get involved in something.

Again its all about justification. If i was to go to the supermarket on my day off and witness a couple of security officers struggling with say a shop lifter. if i decided to walk passed and ignore it on duty or not it could be considered a neglect of duty...........unless i could justify my actions........

[Lozzo]

.

If i was to go to the supermarket on my day off and witness a couple of security officers struggling with say a shop lifter. if i decided to walk passed and ignore it on duty or not it could be considered a neglect of duty...........unless i could justify my actions........

If it ever came to light that you were actually there and seen what was going on. Not wearing the uniform gives you the chance to sidle past, and I've witnessed known coppers doing just this when off duty.

[Luckypants]

hang on a minute....where an earth do you get one rule for a one and one for another.

From the way your post was written....

<snip>Therefore seggs was aware he was a police officer and seems to have more common sense as to start assaulting the cop and face getting locked up himself....

<snip>

If he didnt identify himself and came over into to my personal space and acted like that, he would have ended up on his **** and id have locked him up myself for public order.......

Which to me says it's ok for you to put joe public on his **** for such behaviour but not for Seggons to do it to an off-duty copper. You would then lock up said joe public for public order. If Seggons had done the putting on ****, off-duty copper would have locked up Seggons. Same reaction to same behaviour but very different outcomes, all because of who is the copper on either side of the altercation. A double standard to me.

At no point did I say you condoned this clown's actions, but your post revealed a difference in how these matters are handled based on being a copper or not. That is one rule for you and one for us :D

I know it is extremely annoying to have your integrity challenged and the post was not aimed directly at you, but rather at the laws and the procedures to enforce them that leads to the police being treated differently to non-police. It should be the same rule for all.

[Milky Bar Kid]

So if a member of the public does this to you it's OK to assault them? But if an off-duty copper does it to you and you put him 'on his ****' you get locked up?

The one rule for us and one rule for them on show for all to see! And you guys wonder why there is so much scepticism about the integrity of the police? :rolleyes:

I know I come across as anti-police but I'm not. I am anti-double standard. All this 'trust us we are police officers' ******** don't wash with me as it gets found lacking time and time again. The police officers on here in general seem to be decent blokes and decent coppers, shame not every copper is like that.

OI! I am not a bloke....! I am decent...not a bloke though....:smt012

I don't understand why there is an offence of "assaulting a police officer"

There is also an offence for assaulting any emergency worker.

Bygone from a past age when police officers were seemingly above the public. Recent changes have made this less so and they are recognised as being normal citizens who do a particularly difficult job (especially when I'm around).

I'm not sure why this offence is still there either. 'Assaulting a Police officer in the course of his duty' should be more to the case, because when they aren't in uniform or on duty I see them as just like me or thee.

The fact that Police officers are seemingly never off duty is cobblers. That's discretionary for them, because out of uniform they can just walk on by if it looks like too much hassle, or the donut shop is about to close

In Scotland, the law is that under S41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 you "did assault Constable See you Jimmy, Strathshug Constabulary, then in EXECUTION OF HIS LAWFUL DUTY..."

The in execution of their duty bit does not mean they have to be in uniform or "on duty" at the time but if they have identified themselves as Police officers whilst reacting to a situation then they are in execution of lawful duty.

Up here, it can work in another way too. For example, a few years ago I was struggling with a girl on my own, she was a fair bit bigger than me and I was struggling to get the better of her. I was in the middle of a supermarket and a shop assistant came over and I "instructed" (read asked him) to help, which he obligingly did. The girl booted him in the leg. We eventually got her restrained and stuff, but point of story is that she was charged with a police assault against the guy because he was acting on my instructions. I dunno if that works in England or not.

And the thing about us being off duty is not cobblers Lozzo. This has been argued many times on this forum and to be honest, I can't be bothered getting into it.

[yawny]

From the way your post was written....



Which to me says it's ok for you to put joe public on his **** for such behaviour but not for Seggons to do it to an off-duty copper. You would then lock up said joe public for public order. If Seggons had done the putting on ****, off-duty copper would have locked up Seggons. Same reaction to same behaviour but very different outcomes, all because of who is the copper on either side of the altercation. A double standard to me.

At no point did I say you condoned this clown's actions, but your post revealed a difference in how these matters are handled based on being a copper or not. That is one rule for you and one for us :D

I know it is extremely annoying to have your integrity challenged and the post was not aimed directly at you, but rather at the laws and the procedures to enforce them that leads to the police being treated differently to non-police. It should be the same rule for all.

nope nope nope.......thats not what im saying. im saying seggons would have just as much right as anybody. Remember i said if the officer didnt ID himself............you dont know hes a cop, how would you. To you hes just another knob with a problem. Which in turn gives you another defence as to defending yourself which i mentioned earlier.

I also said if the cop ID'd himself after he got put down.............well its too late then isnt it. you would have acted within the law........sure you would probably get locked up, just the same as i would but thats not the point. Hes out of uniform and should therefore identify himself.

This is all getting a bit out of hand.....but i hope that clarifies what i mean.

[Bibio]

so just because someone has a warrant card that entitles them to be a plonker when ever they want.... now i'm known for being a complete plonker, so where do i get a warrant card.

deal with scum all day and eventually it rubs off.

[simesb]

so just because someone has a warrant card that entitles them to be a plonker when ever they want.... now i'm known for being a complete plonker, so where do i get a warrant card.

eBay if you want to go to jail (http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/1.203694) (nearly)

[Red Herring]

so just because someone has a warrant card that entitles them to be a plonker when ever they want.... now i'm known for being a complete plonker, so where do i get a warrant card.

deal with scum all day and eventually it rubs off.

It's not whenever you want, generally you need a member of the public to set you off....

Perhaps if people were nice and polite to officers that would rub off to?

[Amplimator]

It's not whenever you want, generally you need a member of the public just going about their everyday business to bump into any copper having a bad day to be screwed over.

Perhaps if people just bow-down and beg we would just wipe our feet on you rather than issue some silly sect 59 for doing absolutely nothing wrong. (which is what really annoys us most coz then we look stoopid)

corrected for ya RH :rolleyes:

[yorkie_chris]

It's not whenever you want, generally you need a member of the public to set you off....

Perhaps if people were nice and polite to officers that would rub off to?

I can see where you're coming from for 99% of coppers, but knowing seggons, he is about the politest and least confrontational bloke you could meet.

I fully believe him when he says this w*nker started hassling and whinging at him with no provocation.

[Luckypants]

nope nope nope.......thats not what im saying. im saying seggons would have just as much right as anybody. Remember i said if the officer didnt ID himself............you dont know hes a cop, how would you. To you hes just another knob with a problem. Which in turn gives you another defence as to defending yourself which i mentioned earlier.

I also said if the cop ID'd himself after he got put down.............well its too late then isnt it. you would have acted within the law........sure you would probably get locked up, just the same as i would but thats not the point. Hes out of uniform and should therefore identify himself.

This is all getting a bit out of hand.....but i hope that clarifies what i mean.

OK fair enough if that's what you meant, just that was not how it read to me. It is difficult to make your point on a forum as what you type is never read exactly as you meant it. Just check the bits highlighted above... :rolleyes:

[Luckypants]

Perhaps if people were nice and polite to officers that would rub off to?

Perhaps if the police were nice and polite to the public they might get the same back? Works both ways you know. ;) I'm sure you are trained to 'be assertive' and to 'take control' when you stop folks, but often that comes over as rudeness and arrogance to joe public who doesn't believe/know they have done anything wrong. The vast majority of people are law abiding and have no idea why they are stopped.

I can see where you're coming from for 99% of coppers, but knowing seggons, he is about the politest and least confrontational bloke you could meet.

I fully believe him when he says this w*nker started hassling and whinging at him with no provocation.

Same here, Seggons is a very nice young man and a member of the law abiding majority. He would be very polite if you stopped him. :D

[grh1904]

Why waste words when a simple loud "F*CK OFF" right in his face will do


Seeing as how you've replied with comments re Section 5 Public Order Act, perhaps you'd like to reply informing everyone what offence you've just committed here.

yes, this off duty chap has over reacted, sounds like a round door handle, etc etc etc (as has been said many times before) but if you (or any one else for that matter) did this you've now elevated it to a Public Order Offence and just given this breast the ammunition he needs to arrest you.

[grh1904]

Back to original q, can he detain/arrest me off duty?


In a word yes, providing he has properly identified himself as a Police officer.

Others have put on here some rubbish about being out of his jurisdiction etc, if he's from an English or Welsh force, has his warrant card on him, shows it & properly ID's self then he can do this anywhere in England or Wales.

[Noble Ox]

Oh. Well that's good to know, as I wouldnt of taken him seriosuly unless in his outfit and squad car!