"POLITE" High Viz debate R4 Now

[Melonfish]

this argument is pretty moot imo.
has anyone read section 90 of the police act?

(1)Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(2)Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3)Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
(4)In this section—
(a)“article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document,
[F1(aa)“member of a police force” includes a member of the British Transport Police Force,] and
(b)“special constable” means a special constable appointed for a police area.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/90

Seems pretty clear cut, to my eyes the law is clear that these "polite" vests are not lawful
pete

 

[MontyVeda]

does that mean an end to kissagrams?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

does that mean an end to kissagrams?

Ooh, I say...

Back on topic, no. This guy even carried a baton and wasn't convicted. (He was convicted two years later when he fitted flashing blue lights to his car and started pulling people over.)

GC

 

[siadwell]

Exactly. Will the officer who's warning horseriders also write to the many vehicle recovery companies using similar battenburg livery to that of the police, or the highways agencies? I think not.

GC

From wikipedia:
In the United Kingdom, the emergency services have chosen or been given certain colours which identify them, with the police continuing to use the blue, whereas UK ambulances tend to use green and the fire service use red.
The use of these colours in retro-reflective material is controlled by the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, with vehicles only legally allowed the use of yellow retro-reflective material,[4] although the emergency services operate under temporary special orders under section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to use their own colours, with moves currently underway to formalise this in legislation and extend the use of other colours to civilian operators.[5] However, a number of civilian organisations have adopted the pattern, which is not legally protected, and a number of these also use other retro-reflective colours.
An alternative to the use of retro-reflective materials is the use of fluorescent markings, or other non-reflective markings, which at least in the United Kingdom can be used by any vehicle, regardless of ownership or purpose.

 

[MontyVeda]

Ooh, I say...

Back on topic

...

I was on topic.

 

[glenn forger]

Ooh, I say...

Back on topic, no. This guy even carried a baton and wasn't convicted. (He was convicted two years later when he fitted flashing blue lights to his car and started pulling people over.)

GC

Private Eye had a story about a gentleman who was one of Sir Robin B'Stard's plastic policemen in Newham. Basically a parky. He nicked the uniform when he got sacked and carried out drug searches at tube stations with his sniffer dog, a Yorkshire Terrier.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I was on topic.

It was I who was about to veer off topic at the sight of that young minx lady...


GC

 

[classic33]

this argument is pretty moot imo.
has anyone read section 90 of the police act?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/90

Seems pretty clear cut, to my eyes the law is clear that these "polite" vests are not lawful
pete

Where does it say that? It clearly states "Police" but not polite.

 

[Vikeonabike]

Where does it say that? It clearly states "Police" but not polite.

I think he is refering to Part 1. Proving the "Mens Rea" in this case would be near impossible. Even if an officer did arrest (highly unlikely) under this act because of someone wearing a "POLITE" vest, getting past the custody Sgt is even less likely and getting a prosecution would be just about impossible. The Act is not written to stop people from wearing fancy dress or staying safe on the road, it is for those criminals who use the disguise of being a Police officer to commit criminal acts. It wouldn't be in the public interest to charge someone for wearing a POLITE vest in this case!

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I think he is refering to Part 1. Proving the "Mens Rea" in this case would be near impossible. Even if an officer did arrest (highly unlikely) under this act because of someone wearing a "POLITE" vest, getting past the custody Sgt is even less likely and getting a prosecution would be just about impossible. The Act is not written to stop people from wearing fancy dress or staying safe on the road, it is for those criminals who use the disguise of being a Police officer to commit criminal acts. It wouldn't be in the public interest to charge someone for wearing a POLITE vest in this case!

Indeed, and if the effect of wearing something police-like is that other people behave more within the law, then they are providing valuable civilian service.

 

[Melonfish]

Where does it say that? It clearly states "Police" but not polite.

"“article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document,"

this means the battenburg cheque marks that are used are counted. as for the word "Polite", well:
"Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive"
It is calculated to deceive any way you cut it, the wording makes people think you're an officer and forces them to adjust their poor driving standard to the one they should use passing you.
as i say, very clear cut.
this is going through atm, they'll alter this act and i guarantee make it concrete.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

as i say, very clear cut.

If it's as clear cut as you claim, why are two senior officer within ACPO giving out conflicting advice? Why aren't we hearing about people being arrested/charged let alone convicted of this offence?

...this is going through atm, they'll alter this act and i guarantee make it concrete.

Again, why "make it concrete" if it's already "very clear cut"?

Finally, I refer you to Vikeonabike's post above regarding mens rea, that's always going to be the biggest hurdle in a potential hi-vis prosecution.

GC

 

[Brandane]

There is a very real danger that in wearing one of these kid-on Police hi-viz vests you will make yourself a target for the growing number of disgruntled Police haters on the road. That is quite apart from the fact that you will look like a complete todger for trying to be something you are not. I was one of the genuine article for 19 years, and I would NOT wear one of those even if you paid me a lot of money. The only people you might impress are little old ladies on their way to Sainsburys. Wear one at your peril.

 

[Melonfish]

If it's as clear cut as you claim, why are two senior officer within ACPO giving out conflicting advice? Why aren't we hearing about people being arrested/charged let alone convicted of this offence?



Again, why "make it concrete" if it's already "very clear cut"?

Finally, I refer you to Vikeonabike's post above regarding mens rea, that's always going to be the biggest hurdle in a potential hi-vis prosecution.

GC

well yeah its pretty clear cut from the wording, and the wording is what your local bobby has to go off, its not up to them to interprete law they simply uphold it, the wording will prolly be changed soon as there are lots of arguments back and forth.
i just said in my opinion. if its not too clear in your own then feel free to wear one and test it against a bobby on the street. is it worth the hassle?
as for what vike says i agree it probably wouldn't get past the desk sergeant but there may be instances of it going that far.

 

[DualFuel]

Perhaps this debate really demonstrates the poor awareness and observation skills of a lot of road users..... Which is why people use high viz. in the first place!....