Cars seized. Why ?

[Jethro_uk]

Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.

Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

Four cars have been seized by police as part of an operation to stop male
drivers catcalling female joggers in Bradford.

The JogOn initiative, which includes the city council, West Yorkshire
Police and other bodies, has also seen five fines handed out as well as a
host of traffic offence reports.

The scheme, which includes undercover female police officers posing as
runners, has also provided active bystander training to 600 people.

Ch Insp Beth Pagnillo said: “I hope that by calling out this behaviour it
shows that we are taking the issue seriously and makes men think twice
about making these types of comments.”

JogOn was launched in March following a national survey by Runner’s World
magazine which found that 60% of female runners experienced some form of
harassment, particularly from men in cars.

The BBC has previously reported on how female university students as well
as joggers in the city said they had been victims of regular whistling,
name-calling and abuse as they made their way around.

The council said the initiative had run six operations since march to
catch men engaged in catcalling.

A spokesperson said: "It is clear from officers talking to offenders,
that many think shouting out of vehicles and pipping horns is not
harassment.

"In fact, one of the males who was stopped even stated he was
'encouraging the females to run'."

The two-hour active bystander training programme aims to "empower people
to actively intervene when they witness an incident".

The council said it provided practical skills to intervene, support and
respond to potentially harmful situations.

Female police officer with blond hair and wearing a dark jacket stares at
the camera

Ch Insp Pagnillo, who herself had received abuse while out exercising,
said such behaviour was "totally unacceptable".

She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

Kamran Hussain, the councillor in charge of public safety in Bradford,
said: “It is clear from these updates that JogOn is a successful and much-
needed initiative to challenge the culture of misogyny and harmful
behaviours.

"No-one should feel unsafe to go out running, jogging or simply walking
down the street."

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

I'm not sure why you call the reporting "piss poor". It seems ok.

You pose a good question though. The answer appears to be that the
Police Reform Act 2002 s59 gives constables in uniform the power
to seize vehicles if they believe they are being driven carelessly
or inconsiderately (as defined by the Road Traffic Act 1988 s3,
which requires "reasonable consideration for other persons using
the road") if this causes, or is likely to cause, "alarm, distress
or annoyance to members of the public".

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3

There is also another aspect to the whole campaign, which is that
Bradford specifically has a "Public Space Protection Order", made
under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, that
prohibits (amongst other things) "shouting or swearing at, or
abusing, threatening or otherwise intimidating (including by the
use of sexual language or making sexual suggestions) another
person".

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

I'm not sure why you call the reporting "piss poor". It seems ok.
You pose a good question though. The answer appears to be that the
Police Reform Act 2002 s59 gives constables in uniform the power
to seize vehicles if they believe they are being driven carelessly
or inconsiderately (as defined by the Road Traffic Act 1988 s3,
which requires "reasonable consideration for other persons using
the road") if this causes, or is likely to cause, "alarm, distress
or annoyance to members of the public".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3
There is also another aspect to the whole campaign, which is that
Bradford specifically has a "Public Space Protection Order", made
under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, that
prohibits (amongst other things) "shouting or swearing at, or
abusing, threatening or otherwise intimidating (including by the
use of sexual language or making sexual suggestions) another
person".

Oops, I forgot to include the link for that last bit:

https://www.saferbradford.co.uk/media/ovdis2vn/pspo-order-28-06-2022-sealed.pdf

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

I'm not sure why you call the reporting "piss poor". It seems ok.
You pose a good question though.

The point being surely, that if the reporting hadn't indeed been
"piss poor", it wouldn't have left the reader still asking themselves
questions,

As could possibly have been answered in just a short paragraph;
for the benefit of othere readers who didn't have access to
knoweldgeable experts on a legal newsgroup

bb

Post by Jon Ribbens
The answer appears to be that the
Police Reform Act 2002 s59 gives constables in uniform the power
to seize vehicles if they believe they are being driven carelessly
or inconsiderately (as defined by the Road Traffic Act 1988 s3,
which requires "reasonable consideration for other persons using
the road") if this causes, or is likely to cause, "alarm, distress
or annoyance to members of the public".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3
There is also another aspect to the whole campaign, which is that
Bradford specifically has a "Public Space Protection Order", made
under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, that
prohibits (amongst other things) "shouting or swearing at, or
abusing, threatening or otherwise intimidating (including by the
use of sexual language or making sexual suggestions) another
person".

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

I'm not sure why you call the reporting "piss poor". It seems ok.
You pose a good question though.

The point being surely, that if the reporting hadn't indeed been
"piss poor", it wouldn't have left the reader still asking themselves
questions,
As could possibly have been answered in just a short paragraph;
for the benefit of othere readers who didn't have access to
knoweldgeable experts on a legal newsgroup

I entirely I agree and I would prefer it if news outlets as standard
quoted the source of law in articles mentioning that someone has been
prosecuted for something or that someone is claiming something to be
illegal, so people could look up the actual details for themselves.

But the fact is news outlets almost never do this. This story here is
reported in mutliple different outlets, and I don't think any of them
disclosed the details that I had to dig for to make my response here.

Singling out this as being "piss poor reporting" from the BBC when it's
actually completely standard reporting seems a bit unfair - and frankly
counterproductive when there's plenty of other BBC reporting which is
far more deserving of criticism.

[Pancho]

Post by Jon Ribbens
Singling out this as being "piss poor reporting" from the BBC when it's
actually completely standard reporting seems a bit unfair - and frankly
counterproductive when there's plenty of other BBC reporting which is
far more deserving of criticism.

To be fair "Usual piss poor reporting".

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Pancho

Post by Jon Ribbens
Singling out this as being "piss poor reporting" from the BBC when it's
actually completely standard reporting seems a bit unfair - and frankly
counterproductive when there's plenty of other BBC reporting which is
far more deserving of criticism.

To be fair "Usual piss poor reporting".

That's kind've my point though, the reporting in this particular article
was "average", and the BBC's reporting is generally good, so saying
"usual piss poor reporting" in reference to this article is unfair
whichever way you interpret it. It's better to reserve that sort of
characterisation for those occasions when the BBC's reporting actually
*is* "piss poor".

[Colin Bignell]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

I'm not sure why you call the reporting "piss poor". It seems ok.
You pose a good question though.

The point being surely, that if the reporting hadn't indeed been
"piss poor", it wouldn't have left the reader still asking themselves
questions,
As could possibly have been answered in just a short paragraph;
for the benefit of othere readers who didn't have access to
knoweldgeable experts on a legal newsgroup

....


It may have been an intentional omission in the press release, to give
the impression that anybody participating in this behaviour is likely to
have their car seized.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

I'm not sure why you call the reporting "piss poor". It seems ok.
You pose a good question though.

The point being surely, that if the reporting hadn't indeed been
"piss poor", it wouldn't have left the reader still asking themselves
questions,
As could possibly have been answered in just a short paragraph;
for the benefit of othere readers who didn't have access to
knoweldgeable experts on a legal newsgroup

....
It may have been an intentional omission in the press release, to give the impression
that anybody participating in this behaviour is likely to have their car seized.

Indeed.

But it's surely questionable whether it really is in the remit of a self
professed international news organisation to simply regurgitate feel-good
stories issued by police public relations departments* - and possibly
already fleshed out, simply in order to help them combat ant-social
behaviour.

As a news organisation rather than simply PR mouthpieces, however well
intentioned their job should be to "add value" to stories, to set
them in context, to explain.things themselves

In this case maybe in a sidebar "As our Legal Correspondent
Whoever They-Are explains, people can have their car seized for a number
of reasons.bah bah bah. They are then sent a letter and have 21 days
to recover their car paying a fee of £150 (or something) and £12 a day
bah bah or something. A 5 minute phone call to someone working
from home maybe.

Basically they're already getting this stuff for nothing. If they're
not going to "add any value", then what are we paying a Licence Fee
for ?

Fair enough, the BBC is stretched so its needs to screen lots of
repeats.

So again fair enough.

Here are the programme listings for last Sunday. As reproduced
on most EPG's

< https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl6p/2024/10/13

22.30 The Lady in The Van

The true story of Miss Shepherd, who lived in van in Alan
Bennett's Drive (R)

That's it. That's all you get.

So is it a documentary, a discussion programme, what ?,

When in Fact The "Lady in The Van" is a 2015 Film Directed by
Nicolas Hytner starring Maggie Smith and Alex Jennings based
on a fictionalised account which appeared first as an article,
a play. then a radio play, and then finally a short book by
indeed, Alan Bennett.

Maggie Smith being the self same National Treasure who died
only the other week. But it appears some people only become National
Treasures when they die; before that they don't even rate a
mention in programme listings.

Treating viewers like children who are only ever interested in the
"story".

I used to be a whole hearted supporter of the BBC. Of late I find myself
sadly drawn to the ranks of the mainly knuckling-dragging, dribbling
retards, who criticise the BBC if only out of resentment at having to pay
the Licence Fee.


bb

* In a modern complex society for any number of reasons its almost impossible
for the police to actually catch as many criminals as the press/ public demand.
The best they manage are PR efforts to try convince the press/public
otherwise. Plus as suggested before making their presence felt with the
copious use of police tape, cordoning places off etc.

[Jethro_uk]

Basically they're already getting this stuff for nothing. If they're not
going to "add any value", then what are we paying a Licence Fee for ?

That's in addition to their editorial choices of "news".

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jethro_uk

Basically they're already getting this stuff for nothing. If they're not
going to "add any value", then what are we paying a Licence Fee for ?

That's in addition to their editorial choices of "news".

Their website is a first port of call for catch-up news as was Ceefax or
Teletext in the past............

Their main web news story a few weeks back, was their ongoing *probe*
into the former head of Abercrombie and Fitch (who they;) apparently
a US men's store. Some 75 year old with lots of plastic surgery and a
very good wig who'd apparently been up to no good. Or something

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9l9dlgpmno

Possibly publicising an upcoming "Panorama"..

But of what possible interest this "probe" has to UK Licence Fee payers,
I fail to see. ..

Basically they've gone all to pot.

"Sky Arts" on freeview now do far better coverage of the *visual arts* than
do the BBC; with all their channels, and their massive archive.

Pop music in case they hadn't noticed is an "aural" medium*. There really is no
justification for filling up a whole channel BBC4 for a whole evening, Friday for
years now, with endless repeats of "Top of the Pops".

Filler !

What are they spending the Licence Fee on ?

Around 50% of the money spent, and actual air-time on "Match of the Day" is on
three or four blokes not forgetting the odd token laydee
- sat around * talking about football*

Filler !

What are they spending the Licence Fee on ?

Sorry, you were saying ?



bb

[Colin Bignell]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

I'm not sure why you call the reporting "piss poor". It seems ok.
You pose a good question though.

The point being surely, that if the reporting hadn't indeed been
"piss poor", it wouldn't have left the reader still asking themselves
questions,
As could possibly have been answered in just a short paragraph;
for the benefit of othere readers who didn't have access to
knoweldgeable experts on a legal newsgroup

....
It may have been an intentional omission in the press release, to give the impression
that anybody participating in this behaviour is likely to have their car seized.

Indeed.
But it's surely questionable whether it really is in the remit of a self
professed international news organisation to simply regurgitate feel-good
stories issued by police public relations departments* - and possibly
already fleshed out, simply in order to help them combat ant-social
behaviour.

Press releases are the bread and butter of the media. They enable them
to report on a much wider range of items than they would otherwise have
the time, resources or money to do.

Post by billy bookcase
As a news organisation rather than simply PR mouthpieces, however well
intentioned their job should be to "add value" to stories, to set
them in context, to explain.things themselves
In this case maybe in a sidebar "As our Legal Correspondent
Whoever They-Are explains, people can have their car seized for a number
of reasons.bah bah bah. They are then sent a letter and have 21 days
to recover their car paying a fee of Ł150 (or something) and Ł12 a day
bah bah or something. A 5 minute phone call to someone working
from home maybe.

You seem to be under the impression that reporters are expert in a large
enough number of fields to be able to know when additional information
might be needed for any story that might run. IME, they have to be hand
fed with information, as they sometimes don't even know what questions
they need to ask. Even then, what gets to print is likely to be wrong.

Post by billy bookcase
Basically they're already getting this stuff for nothing. If they're
not going to "add any value", then what are we paying a Licence Fee
for ?

The licence fee is to watch any terrestrial channel plus BBC iPlayer.
While the BBC gets the money, you are paying to watch ITV, Channel 4 and
Channel 5 as well....

[Max Demian]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by billy bookcase
But it's surely questionable whether it really is in the remit of a self
professed international news organisation to simply regurgitate feel-good
stories issued by police public relations departments* - and possibly
already  fleshed out, simply in order to help them combat ant-social
behaviour.

Press releases are the bread and butter of the media. They enable them
to report on a much wider range of items than they would otherwise have
the time, resources or money to do.

If they don't check the facts of the PR, and counter any biases present,
it's not news, it's advertising.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Max Demian

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

If they don't check the facts of the PR, and counter any biases present,

For the BBC that means having an astrologer on when the science lads are
talking about eclipses, or anti vaxxers when discussing medicine.

"Balance" at it's best.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

I'm not sure why you call the reporting "piss poor". It seems ok.
You pose a good question though.

The point being surely, that if the reporting hadn't indeed been
"piss poor", it wouldn't have left the reader still asking themselves
questions,
As could possibly have been answered in just a short paragraph;
for the benefit of othere readers who didn't have access to
knoweldgeable experts on a legal newsgroup

....
It may have been an intentional omission in the press release, to give the impression
that anybody participating in this behaviour is likely to have their car seized.

Indeed.
But it's surely questionable whether it really is in the remit of a self
professed international news organisation to simply regurgitate feel-good
stories issued by police public relations departments* - and possibly
already fleshed out, simply in order to help them combat ant-social
behaviour.

Press releases are the bread and butter of the media. They enable them to report on a
much wider range of items than they would otherwise have the time, resources or money
to do.

Post by billy bookcase
As a news organisation rather than simply PR mouthpieces, however well
intentioned their job should be to "add value" to stories, to set
them in context, to explain.things themselves
In this case maybe in a sidebar "As our Legal Correspondent
Whoever They-Are explains, people can have their car seized for a number
of reasons.bah bah bah. They are then sent a letter and have 21 days
to recover their car paying a fee of L150 (or something) and L12 a day
bah bah or something. A 5 minute phone call to someone working
from home maybe.

You seem to be under the impression that reporters are expert in a large enough number
of fields to be able to know when additional information might be needed for any story
that might run. IME, they have to be hand fed with information, as they sometimes don't
even know what questions they need to ask. Even then, what gets to print is likely to
be wrong.

I'm under no such impression as the function you are describing is that
of *editors*. And editors will be familiar with *editorial policy". So if
a story comes in which might have a legal slant they can then use their
*editorial judgement* as to whether or not to consult a legal
correspondent for further background.

Why else would the BBC employ one or more legal correspondents ?

This is quite clearly and solely a matter of *editoirial policy* and has nothing
whatsoever to do with constraints which may or not operate on reporters
in the field.

Post by billy bookcase
Basically they're already getting this stuff for nothing. If they're
not going to "add any value", then what are we paying a Licence Fee
for ?

The licence fee is to watch any terrestrial channel plus BBC iPlayer. While the BBC
gets the money, you are paying to watch ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 as well....

I hardly watch any of those. The BBC had a choice. They could either invest
in making quality programmes for transmission on one or two channels
or make rubbish programmes for transmission on multiple platforms
with no increase in the Licence Free.

Quite why I should be required to subsidise spoonfed iPlayer freeloaders
has never been satisfactorily explained.


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o

I'm not sure why you call the reporting "piss poor". It seems ok.
You pose a good question though.

The point being surely, that if the reporting hadn't indeed been
"piss poor", it wouldn't have left the reader still asking themselves
questions,
As could possibly have been answered in just a short paragraph;
for the benefit of othere readers who didn't have access to
knoweldgeable experts on a legal newsgroup

....
It may have been an intentional omission in the press release, to give the impression
that anybody participating in this behaviour is likely to have their car seized.

Indeed.
But it's surely questionable whether it really is in the remit of a self
professed international news organisation to simply regurgitate feel-good
stories issued by police public relations departments* - and possibly
already fleshed out, simply in order to help them combat ant-social
behaviour.

Press releases are the bread and butter of the media. They enable them to report on a
much wider range of items than they would otherwise have the time, resources or money
to do.

Post by billy bookcase
As a news organisation rather than simply PR mouthpieces, however well
intentioned their job should be to "add value" to stories, to set
them in context, to explain.things themselves
In this case maybe in a sidebar "As our Legal Correspondent
Whoever They-Are explains, people can have their car seized for a number
of reasons.bah bah bah. They are then sent a letter and have 21 days
to recover their car paying a fee of L150 (or something) and L12 a day
bah bah or something. A 5 minute phone call to someone working
from home maybe.

You seem to be under the impression that reporters are expert in a large enough number
of fields to be able to know when additional information might be needed for any story
that might run. IME, they have to be hand fed with information, as they sometimes don't
even know what questions they need to ask. Even then, what gets to print is likely to
be wrong.

I'm under no such impression as the function you are describing is that
of *editors*. And editors will be familiar with *editorial policy". So if
a story comes in which might have a legal slant they can then use their
*editorial judgement* as to whether or not to consult a legal
correspondent for further background.
Why else would the BBC employ one or more legal correspondents ?
This is quite clearly and solely a matter of *editoirial policy* and has nothing
whatsoever to do with constraints which may or not operate on reporters
in the field.

Post by billy bookcase
Basically they're already getting this stuff for nothing. If they're
not going to "add any value", then what are we paying a Licence Fee
for ?

The licence fee is to watch any terrestrial channel plus BBC iPlayer. While the BBC
gets the money, you are paying to watch ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 as well....

I hardly watch any of those. The BBC had a choice. They could either invest
in making quality programmes for transmission on one or two channels
or make rubbish programmes for transmission on multiple platforms
with no increase in the Licence Free.
Quite why I should be required to subsidise spoonfed iPlayer freeloaders
has never been satisfactorily explained.

A BBC Tax receipt is required for any household where someone wants to
use iPlayer.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase
Quite why I should be required to subsidise spoonfed iPlayer freeloaders
has never been satisfactorily explained.

A BBC Tax receipt is required for any household where someone wants to use iPlayer.

Previously the single TV Licence covered both radio and TV with probably a maximum
of 3 TV's per household.

Now it covers not only the 3 TV's but BBC iPlayer accounts for computers, tablets,
and other mobile devices used outside the home.

Why should the user of a single TV be required to subsidise spoon feed freeloaders
who demand the capability of being able to watch BBC TV programmes just anywhere
they please, programmes they forgot to watch or record at the time - poor diddums!
while the actual Licence payers are sat watching the other three TV's at home ?

Potentially five or six, leeching off of the one Licence Fee

It's maybe no wonder so much of BBC output is just repeats.

Only not repeats of stuff you'd actually want to watch - those "Plays For Today"
which they can't even be bothered to issue on DVD. And how do I know about
them ? Cos I've got off-air VHS copies of many of them, of variable quality
but without the requisite subtitles


bb.

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
Quite why I should be required to subsidise spoonfed iPlayer freeloaders
has never been satisfactorily explained.

A BBC Tax receipt is required for any household where someone wants to use iPlayer.

Previously the single TV Licence covered both radio and TV with probably a maximum
of 3 TV's per household.

There has never been a stated maximum number of television sets per
licensed household.

From where did you get that idea?

Admittedly, there was a time when the sheer bulk of TV sets made any
significant number impracticable within a single household.

Post by billy bookcase
Now it covers not only the 3 TV's but BBC iPlayer accounts for computers, tablets,
and other mobile devices used outside the home.
Why should the user of a single TV be required to subsidise spoon feed freeloaders
who demand the capability of being able to watch BBC TV programmes just anywhere
they please, programmes they forgot to watch or record at the time - poor diddums!
while the actual Licence payers are sat watching the other three TV's at home ?

I have to assume that the underlying reason is that the BBC (which is
the sole enforcement authority in this context) deems to allow it. I
expect the Beeb doesn't see any winnable point in trying to enforce a
BBC Tax payment for every iPad.

Post by billy bookcase
Potentially five or six, leeching off of the one Licence Fee
It's maybe no wonder so much of BBC output is just repeats.
Only not repeats of stuff you'd actually want to watch - those "Plays For Today"
which they can't even be bothered to issue on DVD. And how do I know about
them ? Cos I've got off-air VHS copies of many of them, of variable quality
but without the requisite subtitles

There's a fair amount of Play for Today on YouTube.

I recently managed to obtain a commercial DVD containing the mid-1970s
film (not really a "play") called "Bag Of Yeast".

I hadn't seen it since about 1975 or 1976 (on the first and only TX as
far as I know). What an array of star actors: Neville Smith (also the
writer), Gladys Ambrose, Peter Kerrigan, Bill Dean, Alison Steadman.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by JNugent

[quoted text muted]

There has never been a stated maximum number of television sets per
licensed household.
From where did you get that idea?
Admittedly, there was a time when the sheer bulk of TV sets made any
significant number impracticable within a single household.

I am reminded that - despite there being no legal limit to personal
imports of tobacco and alcohol, HMRC decided to invent and enforce it's
own reality. Even in the face of repeated court cases it lost in the ECJ
- the UK just ignore them. (Something which for reasons, I cannot fathom
is never cited as an example of UK sovereignty ....)

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent

[quoted text muted]

There has never been a stated maximum number of television sets per
licensed household.
From where did you get that idea?
Admittedly, there was a time when the sheer bulk of TV sets made any
significant number impracticable within a single household.

I am reminded that - despite there being no legal limit to personal
imports of tobacco and alcohol, HMRC decided to invent and enforce it's
own reality. Even in the face of repeated court cases it lost in the ECJ
- the UK just ignore them. (Something which for reasons, I cannot fathom
is never cited as an example of UK sovereignty ....)

IIRC, the justification was that HMRC simply refused to believe that so
much tobacco and alcohol could possibly be for your own personal
consumption (a requirement for duty-free importation).

[Roger Hayter]

On 17 Oct 2024 at 16:16:55 BST, "Ian Jackson"

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent

[quoted text muted]

There has never been a stated maximum number of television sets per
licensed household.
From where did you get that idea?
Admittedly, there was a time when the sheer bulk of TV sets made any
significant number impracticable within a single household.

I am reminded that - despite there being no legal limit to personal
imports of tobacco and alcohol, HMRC decided to invent and enforce it's
own reality. Even in the face of repeated court cases it lost in the ECJ
- the UK just ignore them. (Something which for reasons, I cannot fathom
is never cited as an example of UK sovereignty ....)

IIRC, the justification was that HMRC simply refused to believe that so
much tobacco and alcohol could possibly be for your own personal
consumption (a requirement for duty-free importation).

I think you mean they refused to *accept* it; they had no reason to disbelieve
it. The amount they set as a limit was well below what one family might get
through in six months or a year.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roger Hayter
On 17 Oct 2024 at 16:16:55 BST, "Ian Jackson"

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent

[quoted text muted]

There has never been a stated maximum number of television sets per
licensed household.
From where did you get that idea?
Admittedly, there was a time when the sheer bulk of TV sets made any
significant number impracticable within a single household.

I am reminded that - despite there being no legal limit to personal
imports of tobacco and alcohol, HMRC decided to invent and enforce
it's own reality. Even in the face of repeated court cases it lost in
the ECJ - the UK just ignore them. (Something which for reasons, I
cannot fathom is never cited as an example of UK sovereignty ....)

IIRC, the justification was that HMRC simply refused to believe that so
much tobacco and alcohol could possibly be for your own personal
consumption (a requirement for duty-free importation).

I think you mean they refused to *accept* it; they had no reason to
disbelieve it. The amount they set as a limit was well below what one
family might get through in six months or a year.

It wasn't their job to set any limits.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent

[quoted text muted]

There has never been a stated maximum number of television sets per
licensed household.
From where did you get that idea?
Admittedly, there was a time when the sheer bulk of TV sets made any
significant number impracticable within a single household.

I am reminded that - despite there being no legal limit to personal
imports of tobacco and alcohol, HMRC decided to invent and enforce it's
own reality. Even in the face of repeated court cases it lost in the ECJ
- the UK just ignore them. (Something which for reasons, I cannot fathom
is never cited as an example of UK sovereignty ....)

IIRC, the justification was that HMRC simply refused to believe that so
much tobacco and alcohol could possibly be for your own personal
consumption (a requirement for duty-free importation).

It wasn't their place to accept anything. I know it's a novel idea, but
they could have tried obeying the law. Who knows, it might catch on.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
Quite why I should be required to subsidise spoonfed iPlayer freeloaders
has never been satisfactorily explained.

A BBC Tax receipt is required for any household where someone wants to use iPlayer.

Previously the single TV Licence covered both radio and TV with probably a maximum
of 3 TV's per household.

There has never been a stated maximum number of television sets per licensed household.
From where did you get that idea?
Admittedly, there was a time when the sheer bulk of TV sets made any significant number
impracticable within a single household.

Which was rather my point.

As in "Previously" ? Capiche ?

Post by billy bookcase
Now it covers not only the 3 TV's but BBC iPlayer accounts for computers, tablets,
and other mobile devices used outside the home.
Why should the user of a single TV be required to subsidise spoon feed freeloaders
who demand the capability of being able to watch BBC TV programmes just anywhere
they please, programmes they forgot to watch or record at the time - poor diddums!
while the actual Licence payers are sat watching the other three TV's at home ?

I have to assume that the underlying reason is that the BBC (which is the sole
enforcement authority in this context) deems to allow it. I expect the Beeb doesn't see
any winnable point in trying to enforce a BBC Tax payment for every iPad.

Despite the fact that developing and licencing the technology along
with the cost of running servers sufficient to meet demand probably
now costs more than original programming. Assumiing there actually
is any.

And then any good stuff that does finally emerge such as "This Country"
is hidden away amidst amongst the dross on BBC Three.


snip


bb

[JNugent]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by billy bookcase
But it's surely questionable whether it really is in the remit of a self
professed international news organisation to simply regurgitate feel-good
stories issued by police public relations departments* - and possibly
already  fleshed out, simply in order to help them combat ant-social
behaviour.

[ ... ]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by billy bookcase
In this case maybe in a sidebar "As our Legal Correspondent
Whoever They-Are explains, people can have their car seized for a number
of reasons.bah bah bah. They are then sent a letter and have 21 days
to recover their car paying a fee of Ł150 (or something) and Ł12 a day
bah bah or something. A 5 minute phone call to someone working
from home maybe.

[ ... ]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by billy bookcase
Basically they're already getting this stuff for nothing. If they're
not going to "add any value", then what are we paying a Licence Fee
for ?

The licence fee is to watch any terrestrial channel plus BBC iPlayer.
While the BBC gets the money, you are paying to watch ITV, Channel 4 and
Channel 5 as well....

More accurately, you are paying to be *allowed* to watch ITV, Channel 5
Channel 5 as well. The arrangement is akin to an authorised blackmail
operation, or the demanding of money with menaces.

None of those broadcasters have anything to do with the levying of the
BBC Tax and they certainly receive none of it*.


[* Arrangements in Wales differ slightly, but Channel 4 is not an
official broadcaster there. That is added simply to head off erroneous
assertions to the effect that Channel 4 receives a slice of the BBC Tax.]

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jon Ribbens
You pose a good question though. The answer appears to be that the
Police Reform Act 2002 s59 gives constables in uniform the power to
seize vehicles if they believe they are being driven carelessly or
inconsiderately (as defined by the Road Traffic Act 1988 s3, which
requires "reasonable consideration for other persons using the road") if
this causes, or is likely to cause, "alarm, distress or annoyance to
members of the public".

So operating a mobile device while driving doesn't count ?

We then have the more vexed question about the separation between owner
and driver in some cases. What can the owner of a car seized for it's
drivers behaviour do to recover the vehicle ? What if they have to pay ?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens
You pose a good question though. The answer appears to be that the
Police Reform Act 2002 s59 gives constables in uniform the power to
seize vehicles if they believe they are being driven carelessly or
inconsiderately (as defined by the Road Traffic Act 1988 s3, which
requires "reasonable consideration for other persons using the road") if
this causes, or is likely to cause, "alarm, distress or annoyance to
members of the public".

So operating a mobile device while driving doesn't count ?

You should've clicked on the links I provided. I only excerpted the
parts that were relevant to the actual question I was answering.
RTA s3 includes "driving without due care and attention", so yes
using a mobile phone would almost certainly count for the purposes
of the Police Reform Act s59, provided that using the phone somehow
also caused someone "alarm, distress or annoyance".

Post by Jethro_uk
We then have the more vexed question about the separation between owner
and driver in some cases. What can the owner of a car seized for it's
drivers behaviour do to recover the vehicle ? What if they have to pay ?

They don't have to pay if they did not know of or consent to the vehicle
being used in the manner which resulted in it being seized and couldn't
have reasonably prevented it. What they have to do to recover it is
described in the Police (Retention and Disposal of Motor Vehicles)
Regulations 2002, as amended:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3049/made

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jon Ribbens

[quoted text muted]

You should've clicked on the links I provided.

If ignoring facts is good enough for a former PM, it's certainly good
enough for this group :)

[nib]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens
You pose a good question though. The answer appears to be that the
Police Reform Act 2002 s59 gives constables in uniform the power to
seize vehicles if they believe they are being driven carelessly or
inconsiderately (as defined by the Road Traffic Act 1988 s3, which
requires "reasonable consideration for other persons using the road") if
this causes, or is likely to cause, "alarm, distress or annoyance to
members of the public".

So operating a mobile device while driving doesn't count ?
We then have the more vexed question about the separation between owner
and driver in some cases. What can the owner of a car seized for it's
drivers behaviour do to recover the vehicle ? What if they have to pay ?

Is it clear here that the vehicles were seized for the apparent
reason, and not because having been stopped they were found to be
uninsured, for example?

nib

[Jethro_uk]

Post by nib

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens
You pose a good question though. The answer appears to be that the
Police Reform Act 2002 s59 gives constables in uniform the power to
seize vehicles if they believe they are being driven carelessly or
inconsiderately (as defined by the Road Traffic Act 1988 s3, which
requires "reasonable consideration for other persons using the road")
if this causes, or is likely to cause, "alarm, distress or annoyance
to members of the public".

So operating a mobile device while driving doesn't count ?
We then have the more vexed question about the separation between owner
and driver in some cases. What can the owner of a car seized for it's
drivers behaviour do to recover the vehicle ? What if they have to pay ?

Is it clear here that the vehicles were seized for the apparent
reason, and not because having been stopped they were found to be
uninsured, for example?

I would bet that is a factor. People who break the law aren't that bright.

A few years ago, a gang of very dodgy characters were stopped in a car
bristling with guns on the M6. All 4 were absolutely astounded that
driving around in a car that wasn't taxed, insured or MOTd caught the
attention of the police.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:54:01 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o
Four cars have been seized by police as part of an operation to stop male
drivers catcalling female joggers in Bradford.
The JogOn initiative, which includes the city council, West Yorkshire
Police and other bodies, has also seen five fines handed out as well as a
host of traffic offence reports.

I suspect that the cars weren't seized specifically because their drivers
were abusing female runners, they were seized because they were stopped for
abusing female runners and routine checks revealed other issues (such as an
absence of tax and/or MOT). The statement about "five fines handed out as
well as a host of traffic offence reports" tends to support that.

It's fairly well known among the police that there's a strong correlation
between antisocial behaviour while driving and the commission of other
motoring offences. That's why, if you give thm an excuse to pull you over
for anything, they'll always take the time to check out everything else as
well before letting you continue your journey.

Mark

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:54:01 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
Usual piss poor reporting from the BBC.
Curious as to what law is being used to seize these cars. And moreover if
you can seize cars for bad driver behaviour, why not seize cars from
speeding motorists, and the perma-morons who glue their phone to their
ear before setting off ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1m393j0o
Four cars have been seized by police as part of an operation to stop male
drivers catcalling female joggers in Bradford.
The JogOn initiative, which includes the city council, West Yorkshire
Police and other bodies, has also seen five fines handed out as well as a
host of traffic offence reports.

I suspect that the cars weren't seized specifically because their drivers
were abusing female runners, they were seized because they were stopped for
abusing female runners and routine checks revealed other issues (such as an
absence of tax and/or MOT). The statement about "five fines handed out as
well as a host of traffic offence reports" tends to support that.

I thought about that, and it's certainly a possibility. (Some of the
other media reports say it was specifically for the abuse, but you
can't trust media reports.) But it certainly appears to be at least
legally possible for cars to be seized for catcalling.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge
It's fairly well known among the police that there's a strong
correlation between antisocial behaviour while driving and the
commission of other motoring offences.

Many years ago I met a traffic officer who commented that stopping
vehicles without a tax disc "often led to other charges" ...

TL;DR is that criminals really are thick as pigshit.

[Spike]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
It's fairly well known among the police that there's a strong
correlation between antisocial behaviour while driving and the
commission of other motoring offences.

Many years ago I met a traffic officer who commented that stopping
vehicles without a tax disc "often led to other charges" ...
TL;DR is that criminals really are thick as pigshit.

Is that a case of inverse survivor-bias?

Those criminals that aren’t as thick as pigshit tend not to get caught,
perhaps.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Spike
Those criminals that aren’t as thick as pigshit tend not to get caught,
perhaps.

Generally they get elected, which as we know is a huge advantage if you
have criminal intent.

Or - one step further - they pay the people who are elected. If I were a
drug dealer (or people smuggler) I would want to ensure that laws that
make my business profitable remain in place.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Spike
Those criminals that aren’t as thick as pigshit tend not to get caught,
perhaps.

Generally they get elected, which as we know is a huge advantage if you
have criminal intent.
Or - one step further - they pay the people who are elected. If I were a
drug dealer (or people smuggler) I would want to ensure that laws that
make my business profitable remain in place.

Similarly, most psychopaths are either conscienceless criminals or successful
conscienceless entrepreneurs.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jethro_uk

Those criminals that aren't as thick as pigshit tend not to get caught,
perhaps.

Generally they get elected, which as we know is a huge advantage if you
have criminal intent.
Or - one step further - they pay the people who are elected. If I were a
drug dealer (or people smuggler) I would want to ensure that laws that
make my business profitable remain in place.

Similarly, most psychopaths are either conscienceless criminals or successful
conscienceless entrepreneurs.

Not forgetting doctors.


bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jethro_uk

Those criminals that aren't as thick as pigshit tend not to get caught,
perhaps.

Generally they get elected, which as we know is a huge advantage if you
have criminal intent.
Or - one step further - they pay the people who are elected. If I were a
drug dealer (or people smuggler) I would want to ensure that laws that
make my business profitable remain in place.

Similarly, most psychopaths are either conscienceless criminals or successful
conscienceless entrepreneurs.

Not forgetting doctors.
bb

Some doctors maybe, especially highly successful private consultants, and
academics. But most are probably just on the autistic spectrum. Which can look
similar.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:16:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Those criminals that aren’t as thick as pigshit tend not to get caught,
perhaps.

Generally they get elected, which as we know is a huge advantage if you
have criminal intent.

That's not really true. At least, it's not really true if the aim is to get
rich. Rich people often go into politics, but only a very small number
(essentially, those who manage to rise all the way to the top) of people go
out of politics rich.

Post by Jethro_uk
Or - one step further - they pay the people who are elected. If I were a
drug dealer (or people smuggler) I would want to ensure that laws that
make my business profitable remain in place.

That's not really true, either. The vast majority of politicians have no
involvement in making laws. Laws come mainly from civil servants, acting on
the instructions of cabinet members. There's very little scope to influence
legislation by means of overt bribary.

What does happen, on the other hand, is lobbying on an industrial scale,
often accompanied by freebies and perks. But that's all done by legitimate
organisations; you don't find all that many people people traffickers or
drug smugglers wining and dining ministers and sponsoring fringe events at
party conferences.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 15 Oct 2024 at 21:03:12 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:16:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Those criminals that aren’t as thick as pigshit tend not to get caught,
perhaps.

Generally they get elected, which as we know is a huge advantage if you
have criminal intent.

That's not really true. At least, it's not really true if the aim is to get
rich. Rich people often go into politics, but only a very small number
(essentially, those who manage to rise all the way to the top) of people go
out of politics rich.

Post by Jethro_uk
Or - one step further - they pay the people who are elected. If I were a
drug dealer (or people smuggler) I would want to ensure that laws that
make my business profitable remain in place.

That's not really true, either. The vast majority of politicians have no
involvement in making laws. Laws come mainly from civil servants, acting on
the instructions of cabinet members. There's very little scope to influence
legislation by means of overt bribary.
What does happen, on the other hand, is lobbying on an industrial scale,
often accompanied by freebies and perks. But that's all done by legitimate
organisations; you don't find all that many people people traffickers or
drug smugglers wining and dining ministers and sponsoring fringe events at
party conferences.
Mark

So knowing politicians is no advantage if you want to be a popup PPE supplier,
run a national track and trace programme, or want a privatised industry
contract?

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter
On 15 Oct 2024 at 21:03:12 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:16:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Those criminals that aren?t as thick as pigshit tend not to get caught,
perhaps.

Generally they get elected, which as we know is a huge advantage if you
have criminal intent.

That's not really true. At least, it's not really true if the aim is to get
rich. Rich people often go into politics, but only a very small number
(essentially, those who manage to rise all the way to the top) of people go
out of politics rich.

Post by Jethro_uk
Or - one step further - they pay the people who are elected. If I were a
drug dealer (or people smuggler) I would want to ensure that laws that
make my business profitable remain in place.

That's not really true, either. The vast majority of politicians have no
involvement in making laws. Laws come mainly from civil servants, acting on
the instructions of cabinet members. There's very little scope to influence
legislation by means of overt bribary.
What does happen, on the other hand, is lobbying on an industrial scale,
often accompanied by freebies and perks. But that's all done by legitimate
organisations; you don't find all that many people people traffickers or
drug smugglers wining and dining ministers and sponsoring fringe events at
party conferences.

So knowing politicians is no advantage if you want to be a popup PPE supplier,
run a national track and trace programme, or want a privatised industry
contract?

It's definitely an advantage if you run a legitimate business. But it's not
a help if you operate beyond the law.

Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
On 15 Oct 2024 at 21:03:12 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:16:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Those criminals that aren?t as thick as pigshit tend not to get caught,
perhaps.

Generally they get elected, which as we know is a huge advantage if
you have criminal intent.

That's not really true. At least, it's not really true if the aim is
to get rich. Rich people often go into politics, but only a very small
number (essentially, those who manage to rise all the way to the top)
of people go out of politics rich.

Post by Jethro_uk
Or - one step further - they pay the people who are elected. If I
were a drug dealer (or people smuggler) I would want to ensure that
laws that make my business profitable remain in place.

That's not really true, either. The vast majority of politicians have
no involvement in making laws. Laws come mainly from civil servants,
acting on the instructions of cabinet members. There's very little
scope to influence legislation by means of overt bribary.
What does happen, on the other hand, is lobbying on an industrial
scale, often accompanied by freebies and perks. But that's all done by
legitimate organisations; you don't find all that many people people
traffickers or drug smugglers wining and dining ministers and
sponsoring fringe events at party conferences.

So knowing politicians is no advantage if you want to be a popup PPE supplier,
run a national track and trace programme, or want a privatised industry
contract?

It's definitely an advantage if you run a legitimate business. But it's
not a help if you operate beyond the law.

The only thing a serious minded drug* lord fears is legalisation. If they
were able to rub a legitimate business, they would.

I eagerly await vapes being banned - it will increase the value of my
stock tenfold overnight.





*Or people smuggler.

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
It's fairly well known among the police that there's a strong
correlation between antisocial behaviour while driving and the
commission of other motoring offences.

Many years ago I met a traffic officer who commented that stopping
vehicles without a tax disc "often led to other charges" ...

They can't do that any more!

Post by Jethro_uk
TL;DR is that criminals really are thick as pigshit.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
It's fairly well known among the police that there's a strong
correlation between antisocial behaviour while driving and the
commission of other motoring offences.

Many years ago I met a traffic officer who commented that stopping
vehicles without a tax disc "often led to other charges" ...

They can't do that any more!

They can, because it's all online now, and every vehicle that passes any
police ANPR camera is automatically checked against the VED, MOT and MID
databases. And any that don't come up as clean on all of them are notified
to the police, who will then stop the vehicle. Police cars themselves also
carry ANPR cameras, which will do all of this automatically themselves, and
can therefore tell the occupants of the police car that, for example, "the
car you are following right now has no tax".

Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

They can, because it's all online now, and every vehicle that passes any
police ANPR camera is automatically checked against the VED, MOT and MID
databases.

Of course, a *car* may be insured. But unless you have magic 100%
accurate facial recognition software, plus a level of Ai that may never
exist, you still can't tell if the *driver* is insured.

I wonder how many cars sail past an ANPR "check" with no issues, only to
have a prang 5 seconds later where it turns out the car *wasn't* insured ?

Apparently other countries have a solution to this. And when someone can
convince the public it's a British idea, we may too.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:41:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

They can, because it's all online now, and every vehicle that passes any
police ANPR camera is automatically checked against the VED, MOT and MID
databases.

Of course, a *car* may be insured. But unless you have magic 100%
accurate facial recognition software, plus a level of Ai that may never
exist, you still can't tell if the *driver* is insured.

No, but the police couldn't tell that before, either. The point I'm making
is that the lack of a visible VED disc isn't making it harder for them to
stop untaxed cars. And the fact that they can now, just as easily, stop some
uninsured cars as well is a bonus.

Mark

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:41:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

They can, because it's all online now, and every vehicle that passes any
police ANPR camera is automatically checked against the VED, MOT and MID
databases.

Of course, a *car* may be insured. But unless you have magic 100%
accurate facial recognition software, plus a level of Ai that may never
exist, you still can't tell if the *driver* is insured.

No, but the police couldn't tell that before, either. The point I'm making
is that the lack of a visible VED disc isn't making it harder for them to
stop untaxed cars.

The current technical solution makes it a lot easier, since it wasn't
practical to read the details of a paper circle in the windscreen at
speed.

Post by Mark Goodge
And the fact that they can now, just as easily, stop some
uninsured cars as well is a bonus.

+1

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

They can, because it's all online now, and every vehicle that passes any
police ANPR camera is automatically checked against the VED, MOT and MID
databases.

Of course, a *car* may be insured. But unless you have magic 100%
accurate facial recognition software, plus a level of Ai that may never
exist, you still can't tell if the *driver* is insured.
I wonder how many cars sail past an ANPR "check" with no issues, only to
have a prang 5 seconds later where it turns out the car *wasn't* insured ?
Apparently other countries have a solution to this. And when someone can
convince the public it's a British idea, we may too.

What solution is that? (I'm curious.)

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

They can, because it's all online now, and every vehicle that passes any
police ANPR camera is automatically checked against the VED, MOT and MID
databases.

Of course, a *car* may be insured. But unless you have magic 100%
accurate facial recognition software, plus a level of Ai that may never
exist, you still can't tell if the *driver* is insured.
I wonder how many cars sail past an ANPR "check" with no issues, only to
have a prang 5 seconds later where it turns out the car *wasn't* insured ?
Apparently other countries have a solution to this. And when someone can
convince the public it's a British idea, we may too.

Every hire car I've ever had in the USA has an insurance certificate in
the glovebox.

Italian cars, IIRC, have the certificate (or evidence of it) displayed
so that it can be seen from outside the vehicle.

There would be potential snags if that were introduced in the UK (eg,
driving on a trader's policy), but they would not be insurmountable.

[JNugent]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
It's fairly well known among the police that there's a strong
correlation between antisocial behaviour while driving and the
commission of other motoring offences.

Many years ago I met a traffic officer who commented that stopping
vehicles without a tax disc "often led to other charges" ...

They can't do that any more!

They can, because it's all online now, and every vehicle that passes any
police ANPR camera is automatically checked against the VED, MOT and MID
databases. And any that don't come up as clean on all of them are notified
to the police, who will then stop the vehicle. Police cars themselves also
carry ANPR cameras, which will do all of this automatically themselves, and
can therefore tell the occupants of the police car that, for example, "the
car you are following right now has no tax".

Where does the tax disc come into it?

I'm still displaying the one that came on the car when new (in order to
act as a reminder for renewal).

[miked]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
It's fairly well known among the police that there's a strong
correlation between antisocial behaviour while driving and the
commission of other motoring offences.

Many years ago I met a traffic officer who commented that stopping
vehicles without a tax disc "often led to other charges" ...

They can't do that any more!

who are 'they' and why cant 'they'?

mike

[Andy Burns]

Post by miked

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk
Many years ago I met a traffic officer who commented that stopping
vehicles without a tax disc "often led to other charges" ...

They can't do that any more!

who are 'they' and why cant 'they'?

They are traffic officers, and they can't stop vehicles without a tax
*DISC* because no vehicle has one, thanks to cameras and databases they
can still stop vehicles without *TAX*

[J Newman]

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.

Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1402586/crimes-solved-england-and-wales/

"For the year ending March 2023, 5.7 percent of crime offences resulted
in a charge or summons in England and Wales. While this was an
improvement when compared with the previous four quarters, it was far
lower than in the first quarter of 2015, when 15.5 percent of crimes
were solved."

Can we please get some people who know what the f- they are doing, to
run the show?

[Handsome Jack]

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack
Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk
or in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling
window cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a
serious crime that significantly affects their lives?

I was aware that such assertions have been made, but I dismissed them as
self-evidently false.

Post by Roger Hayter
Or do you regard
that as irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

Given their obvious falsity, yes.

Personally I'd rather be wolf-whistled at on a public street than be in a
shop where a gang of hoodies burst in, smash the place up, threaten the
staff and leg it with twenty bottles of whisky. The police no longer
respond to such shoplifting raids, presumably because their resources are
directed elsewhere. As this thread illustrates.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack
Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk
or in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling
window cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a
serious crime that significantly affects their lives?

I was aware that such assertions have been made, but I dismissed them as
self-evidently false.

Post by Roger Hayter
Or do you regard
that as irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

Given their obvious falsity, yes.
Personally I'd rather be wolf-whistled at on a public street than be in a
shop where a gang of hoodies burst in, smash the place up, threaten the
staff and leg it with twenty bottles of whisky. The police no longer
respond to such shoplifting raids, presumably because their resources are
directed elsewhere. As this thread illustrates.

I don't know what you look like, but I strongly suspect that such
wolf-whistles, if they even occur, are exceedingly unlikely to be followed up
with sexual assault in your case, and, if they were, you would probably feel
equipped to successfully defend yourself, at least against a single attacker.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack
Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk
or in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling
window cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a
serious crime that significantly affects their lives?

I was aware that such assertions have been made, but I dismissed them as
self-evidently false.

Try:

https://www.ourstreetsnow.org/


Or are they just foolish women who need proper advice from sensible elderly
men as to what is actually important?

snip

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack
Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk
or in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling
window cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a
serious crime that significantly affects their lives?

I was aware that such assertions have been made, but I dismissed them as
self-evidently false.

https://www.ourstreetsnow.org/
Or are they just foolish women who need proper advice from sensible elderly
men as to what is actually important?

I don't care where they get it from, but a bit of resilience and good
humour wouldn't go amiss at all.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Handsome Jack
Personally I'd rather be wolf-whistled at on a public street than be in a
shop where a gang of hoodies burst in, smash the place up, threaten the
staff and leg it with twenty bottles of whisky. The police no longer
respond to such shoplifting raids, presumably because their resources are
directed elsewhere. As this thread illustrates.

As the hoodies will have made off in a car or a van how exactly do you
suggest the police should respond ?. Cordon off an area commensurate
with the time the crime was reported, seal off all exits and entrances
and set up road blocks and search every vehicle ?

What you appear to be overlooking is that police budgets, largely determined
by how much tax people are willing or able to pay, simply haven't kept pace
with the growth of stuff worth nicking.

Nowadays most major supermarkets have aisle after aisle of shelves
groaning with booze (which of itself should tell its own story) whereas
years ago, they didn't.

You've got schoolkids, along with adults wandering about flashing £500
smartphones; easy prey to hoodies on bikes or mopeds.

What do you seriously expect the police to do ?



bb

[J Newman]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

I'm female and I just ignore wolf-whistles.

In an ideal world everyone who insults, offends or alarms someone else,
their pet horse or teddy bear ought to be arrested immediately,
prosecuted and thrown into jail for their dastardly crimes.

But we are not in an ideal world, and given plods' scant resources of a
couple of billion quid may I suggest they direct their attention to
robberies, theft, purse snatching, etc.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by J Newman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

I'm female and I just ignore wolf-whistles.

They do it to 11 or 12 year olds, especially in running kit. Not just
sometimes but regularly. Should they just ignore whistles, and the verbal
suggestions that go with them? Or should they run in burkas to avoid
inflaming male passion? Or is something they just have to grow up with?

Post by J Newman
In an ideal world everyone who insults, offends or alarms someone else,
their pet horse or teddy bear ought to be arrested immediately,
prosecuted and thrown into jail for their dastardly crimes.
But we are not in an ideal world, and given plods' scant resources of a
couple of billion quid may I suggest they direct their attention to
robberies, theft, purse snatching, etc.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by J Newman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

I'm female and I just ignore wolf-whistles.
In an ideal world everyone who insults, offends or alarms someone else,
their pet horse or teddy bear ought to be arrested immediately,
prosecuted and thrown into jail for their dastardly crimes.
But we are not in an ideal world, and given plods' scant resources of a
couple of billion quid may I suggest they direct their attention to
robberies, theft, purse snatching, etc.

I notice you don't list rape in the crimes that are worth pursuing. You reckon
it should be just ignored, perhaps?

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

I'm female and I just ignore wolf-whistles.
In an ideal world everyone who insults, offends or alarms someone else,
their pet horse or teddy bear ought to be arrested immediately,
prosecuted and thrown into jail for their dastardly crimes.
But we are not in an ideal world, and given plods' scant resources of a
couple of billion quid may I suggest they direct their attention to
robberies, theft, purse snatching, etc.

I notice you don't list rape in the crimes that are worth pursuing. You reckon
it should be just ignored, perhaps?

What do you understand the term "etcetera" ("etc.") to mean?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

I'm female and I just ignore wolf-whistles.
In an ideal world everyone who insults, offends or alarms someone else,
their pet horse or teddy bear ought to be arrested immediately,
prosecuted and thrown into jail for their dastardly crimes.
But we are not in an ideal world, and given plods' scant resources of a
couple of billion quid may I suggest they direct their attention to
robberies, theft, purse snatching, etc.

I notice you don't list rape in the crimes that are worth pursuing. You reckon
it should be just ignored, perhaps?

Once again, extreme escalation of what was said appears to be necessary
for you to have any argument at all.

[Norman Wells]

Post by J Newman
I'm female and I just ignore wolf-whistles.
In an ideal world everyone who insults, offends or alarms someone else,
their pet horse or teddy bear ought to be arrested immediately,
prosecuted and thrown into jail for their dastardly crimes.
But we are not in an ideal world, and given plods' scant resources of a
couple of billion quid may I suggest they direct their attention to
robberies, theft, purse snatching, etc.

Are you going against all the rules of this group and trying to inject a
bit of good sense into an argument?

It won't do, it just won't do.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

Is there any threshold lower limit to offensive behaviour (in public)
being deemed a crime?

Or is the definition solely based on what a "victim" says with no
account taken of the views of anyone else?

If the answers are "No" and "Yes" respectively, can you see any
potential snags or dangers there?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

Is there any threshold lower limit to offensive behaviour (in public)
being deemed a crime?
Or is the definition solely based on what a "victim" says with no
account taken of the views of anyone else?
If the answers are "No" and "Yes" respectively, can you see any
potential snags or dangers there?

Congratulations on a the rapid erection of a pointless straw edifice. I am
sure all the usual defences are available to this crime, as in any other
criminal case.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

Is there any threshold lower limit to offensive behaviour (in public)
being deemed a crime?
Or is the definition solely based on what a "victim" says with no
account taken of the views of anyone else?
If the answers are "No" and "Yes" respectively, can you see any
potential snags or dangers there?

Congratulations on a the rapid erection of a pointless straw edifice. I am
sure all the usual defences are available to this crime, as in any other
criminal case.

Are you not going to even try to answer the question and justify your
stated position?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

Is there any threshold lower limit to offensive behaviour (in public)
being deemed a crime?
Or is the definition solely based on what a "victim" says with no
account taken of the views of anyone else?
If the answers are "No" and "Yes" respectively, can you see any
potential snags or dangers there?

Congratulations on a the rapid erection of a pointless straw edifice. I am
sure all the usual defences are available to this crime, as in any other
criminal case.

What 'crime'?

Do please identify the law that makes it so.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Indeed, you would think they would be encouraged to run all together for
protection!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending resources
on things like this when there is more serious crime to tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk or
in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling window
cleaners.

Has it occurred to you that the women concerned may regard it as a serious
crime that significantly affects their lives? Or do you regard that as
irrelevant to your opinion of what is important?

What in fact matters is not what some flaky individuals would like the
law to be, but what the law actually is.

Which you unfortunately haven't identified.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not
encourage women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.
Secondly, and the bigger issue is, why are the police spending
resources on things like this when there is more serious crime to
tackle?

Because it's nice and safe and easy and you can do it sitting at a desk
or in your police car. Not like arresting organised gangs of Romanian
shoplifters. Bit dangerous that. Have to do a safety assessment on it
sometime. Not just yet though, too busy reprimanding wolf-whistling
window cleaners.

You jest, but I worked for an ex-copper who admitted it was *exactly*
like that. One of our developers was stopped about 11pm driving home with
his wife, and couldn't understand why the stop took 4 officers and nearly
an hour. (They separated the pair, asked them where they were going,
where they had been, and checked the answers corroborated, as well as
tyres, lights and washer level). As our boss said, "better do that than
turn up at a pub on a Friday night".

Another tip was to *never* say you think the burglars are still at the
scene of a break in. That is a sure fire way to delay attendance.

I also learned from him that many more policeman carry guns than you'd
think. Even if they aren't just strapped in with seatbelts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39lyge9vdmo

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Jethro_uk
You jest, but I worked for an ex-copper who admitted it was *exactly*
like that. One of our developers was stopped about 11pm driving home
with his wife, and couldn't understand why the stop took 4 officers and
nearly an hour. (They separated the pair, asked them where they were
going, where they had been, and checked the answers corroborated, as
well as tyres, lights and washer level).

Did they give the couple any reason for the questioning?

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:53:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
Another tip was to *never* say you think the burglars are still at the
scene of a break in. That is a sure fire way to delay attendance.

With all due respect, that is complete and utter bollocks, and anyone
telling you that is either foolish and uninformed or deliberately trying to
mislead you.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 16 Oct 2024 at 11:03:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:53:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
Another tip was to *never* say you think the burglars are still at the
scene of a break in. That is a sure fire way to delay attendance.

With all due respect, that is complete and utter bollocks, and anyone
telling you that is either foolish and uninformed or deliberately trying to
mislead you.
Mark

Especially since there seems no obvious reason why the police should respond
urgently if the burglars have already left.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter
On 16 Oct 2024 at 11:03:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:53:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
Another tip was to *never* say you think the burglars are still at the
scene of a break in. That is a sure fire way to delay attendance.

With all due respect, that is complete and utter bollocks, and anyone
telling you that is either foolish and uninformed or deliberately trying to
mislead you.
Mark

Especially since there seems no obvious reason why the police should respond
urgently if the burglars have already left.

Preventing opportunist theft by passers-by gaining entry through a
damaged door ?

[JNugent]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
Another tip was to *never* say you think the burglars are still at the
scene of a break in. That is a sure fire way to delay attendance.

With all due respect, that is complete and utter bollocks, and anyone
telling you that is either foolish and uninformed or deliberately trying to
mislead you.

Some years ago, I rang home while on a work-related journey, not sure
whether my younger son had left for university and could answer the
house phone.

A woman answered the phone and when I asked, in surprise, "Who is
that?", she rang off.

I rang my son on his mobile to see where he was. He was too far away to
deal with the problem and he agreed to ring the police. I rang my wife
and she left work for home (c. four miles, by car). When she arrived,
there was a police car on the drive, an officer at the front door and
one at the back door, all waiting for the keys. They went inside
(without my wife - they insisted on that) and searched the house,
including the loft and all wardrobes, etc.

I have no complaints to make about prompt attendance.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
Another tip was to *never* say you think the burglars are still at the
scene of a break in. That is a sure fire way to delay attendance.

With all due respect, that is complete and utter bollocks, and anyone
telling you that is either foolish and uninformed or deliberately trying to
mislead you.

Some years ago, I rang home while on a work-related journey, not sure
whether my younger son had left for university and could answer the
house phone.
A woman answered the phone and when I asked, in surprise, "Who is
that?", she rang off.
I rang my son on his mobile to see where he was. He was too far away to
deal with the problem and he agreed to ring the police. I rang my wife
and she left work for home (c. four miles, by car). When she arrived,
there was a police car on the drive, an officer at the front door and
one at the back door, all waiting for the keys. They went inside
(without my wife - they insisted on that) and searched the house,
including the loft and all wardrobes, etc.
I have no complaints to make about prompt attendance.

Crossed line, or had she already left? Excellent police response, and in this
case the problem was not knowing if the burglar had left, presumably.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
Another tip was to *never* say you think the burglars are still at the
scene of a break in. That is a sure fire way to delay attendance.

With all due respect, that is complete and utter bollocks, and anyone
telling you that is either foolish and uninformed or deliberately trying to
mislead you.

Some years ago, I rang home while on a work-related journey, not sure
whether my younger son had left for university and could answer the
house phone.
A woman answered the phone and when I asked, in surprise, "Who is
that?", she rang off.
I rang my son on his mobile to see where he was. He was too far away to
deal with the problem and he agreed to ring the police. I rang my wife
and she left work for home (c. four miles, by car). When she arrived,
there was a police car on the drive, an officer at the front door and
one at the back door, all waiting for the keys. They went inside
(without my wife - they insisted on that) and searched the house,
including the loft and all wardrobes, etc.
I have no complaints to make about prompt attendance.

Crossed line, or had she already left?

It seems it was a crossed line.

Post by Roger Hayter
Excellent police response, and in this
case the problem was not knowing if the burglar had left, presumably.

Indeed.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:53:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
Another tip was to *never* say you think the burglars are still at the
scene of a break in. That is a sure fire way to delay attendance.

With all due respect, that is complete and utter bollocks, and anyone
telling you that is either foolish and uninformed or deliberately trying
to mislead you.

*Shrug*

Ex police officer who was my boss. Why do you think he left ?

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:09:11 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:53:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
Another tip was to *never* say you think the burglars are still at the
scene of a break in. That is a sure fire way to delay attendance.

With all due respect, that is complete and utter bollocks, and anyone
telling you that is either foolish and uninformed or deliberately trying
to mislead you.

*Shrug*
Ex police officer who was my boss. Why do you think he left ?

Probably because he wasn't up to the job, and now wants to disparage it in
order to big himself up by comparison.

Happens a lot.

Mark

[Norman Wells]

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and even
more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

[J Newman]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second.  It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.

A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.

My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".

And your point is?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.
Many report several such incidents every day. I don't think many man would
appreciate that, especially from people invariably bigger and stronger than
themselves. Or is this just women's lot in life to be treated this way?

[J Newman]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.
Many report several such incidents every day. I don't think many man would
appreciate that, especially from people invariably bigger and stronger than
themselves. Or is this just women's lot in life to be treated this way?

And therein lies the nub of the problem. In the cotton wool society with
expanding criminalisation we live in today, resources are being directed
to deal with matters that have not really resulted in the loss of
property or threat to life.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by J Newman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.
Many report several such incidents every day. I don't think many man would
appreciate that, especially from people invariably bigger and stronger than
themselves. Or is this just women's lot in life to be treated this way?

And therein lies the nub of the problem. In the cotton wool society with
expanding criminalisation we live in today, resources are being directed
to deal with matters that have not really resulted in the loss of
property or threat to life.

Well the thing is, not all of us rank loss of property quite so high in the
scheme of importance that it is only matched by threat to life, rather than
other forms of violence and intimidation.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.
Many report several such incidents every day. I don't think many man would
appreciate that, especially from people invariably bigger and stronger than
themselves. Or is this just women's lot in life to be treated this way?

The runners report (and as I say the runners include children) cars slowing
near them and passengers trying to slap their arses or pull their hair, while
making offensive suggestions. Is this part of growing up?

Anyway, I have a secret weapon to get all the gammons onside; seeing this is
Bradford a goodly proportion of the men are probably of Pakistani origin. Are
we suddenly agreeing with this police priority? Let's see.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Roger Hayter
The runners report (and as I say the runners include children) cars
slowing near them and passengers trying to slap their arses or pull
their hair, while making offensive suggestions. Is this part of growing
up?

Need a hand with those goalposts? The OP (and the BBC article it was based
on, and everything we have discussed in this thread) was about cat-
calling.

If instead you want to discuss physical assaults, start another thread,
because the arguments are completely different. That way no-one will get
confused by your attempt to change the subject.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.

Causing offence is a crime, is it?

Is there any restriction on that and what counts as evidence, please?

Post by Roger Hayter
Many report several such incidents every day. I don't think many man would
appreciate that, especially from people invariably bigger and stronger than
themselves. Or is this just women's lot in life to be treated this way?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.

Causing offence is a crime, is it?
Is there any restriction on that and what counts as evidence, please?

Of course there is. A magistrate or jury will decide whether it is unlawfully
offensive just as in most crimes. You are confusing the idea that the police
should accept the opinion of the victim when *investigating* a crime as to
whether an action is offensive or, indeed, racially motivated (rather than the
possibly jaundiced or cynical view of a police officer who we know is quite
likely to be in an offensive WhatsApp group himself) but that does not mean
the magistrate or jury has to *find* that the victim is right. The right wing
press deliberately elides these two stages in order to inflame the hard of
thinking.

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Many report several such incidents every day. I don't think many man would
appreciate that, especially from people invariably bigger and stronger than
themselves. Or is this just women's lot in life to be treated this way?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.

Causing offence is a crime, is it?
Is there any restriction on that and what counts as evidence, please?

Of course there is. A magistrate or jury will decide whether it is unlawfully
offensive just as in most crimes. You are confusing the idea that the police
should accept the opinion of the victim when *investigating* a crime as to
whether an action is offensive or, indeed, racially motivated (rather than the
possibly jaundiced or cynical view of a police officer who we know is quite
likely to be in an offensive WhatsApp group himself) but that does not mean
the magistrate or jury has to *find* that the victim is right. The right wing
press deliberately elides these two stages in order to inflame the hard of
thinking.

And I forgot to point out than unless it is a minor case that the police
prosecute themselves (when a senior police officer will decide) the CPS will
only take it forward if they think there is reasonable chance a court will
regard it as unlawfully offensive (or racially motivated as the case may be).

The idea that the victim can decide whether a crime has been committed, as I
say, is a fabrication of the right wing press.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.

Causing offence is a crime, is it?
Is there any restriction on that and what counts as evidence, please?

Of course there is. A magistrate or jury will decide whether it is unlawfully
offensive just as in most crimes. You are confusing the idea that the police
should accept the opinion of the victim when *investigating* a crime as to
whether an action is offensive or, indeed, racially motivated (rather than the
possibly jaundiced or cynical view of a police officer who we know is quite
likely to be in an offensive WhatsApp group himself) but that does not mean
the magistrate or jury has to *find* that the victim is right. The right wing
press deliberately elides these two stages in order to inflame the hard of
thinking.

Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend. It's worth remembering.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.

Causing offence is a crime, is it?
Is there any restriction on that and what counts as evidence, please?

Of course there is. A magistrate or jury will decide whether it is unlawfully
offensive just as in most crimes. You are confusing the idea that the police
should accept the opinion of the victim when *investigating* a crime as to
whether an action is offensive or, indeed, racially motivated (rather than the
possibly jaundiced or cynical view of a police officer who we know is quite
likely to be in an offensive WhatsApp group himself) but that does not mean
the magistrate or jury has to *find* that the victim is right. The right wing
press deliberately elides these two stages in order to inflame the hard of
thinking.

Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend. It's worth remembering.

But not to threaten or intimidate. That may amount to assault, as well as more
recent public order type crimes. Freedom to offend with one's opinion is free
speech. Aggressive demands for sexual activity are usually not considered to
be free speech.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.

Causing offence is a crime, is it?
Is there any restriction on that and what counts as evidence, please?

Of course there is. A magistrate or jury will decide whether it is unlawfully
offensive just as in most crimes. You are confusing the idea that the police
should accept the opinion of the victim when *investigating* a crime as to
whether an action is offensive or, indeed, racially motivated (rather than the
possibly jaundiced or cynical view of a police officer who we know is quite
likely to be in an offensive WhatsApp group himself) but that does not mean
the magistrate or jury has to *find* that the victim is right. The right wing
press deliberately elides these two stages in order to inflame the hard of
thinking.

Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend. It's worth remembering.

But not to threaten or intimidate. That may amount to assault,

Not so. Assault is an act by which a person intentionally or recklessly
causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

I don't think saying 'nice bum' or whatever to a jogger does that.

Post by Roger Hayter
as well as more
recent public order type crimes. Freedom to offend with one's opinion is free
speech. Aggressive demands for sexual activity are usually not considered to
be free speech.

It seems you're escalating 'accosting women runners with offensive or
sexual remarks' rather out of proportion here.

And having to do that means your argument doesn't hold much water.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Norman Wells
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend. It's worth remembering.

Joseph Goebbels 1897 - 1945

[Norman Wells]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend. It's worth remembering.

Joseph Goebbels 1897 - 1945

Got any actual argument against it?

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but warned
those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage women to
run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from this
article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that the
firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Accosting women runners with offensive or sexual remarks *is* a real crime.

Causing offence is a crime, is it?
Is there any restriction on that and what counts as evidence, please?

Of course there is. A magistrate or jury will decide whether it is unlawfully
offensive just as in most crimes.

So don't the police station desk staff and the CPS have any part to play
in it beforehand ?

Who decides to refer the incident for prosecution, and on what basis?

Post by Roger Hayter
You are confusing the idea that the police
should accept the opinion of the victim when *investigating* a crime as to
whether an action is offensive or, indeed, racially motivated (rather than the
possibly jaundiced or cynical view of a police officer who we know is quite
likely to be in an offensive WhatsApp group himself) but that does not mean
the magistrate or jury has to *find* that the victim is right. The right wing
press deliberately elides these two stages in order to inflame the hard of
thinking.

You are absolutely wrong - I am not confusing anything.

I asked you a couple of questions based on your assertions.

You have not answered them, have you?

[Norman Wells]

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from
this article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that
the firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second.  It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.

There a saying I seem to recall about people in glass houses which may
be relevant.

Post by J Newman
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.

Maybe the journalist actually meant 'all together', as opposed to
'separately'. No grammar checker would or even should pull that one up.

Post by J Newman
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Standards! They have to be maintained wherever you are.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from
this article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that
the firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.

There a saying I seem to recall about people in glass houses which may
be relevant.

Post by J Newman
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.

Maybe the journalist actually meant 'all together', as opposed to
'separately'. No grammar checker would or even should pull that one up.

That would not make sense; *given up* going out all together in response to
attacks on individuals is irrational. Starting goint out all together would
make more sense.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman
My point stands, if the journalist can't cut the mustard proper English
she should go. Likewise if the plod can't direct their limited resources
to tackle real crime, they should be "streamlined".
And your point is?

Standards! They have to be maintained wherever you are.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
She praised those who had done the active bystander training, but
warned those shouting at women and girl joggers: "It does not encourage
women to run, it puts them off running all together."

The ongoing decadence and decline of the UK is quite evident from
this article.
Firstly, the correct word is "altogether" and not "all together".
Gobsmacking that a British journalist can make such a mistake, and
even more inexcusable with all sorts of grammar checking tools these
days.

Firstly things firstly, wouldn't the grammar police also insist that
the firstly word in your reply should have been 'first'?

Post by J Newman
Secondly,

Second. It's a list.

I can exercise my literary license on an informal NG where the finest
counter-arguments I may have to endure is criticism of my English.

There a saying I seem to recall about people in glass houses which may
be relevant.

Post by J Newman
A journalist in an international publication where readers may
rightfully expect perfect British English has no such luxury.

Maybe the journalist actually meant 'all together', as opposed to
'separately'. No grammar checker would or even should pull that one up.

That would not make sense; *given up* going out all together in response to
attacks on individuals is irrational. Starting goint out all together would
make more sense.

Not necessarily. Many people run in groups. Maybe groups 'all
together' attract more personal remarks.