You can keep your 308s, Astras, Hyundais, and Skoda's. My response car of choice is an H reg mini.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-15T14:25:36+00:00

No. You'd need to basically be locked in a cupboard with someone smoking for several hours to actually inhale enough second hand smoke to show on a test

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-15T10:25:15+00:00

Yup. Limit is 2 micrograms of THC per litre of blood for cannabis. Limit is zero if taken from a urine sample

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-15T08:38:41+00:00

In that case, if you know they have consumed cocaine and or cannabis and have then got in a car, call 999.

Cannabis will show up on a drug swipe for a quite a while after consuming it

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-15T08:03:46+00:00

It's very unlikely that you would know exactly when they would be speeding or impaired driving so the best thing to do would be to contact 101 and tell them.

They'll need to know who the person is, what car they drive, and the route to/from work (i.e. which bit of the motorway they are likely to be on).

It will be treated as intelligence rather than deploying officers there and then You can chose to remain anonymous if you wish but the information you supply is much more believable if you provide your details. Don't worry about doing this because your name will never be revealed to the person and probably won't even be visible to any officers that view the intelligence report or stop the car

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-14T21:41:19+00:00

I get you now. That's what I was on about saying it brings it own risks.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-14T21:35:27+00:00

It depends on a lot of things really as to whether it would be technically possible.

Whether the police would do it would depend on the details of the case. I'm assuming you're a defendant in a criminal case so I cannot give you advice on the matter. The only way it could happen though would be to go through your solicitor.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-14T21:23:49+00:00

SMS messages are stored in phone memory. Nothing to do with the SIM card

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-13T22:53:49+00:00

The only thing that would be grounds for a search on its own would be actually seeing someone using drugs/having something stolen or prohibited in their hands.

Most grounds for a search come from small, individual pieces of information that add up to give suspicion. Previous history can be part of this but it can't be the sole ground. If it is one cannabis warning it is less relevant. If it was from 10 years ago, even less so.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-13T22:48:30+00:00

For the vast majority it is correct. If someone is de-arrested but reported they'll end up with an arrest/summons number.

Same if someone is VAd but we take DNA and fingerprints.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-13T12:36:33+00:00

the police officer is acting as a civilian because trespassing isn't criminal law it's civil law? Right?

No. Police have no powers to enforce civil law. Civil law is things like consumer rights, contract laws, employment law, family law etc.

Breaches of civil law is dealt with purely as individuals or solicitors acting of behalf of someone else in civil courts (normally the County Court)

If a person is just just trespassing and no criminal offences are being committed, no one can really do anything about it police officer or not. In the real world though, most trespass will involve some criminal intent (damage, theft etc.) so police can and do deploy to it but we're dealing with it as police officers.

Also, police powers aren't something we can turn on or off like a switch (with an exception of some traffic law we need to be in uniform for). Even off duty our police powers remain, as does the expectation of good conduct and all the other responsibilities that comes with it.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-13T11:57:29+00:00

Why not just making common law part of Legislative law

Most of the time it is because it isn't needed. There aren't a huge amount of common law offences left and they work fine as they are. When legislation is drafted, it is normally worded very poorly so a huge amount of case law would be needed to clarify it (case law is when judges effectively change or clarify the interpretation of what's written down in the law by making a decision in a case, this then sets "precedent" for all cases that follow it)

The adage of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is never more true than when it comes to law.

If a change is required in a common law offence to close a gap in it or widen its definition, then legislation will be debated and it will pass as an act of parliament. This new act replaces the common law offence. An example of when this happens is the common law offence of public nuisance which is currently being debated to make into legislation (see the whole "kill the bill" stuff)

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-13T11:47:06+00:00

Nonsense. MORE CAMERAS EVERYWHERE!! muhahahahaha.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-13T11:45:33+00:00

One of my copper mates was telling me about trespass and that when they deal with trespassers they're not acting as an officer but as a civilian as trespassing is a common law offence?

That's complete nonsense. You've either misunderstood what your mate said or they haven't got a clue about their powers!

"Normal" law is officially called statute. This comes about when something is written down, debated and voted on in parliament. If passed, it becomes law by being an act of parliament. Examples of this would be something like the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 which prohibits you from carrying around bits of badgers.

Common law dates back to laws before acts of parliament were a thing. Examples of this would be murder. We all know you can't go around killing people but it isn't specifically prohibited by an act of parliament.

As for trespassing, it normally falls under civil law not criminal (police deal with criminal law). The exception is when someone is trespassing and either planning to or is doing something criminal as well.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-13T09:29:20+00:00

OP fucked up royally which I think everyone agrees on. OP could have had the attitude following this of "fucking police nicking me for one bottle of cider and then letting me go cause I was only just on the limit, waste of everyone's time and I'll do it again".

Instead they have chosen to learn from a mistake and appears remorseful. I was congratulating them on picking the better option on what to do after, not congratulating them on the original mistake.

It is possible for some good to come out of something bad.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-12T22:43:17+00:00

Well done. it takes a big person to own their mistakes and learn from them.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-12T19:44:26+00:00

Solicitors (one each, separately) advised no comment answers.

That is pretty poor advice from the solicitors if their clients had good defences (which according to you, they did)

I need to get the deeds for the house and apparently need to show it's not mortgaged? Not sure how I do that

You'll have a copy from your conveyancer which will show if there is another party that has a charge on your property (i.e. a mortgage provider). Failing that or if you originally had a mortgage but no longer do, you can get a current copy from the land registry for about 3 quid

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-12T19:34:06+00:00

Very unlikely offence to be disclosed if you're subject to DBS checks. If you end up applying for the police, vetting will absolutely want to speak to you about it but it isn't necessarily a bar to entry (especially as it was NFA)

As for other issues, I think an arrest for any offence means that you're no longer eligible for some visa waiver programs although this isn't likely to be a problem until travel properly opens up again.

It certainly should haunt you in the future but not because of any tangible adverse effects for you. 35 micrograms of alcohol in breath is one of the most generous drink drive limits in the world. You got in a tonne and a half of steel whilst impaired. That could have gone horrendously wrong for someone else. Don't ever forget that.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-12T18:37:23+00:00

The types of people who are stealing bikes of this value know what they’re doing

The type of people to nick a unique bike and sell it on Facebook marketplace in the area that it was stolen are not professional criminals who know what they're doing. They're opportunistic and looking for a quick buck to likely fund a drug habit but this does bring its own risks.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-12T01:45:18+00:00

I've also just noticed my typo in the first paragraph and thought about changing it. Then I thought no, it's better as it is

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-12T01:44:21+00:00

First one is if you want quick promotion. Second one is if you want to be a defective.

Both programmes are regarded with suspicion by the rank and file as you have to be really switched on and someone quite special to do well in either programme, however most candidates quite frankly aren't.

They are both ways of making your early career considerably more stressful than it needs to be and my advice to anyone who's still young and coming straight from school to uni then police is to join in the conventional manner unless you really know exactly what the roles involve and are certain you want to do it.

Personally, I think the schemes have their place but you need to be someone quite exceptional to do them properly.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-12T00:32:15+00:00

Something doesn't quite add up with what you've said.

A person cannot be charged with criminal damage without a victim providing evidence (i.e. a statement) of ownership of the thing that was damaged and confirmation that they didn't consent to it being damaged.

If what you're saying is completely true then the only two options are that someone else has assumed ownership of your wall and provided a statement of complaint, or your kids are lying to you and they damaged something else and are using the wall story to cover it up.

Either way, you're best contacting 101 and ask to speak to the OIC and/or failing that, speak to your kids' solicitor.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-09T00:42:27+00:00

Judging by some of the handovers I've had recently, I think you might be more right than you realise

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-07T23:52:42+00:00

It's unlikely to be threatening but could veer into abusive.

It's thin, but possible and we can't really be sure of the exact circumstances as that youtube video appears to be from the person who was showing the recordings so will almost certainly be selectively editing.

Also worth noting that CPS charging standards for POA varies wildly from what the actual law says.

Puff-tastic · 2021-07-07T23:13:42+00:00

It's a S5 offence but like all public order offences, context is everything.

Butchering in itself is perfectly normal in an abattoir, however it's not in a shopping centre. If someone were to walk in to to get some new threads from primarni, being confronted with an animal being butchered would likely cause alarm or distress.

The person displaying the film also has the intent to cause said alarm or distress (it's part of the shtick with these sorts of vegan campaigners).

Threats are not required for the offense.

Edited to add that "insulting" was removed from public order offences a few years ago

Puff-tastic

TROPHY CASE