Section 5 (UK)

Random

Is it just me or is half the UK police force just hiding behind this? Surely this isn't what it was intended for?

I'm just watching an episode of Motorway Cops. They pulled a guy over for suspected bilking (is that spelt right?) and thought his car was stolen because his reg wasn't showing on their database.

Fair enough they took him out of the car pretty heavy and pushed him to get him into the back of their car. The lad was 18.

So they were having a chat with him. It turned out there was no bilking and the wrong plates were on the car. The dealer put the wrong plates on and he was pulled last week for it by another unit. He says they gave him 14 days. These guys said they were fining him 30 pounds or whatever it was.

The guy said something to the effect of "this is ****ing ridicolous". The first response out of the police officiers mouth was words to the effect of "I'm warning you under Section 5" or "Section 5 last warning".

Honestly, why do cops continue to make such a big deal out of "bad language"? Them arguing only heats up the situation.

I notice this a lot in the likes to Road Wars and Street Cops too. It really makes the police come across with some sort of "better than you" attitude as if they're trying to put manners on the whole world.

Without having a dig at the Police (or indeed the Gardai) can anyone enlighten me as to why this "Section 5" thing is so prevailant on these shows?

Shield

Wiki is your friend.

civdef

Section 5 covers a lot more swearing:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

A warning has to be given before a person is arrested under Section 5, though not before reporting for summons, IIRC.

Normally the warning is given as an attempt to calm the situation down and avoid locking anyone up. I never saw a warning given for a single curse uttered by a person, it was always for a string of abusive language and behaviour.

Why should coppers have to tolerate being sworn at though?

Random

@psni - thanks for the link but I was hoping for a little more. Why should a copper threaten a young lad with arrest because the young lad is pissed off because the copper wants to give him a lecture? Surely there's a little give and take here?

@civdef - it's this abusive thing that just gets me. I say fcuk in everything language. I think most of us do. Why should I say "this is frackin ridicolous" rather than "this is fcuking ridicolous"? There's nothing wrong with it. It's not aimed at the officer, it's just frustration. Why should the officier jump in and threaten to arrest (or fine / summons) under "Section 5" when no one has been insulted?

civdef

Random, not everyone shares your attitude to swearing, (particularly in England in my experience, note for example the warnings before TV programmes there about it).

By the same token, a police officer will face disciplinary action if reported for swearing by a member of the public.

Random

I just feel from some of what I've seen on these UK cop shows it makes the police out to be little wimps who can't take a bit of swearing.

You then see some other scenes were the police take all sorts of abuse and send the guy off with a warning. This further highlights the "drastic" actions the first guys are trying to take.

To me it just seems a bit of a joke. It's nice to have this whole "Section 5" thing I'm sure but from what I can see (again, only UK TV police shows) they're all using it for the wrong reasons.

Is it just me then? Am I alone?

Zambia

Its a slippery road, if a cop is meant to take swearing , then after a while it will be ok to manhandle (touch) a cop.

In a normal business if you swear the business will simply refuse to trade with you. A cop does not have that option as they have to deal with you. Hence section 5, the reason you hear it a lot is chances are people are generally pissed when they deal with cops

"I was not f&&King speeding"
"I am not f&&King drunk"
"I am not f&&king swearing at you"

Terrontress

Nobody should have to be cursed at in the course of their work. Cursing, to me, is a form of aggression. The Police are lucky to have the ability to quote Section 5 and arrest people.

I have had jobs in the past where people have cursed at me and I have refused to deal with them from that point.

source

Random it's a different environment in the Uk than here, the British have a lot less tolerance to swearing, hence section 5, however having said that here in Ireland we have Section 6, Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, which covers Threatening abusive and insulting words and behaviour. so in essence we have the same power here but we don't legally have to issue a warning. we can under section 8 but don't have to.

While it might make cops in the UK look like wimps, different things are tolerated in different countries, for example, if you try to touch a cop in the US you will probably wind up at the business end of a taser.

It's a different society to here, so they have different sensibilities and priorities.

TheNog

Random wrote: »

Is it just me or is half the UK police force just hiding behind this? Surely this isn't what it was intended for?

I'm just watching an episode of Motorway Cops. They pulled a guy over for suspected bilking (is that spelt right?) and thought his car was stolen because his reg wasn't showing on their database.

Fair enough they took him out of the car pretty heavy and pushed him to get him into the back of their car. The lad was 18.

So they were having a chat with him. It turned out there was no bilking and the wrong plates were on the car. The dealer put the wrong plates on and he was pulled last week for it by another unit. He says they gave him 14 days. These guys said they were fining him 30 pounds or whatever it was.

The guy said something to the effect of "this is ****ing ridicolous". The first response out of the police officiers mouth was words to the effect of "I'm warning you under Section 5" or "Section 5 last warning".

Honestly, why do cops continue to make such a big deal out of "bad language"? Them arguing only heats up the situation.

I notice this a lot in the likes to Road Wars and Street Cops too. It really makes the police come across with some sort of "better than you" attitude as if they're trying to put manners on the whole world.

Without having a dig at the Police (or indeed the Gardai) can anyone enlighten me as to why this "Section 5" thing is so prevailant on these shows?

We have the same here in Ireland under Section 6 of the Public Order Act 1994 for threatening or abusive behaviour. There is a power of arrest for it too.

Really it depends on the context of how the bad language is used. If a person says "fcuk im an eejit" then its not abusive to anyone else nor is it intended. If a person says "Im gonna fcuking kill you" or "this is fcuking ridiculous" can be considered abusive.

I have come across people cursing at me and usually a warning of arrest is enough to calm them down. And I say usually..

In the show you saw I would take that as the young lad saying what he thinks of the cops and what they are doing. The atmosphere in Britain is very much different than here with terrorist threats being high on the agenda so having plates on the car could be seen as avoiding the ANPR systems they have over there.

enry

psni wrote: »

Wiki is your friend.

The reason is very simple. Say you had about five brain cells and wanted a career that gave you the opportunity to push people around then you would probably be thinking about the joining the cops. Then you could run around shouting about section 5 or 6 of what every act it is and feel like a real hard boy, smart f3ck.
On saying that their are some people that join the police to try and help their community however I get the impression that these people are few and for between.

Paulzx

enry wrote: »

The reason is very simple. Say you had about five brain cells and wanted a career that gave you the opportunity to push people around then you would probably be thinking about the joining the cops. Then you could run around shouting about section 5 or 6 of what every act it is and feel like a real hard boy, smart f3ck.
On saying that their are some people that join the police to try and help their community however I get the impression that these people are few and for between.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
your going to be loved around here

Hooch

Paulzx wrote: »

:D:D:D:D:D
your going to be loved around here

:pac::D:pac::D:pac::D:pac:.....brilliant

enry

Paulzx wrote: »

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
your going to be loved around here

your right, im sorry. that did not come out the way I wanted it to. Its a case of a few giving them all a bad name. I have not met them but im sure most are great and do their best considering how hard their job is

Trojan911

enry wrote: »

Your friend is a D**khead and a good example if why the majority of people coming out of college at this time are going to find it difficult to adjust.

Anyone who looks down on another person because of what they do for a living is a fool. Arrogance and condescension usually are the trademark of these how lack substance. I've seen it a million times particularly with the young D4 element.Your friend's opinion is not worth noting.

enry wrote: »

The reason is very simple. Say you had about five brain cells and wanted a career that gave you the opportunity to push people around then you would probably be thinking about the joining the cops. Then you could run around shouting about section 5 or 6 of what every act it is and feel like a real hard boy, smart f3ck.

Practice what you preach fella..... ...

Hooch

Trojan911 wrote: »

Practice what you preach fella.....

Well well well done I have to admit!!! Well found

TheNog

enry wrote: »

The reason is very simple. Say you had about five brain cells and wanted a career that gave you the opportunity to push people around then you would probably be thinking about the joining the cops. Then you could run around shouting about section 5 or 6 of what every act it is and feel like a real hard boy, smart f3ck.
On saying that their are some people that join the police to try and help their community however I get the impression that these people are few and for between.

Banned for a week for trolling even though he did say sorry.

JonAnderton

A warning doesn't have to be given any more since SOCPA came into effect a few years ago... People still do it cos they either don't know or are used to it... I think Sec 5 should be used with great discretion... I don't like it when people threaten it for just a few casual, in the course of conversation, swear words...

Random

JonAnderton wrote: »

A warning doesn't have to be given any more since SOCPA came into effect a few years ago... People still do it cos they either don't know or are used to it... I think Sec 5 should be used with great discretion... I don't like it when people threaten it for just a few casual, in the course of conversation, swear words...

This is what I mean. Just because someone cursing it really isn't the solution. Threatening an irrate person with arrest for cursing isn't really gonna stop them cursing now is it? And it's going to solve nothing trying to restrain and arrest them other than to waste police time.

civdef

My info dates back to 2004, admittedly

Is the SOCPA also the bit of legislation that replaced S.25 of PACE?

TheNog

Random wrote: »

This is what I mean. Just because someone cursing it really isn't the solution. Threatening an irrate person with arrest for cursing isn't really gonna stop them cursing now is it? And it's going to solve nothing trying to restrain and arrest them other than to waste police time.

I find the threat of an arrest along with "I have treated you with respect so treat me with some respect too" works a treat most times.

Random

I just find the police seem very petty when they're saying it and they start insulting the person etc.

I really need an example to back this up. I'm gonna see if I can find a clip on youtube. Otherwise this just reads like an anti-police rant which it really isn't ment to be.

Shield

You're going to find a clip on Youtube to back up a sweeping statement at the police?

Seriously?

Random

To provide an example that some police seem to be throwing around "Section 5" like they can put manners on the world.

It's not a sweeping statement at the police. It's a comment on how some police seem to use "Section 5".

JonAnderton

SOCPA altered Section 24 (powers of arrest for arrestable offences) to include the nessecity to be needed, and caused Section 25 (general Arrest Conditions) to cease to be in effect, and offences were renamed from arrestable and summary and became indictable or summary. (Or triable either way)

Sec 5 POA had a conditional power of arrest, that arrest was was allowed if the offence continued after the subject had been warned. Now, as we can arrest for offences once the necessity for arrest conditions applies, no warnign need be given. Some offence still hold their own powers of arrest such as Drink Drive and Section 26 Pace still stands.. I think..:rolleyes:

Random

I'm not saying that the police don't have the power to do what they're doing / threatening / saying. I'm saying that I feel it's being used in the wrong way.

Shield

It's just that your post didn't say "some police". It said "the police".

Keep in mind that these shows are engineered and produced. The number of times you see and hear "Section 5" in one hour on an edited TV show, is hugely disproportionate to the number of times one officer would use it in a month.

Random wrote: »

To provide an example that some police seem to be throwing around "Section 5" like they can put manners on the world.

It's not a sweeping statement at the police. It's a comment on how some police seem to use "Section 5".

civdef

JonAnderton wrote: »

SOCPA altered Section 24 (powers of arrest for arrestable offences) to include the nessecity to be needed, and caused Section 25 (general Arrest Conditions) to cease to be in effect, and offences were renamed from arrestable and summary and became indictable or summary. (Or triable either way)

Sec 5 POA had a conditional power of arrest, that arrest was was allowed if the offence continued after the subject had been warned. Now, as we can arrest for offences once the necessity for arrest conditions applies, no warnign need be given. Some offence still hold their own powers of arrest such as Drink Drive and Section 26 Pace still stands.. I think..:rolleyes:

Has the change in legislation made much difference in practice, other than presumably a line or two in your statement showing why you considered an arrest necessary?

Given that those programmes we see on TV are all about "street crime" / "mean streets" yada yada, it'd make pretty dull fare showing people getting a warning and then being a bit more civil and going on their way, which happens most of the time.

Random

It's just that your post didn't say "some police". It said "the police".

I don't want to generalise, I'm trying to put forward that in my experience with British police and I am making it clear this is generally (well, pretty much all) from the various documentrys on TV. I can't say the whole police force is like that and I don't believe it is.

If I said "the" instead of "some" then what I ment was "the police I've seen in these shows".

Keep in mind that these shows are engineered and produced. The number of times you see and hear "Section 5" in one hour on an edited TV show, is hugely disproportionate to the number of times one officer would use it in a month.

That's fair enough. I accept this. I'm really just hoping for a little bit of insight and seeing if anyone else shares my thoughts.

Hope this clears up my intentions a little more?

JonAnderton

generally, its exactly that... you add that you nicked them to prevent further harm/damage (if it suits) and the catch all, to ensure the prompt and effective investigation by interview and search.. or their disapearance if they've had a few fails to appear...

The legislation has also changed other things such as power to search after arrest...

Trojan911

nice guy always wrote: »

Well well well done I have to admit!!! Well found

Had to be said....... Tango Whisky Alfa Tango... sprung to mind...... no doubt, yours as well...

AlfaDelta

You also have to remember that officers might be less tolerant to swearing when they have a film crew capturing their every move for all to see.

meathstevie

I saw that on tele I think. Young lad in a new Honda Civic it was. Rotten attitude, from the word go he was spouting abuse and had already been warned about his licence plates sometime previous. He got away lucky with a 30-pounder and no points. A lot of people would have brought him and continued the conversation in front of the custody sergeant.