Polite Vest Banker |
Polite Vest Banker |
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 09:19
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Banker (possible typo?) convicted of impersonating a police occifer after riding an ex police bike with most of the stickers still on it and wearing an old police uniform with a "POLITE notice" hi-vis vest.
Link to terrorism is utter bollox. Link to him being an utter c*ck-womble massively understated. http://www.itv.com/news/london/2018-02-08/...ceiving-public/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/08...victed-alleged/ -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 09:19
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 10:07
Post
#2
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
At least one of those "news" organisations should be prosecuted for crimes against journalism, too, or at least excessive reliance on unacknowledged cut & paste; the exact same phrase leaps out in both articles:
QUOTE The officer told the court the high vis jacket warn under the vest, was an old police jacket based on the three reflective strips on the sleeves, which are only on officers' uniforms. At least the Telegraph version sought to entertain: QUOTE The case comes just a fortnight after police were accused of making it easier to impersonate criminals by selling old uniforms on the auction website.
-------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 11:14
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Assuming this was a conviction under s.90 of the Police Act 1996, and the magistrates accepted "that this offence may not have been [his] intention to deceive but that was the effect," then he was probably convicted under (2):
QUOTE Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. and QUOTE “article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document... Based on the number of people I've seen whose attire could fit that bill, Mr Emanuel was somewhat unlucky to have been stopped for this offence, not to mention convicted. Still, there is no excuse for the widespread reference to him being a "banker"... --Churchmouse |
|
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 11:25
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
........Based on the number of people I've seen whose attire could fit that bill, Mr Emanuel was somewhat unlucky to have been stopped for this offence, not to mention convicted. Still, there is no excuse for the widespread reference to him being a "banker"... --Churchmouse You see many people riding ex police bikes, with all the markings and blue light while wearing not only dayglow that could be mistaken for police but was actually ex police and worded to play on word similarity? It is one thing to ride a white bike with white fairings and marvel at the way people drift out of your way, it is another to actively promote it. Banker seems very apt to me, if it wasn't deliberate, it was cos it seemed cool. Either way, no street cred. |
|
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 13:51
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,140 Joined: 19 Jun 2004 From: Surrey Member No.: 1,326 |
I have seen people with that 'Polite' notice on their hi-viz vests, but not to this level. C*ck-womble is now my mot de jour.
|
|
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 19:41
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
........Based on the number of people I've seen whose attire could fit that bill, Mr Emanuel was somewhat unlucky to have been stopped for this offence, not to mention convicted. Still, there is no excuse for the widespread reference to him being a "banker"... --Churchmouse You see many people riding ex police bikes, with all the markings and blue light while wearing not only dayglow that could be mistaken for police but was actually ex police and worded to play on word similarity? It is one thing to ride a white bike with white fairings and marvel at the way people drift out of your way, it is another to actively promote it. Banker seems very apt to me, if it wasn't deliberate, it was cos it seemed cool. Either way, no street cred. I haven't seen any blue lights on ex-police bikes, no. Everything else mentioned, yes, and no doubt every single one of those riders was convinced that they were not "impersonating an officer", because nowhere did their clothing actually say "police". So now the "rule" is that their entire ensemble has to be considered together in order to assess whether the overall artistic impression was more "policey" than not? The court's new "bright line" isn't exactly high viz... It is significant that Mr. Emanuel was apparently not using his blue light, so none of those allegedly deceived motorists doing terrible things like (a) giving him room to get by and (b) slowing down to the speed limit could have based their actions on its presence (or absence). That would be concerning to me if I were a high-viz fetishist riding an ex-police bike at any time within a few weeks of a terrorist incident (this last bit of unknown logical significance, but best throw it in anyway). I'm also not sure why mis-identifying a management consultant or even a compliance officer as a "banker" should be celebrated. It's an appalling example of ignorance combined with prejudice, all for a snigger. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 10:16
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
QUOTE He was riding a white former South Yorkshire Police BMW R1200 motorcycle, which he has bought on eBay for his daily commute in and out of the City. The bike also had a Royal Corps of Transport crest sticker on the front screen, and a ER crest below the rear number plate, black and white 'battenburg' stickers along either side and raised rear blue light, which was no longer working. So the crests weren't put on (replacing the presumably removed Police county crests) to deceive? -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:40
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
QUOTE He was riding a white former South Yorkshire Police BMW R1200 motorcycle, which he has bought on eBay for his daily commute in and out of the City. The bike also had a Royal Corps of Transport crest sticker on the front screen, and a ER crest below the rear number plate, black and white 'battenburg' stickers along either side and raised rear blue light, which was no longer working. So the crests weren't put on (replacing the presumably removed Police county crests) to deceive? I can't believe you're attempting to hang meat on the bones of that old nag, as if it's a real law. Are you really suggesting that the same bike, ridden by the same person, in the same circumstances (except for the fact that it had been purchased legally with different livery) would either be or not be a criminal offence depending solely on whether he had stickered it himself? (Where's the evidence that he did, by the way? Maybe the guy he bought it off had done it.) If riding a liveried bike is an offence, so be it, but this "calculated to deceive" nonsense is reprehensibly lazy, vague lawmaking. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:56
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
as if it's a real law. Real as in s 90 of the Police Act 1996? QUOTE (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 10:28
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
as if it's a real law. Real as in s 90 of the Police Act 1996? QUOTE (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both. (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. You'd make a great straight man, SP... --Churchmouse |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:33
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
as if it's a real law. Real as in s 90 of the Police Act 1996? QUOTE (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both. (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. You'd make a great straight man, SP... --Churchmouse You’re welcome -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 16:55
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
the blue light was a bad idea.
|
|
|
Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 23:40
Post
#13
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
the blue light was a bad idea. The one that wasn't an actual working light, just some blue plastic? -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 23:55
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
the blue light was a bad idea. The one that wasn't an actual working light, just some blue plastic? as far as I am aware, that was the one. No vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which is capable of showing any light to the rear, other than a red light, except– blue light from a warning beacon or rear special warning lamp fitted to an emergency vehicle, or from any device fitted to a vehicle used for police purposes; |
|
|
Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 01:47
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
But it wasn’t a lamp......so that section doesn’t apply.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 10:00
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
But it wasn’t a lamp......so that section doesn’t apply. Looked like a lamp. On a stick the way police blue lights are/were Blue. Same as everything else, easily interpreted to make the bike look like a police bike. Add on the Police garments..... May have not been a working lamp and had Polite instead of Police on jacket plus non police stickers but the overall look was that this was a police rider on a police bike. With enough being there that the average man would have seen it and automatically thought police. That all falls fully into the requirements of the act. Only question in my mind is whether there was intent to deceive, not that I am convinced that part is even needed. If the blue lamp had not been there, had the word polite not been on the jacket, had something been done to make it look like this is simply a guy riding an ex police bike, I would not believe the act applied. But he didn't, he put the extra touches in and that left him open. |
|
|
Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 16:48
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
No vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which is capable of showing any light to the rear, other than a red light, except– You seem to have missed the relevance, for the purposes of this bit of legislation it wasn’t a lamp as it wasn’t capable of showing any light. The fact it looked like a lamp isn’t relevant in respect of this bit of legislation. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 16:51 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 17:32
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
No vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which is capable of showing any light to the rear, other than a red light, except– You seem to have missed the relevance, for the purposes of this bit of legislation it wasn’t a lamp as it wasn’t capable of showing any light. The fact it looked like a lamp isn’t relevant in respect of this bit of legislation. No vehicle, other than an emergency vehicle, shall be fitted with– (a)a blue warning beacon or special warning lamp, or (b)a device which resembles a blue warning beacon or a special warning lamp, whether the same is in working order or not. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 20:33
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
The issue will be stitching "POLITE" onto a police jacket the blue light. The police don't just cut the "C" off their old uniforms and go "there, convincingly not police" when flogging them on.
A few years ago the craze around here was for chavs to fit their cars with blue front sidelights and drive around like that. Then the police seemed to have a purge - certainly I saw a good few stopped - and the problem seems to have gone away. Otherwise high viz jackets and high viz vehicle decals are surely so common now that you will have to have defurred furry handcuffs or other police giveaways to be mistaken for a police officer rather than builder or idiot banker. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 20:39 |
|
|
Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 21:12
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
I used to be a bike courier, we always thought the wannabe plod were tools with their BMWs and ex plod kit.
https://youtu.be/KeuJ_6skbF4?t=2m7s |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:59 |