Has the UK finally gone mad?

cardiff_gareth

cardiff_gareth

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,734
Name
Gareth
Edit My Images
Yes
So these lads are on public land, not causing a nuisance, not breaking the law, but the people that pass them do, and they've been served a notice to keep away. Surely this can be challenged?

www.bbc.co.uk

Roadside snappers upset at 12-month ban at capturing traffic in Broadway

The pair capture cars and motorcyclists at Fish Hill on the A44 but have been told to stay away from the area.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Madness. I really hope these lads find good lawyers and put out of control Worcestershire plod back to their place of actually protecting the public rather than engaging in activities like this!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Hmmmm! if as the constabulary appear to think it is a 'roads safety & accident reduction' measure then surely they should enforce the limit by regular policing actions on that stretch of road. Thus, charging and taking to court those who are actually breaking the traffic laws.

Having said that it has some echoes of the craze a few years back of 'car cruises' in various town centres attracting onlookers and photographers. Thankfully IMO for concerned in our local area I think these have been stopped!
 
Box Brownie said:
Having said that it has some echoes of the craze a few years back of 'car cruises' in various town centres attracting onlookers and photographers. Thankfully IMO for concerned in our local area I think these have been stopped!
Click to expand...
Possibly they stopped for reasons not dissimilar to the story in the OP…

Community Protection Warnings in this story (if followed by a Community Protection Notice) were Theresa May’s replacement for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in 2014, but both are mechanisms to criminalise what is otherwise lawful behaviour (in this case taking photographs).

To answer the OP’s question, a Community Protection Notice can be appealed within 21 days in a Magistrates Court, but there is no way to appeal or otherwise challenge in law a Community Protection Warning - you must wait for a Notice to be issued, which is the next step in the process.
 
Last edited:
Grounds for appeal are as follows

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

An Act to make provision about anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder, including provision about recovery of possession of dwelling-houses; to make provision amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Police Act 1997, Schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, the Extradition Act 2003 and...
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk

46 Appeals against notices​

(1) A person issued with a community protection notice may appeal to a magistrates' court against the notice on any of the following grounds.

That the conduct specified in the community protection notice—

(a)did not take place,

(b)has not had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality,

(c)has not been of a persistent or continuing nature,

(d)is not unreasonable, or

(e)is conduct that the person cannot reasonably be expected to control or affect.

2That any of the requirements in the notice, or any of the periods within which or times by which they are to be complied with, are unreasonable.

3That there is a material defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice.

4That the notice was issued to the wrong person.

(2)An appeal must be made within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the person is issued with the notice.

(3)While an appeal against a community protection notice is in progress—

(a)a requirement imposed by the notice to stop doing specified things remains in effect, unless the court orders otherwise, but

(b)any other requirement imposed by the notice is of no effect.

For this purpose an appeal is “in progress” until it is finally determined or is withdrawn.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if the situation is a little more nuanced?

""Our community has been clear with us: they want safer roads and a reduction in antisocial behaviour," he said.

As part of that, the warnings have been issued "to individuals whose actions, such as advertising their presence or events at Fish Hill, may contribute to unsafe or anti-social riding."

The force does not want to single out individuals but "a small number of those we engaged with did not respond constructively to informal advice".

There had also been complaints about event promotion for riders to "test their limits", Insp Wise said.

"We remain open to further constructive engagement with anyone who has a stake in this issue, including photographers and riders.""
 
ancient_mariner said:
I wonder if the situation is a little more nuanced?
Click to expand...

It may be but the question remains, has a crime been committed by the photographers?

If there is an issue of safety then surely the police should be policing the bikers on the roads instead of harassing photographers (easy target?). Even if the photographers are encouraging it somehow, it is the bikers responsibility to ride within the law.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
It may be but the question remains, has a crime been committed by the photographers?
Click to expand...

Plainly it has not, because the action taken was not done under criminal law, but as a civil action. If it could be proven they were deliberately incting riders to act dangerously then that might count as criminal behaviour, but that's not what has been done here.

Certainly a police presence there when they are photographing might be enough to encourage people to ride carefullly
 
ecoleman said:
It may be but the question remains, has a crime been committed by the photographers?
Click to expand...

Use of a Community Protection Warning by the police suggests no offence has been committed by the people who have been issued with the Warning, otherwise the police would have used those powers.

The Point of CPWs/CPNs (and before them ASBOs) is to provide a means to regulate (antisocial) behaviour that in itself is not criminal.
 
Musicman said:
Use of a Community Protection Warning by the police suggests no offence has been committed by the people who have been issued with the Warning, otherwise the police would have used those powers.

The Point of CPWs/CPNs (and before them ASBOs) is to provide a means to regulate (antisocial) behaviour that in itself is not criminal.
Click to expand...
I get that but what is anti-social about taking photographs and who decides what behaviour should be “regulated”.

As I said in my last post, the photographers just seem to be the easy target as the police can’t be bothered to get off their backsides and police the people actually breaking the law.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Earlier report.

www.bbc.co.uk

Warning for snappers over Fish Hill biker action shots

The photographers said on social media they could take photos of bikers near Evesham, police say.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Three photographers who police say encouraged motorcyclists to come to a beauty spot so they could get "action shots" have been told to stay away for a year.
The trio were advertising on social media pages to say when they would be on roadside verges at Fish Hill on the A44, near Evesham, Worcestershire, West Mercia Police said.
Their adverts would say they would take photos of bikers racing up the hill and led to hundreds of riders turning up "especially on sunny days", a force spokesperson said.
Click to expand...

If the report is correct then it's hardly just a couple of togs taking opportunist photos, the quoted section makes it sound like an element of 'incitement' to engage in poor road behaviour.
 
gramps said:
If the report is correct then it's hardly just a couple of togs taking opportunist photos, the quoted section makes it sound like an element of 'incitement' to engage in poor road behaviour.
Click to expand...

If you encourage me to drive at 90mph on the motorway do you get the points if I’m caught?
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
I get that but what is anti-social about taking photographs and who decides what behaviour should be “regulated”
Click to expand...

West Mercia Police are empowered to decide what behaviour should be regulated by the 2014 Act

WMP’s statement identifies the presence of the photographers as a cause of anti social behaviour


The photographers’ actions are deemed to be increasing noise pollution in the Broadway area causing anti-social behaviour and a distraction to road users, which is a community concern.
Click to expand...

photographers whose presence is in turn encouraging a large number of bikers to turn up at Fish Hill, especially on sunny days
Click to expand...
 
The way I read the article was that the presence of the photographers was encouraging some road users to behave in a reckless/dangerous manner at a location that was a known accident blackspot. I think that the police did the right thing in telling these photographers to stay away from the area.
 
It's coming across as the usual "we didn't do nuffin' guvnor" when it appears they are inciting people to ride for cool photos which is causing accidents. If the bikers want to kill themselves performing for someone else's likes that's fine, but if innocent people are getting caught up in it and getting hurt or worse, then that's just wrong. Good that the cops are trying to do something about it. Good luck to 'em.
 
Well worcestershire police are openly ignoring local youth smashing glass bottles from the top of the buildings, massive drug crime, etc. I really feel like life just would be better if our local force simply no longer existed.
 
the police nowadays have no respect from the public, just go on youtube and see the incompetence of some of them.
 
The council is now a REFORM stronghold. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy482ezeg7mt So one of the following may be true:

A) it is time to reach out to them, particularly anyone else living here
B) they are the ones driving this anti-photographer sentiment. Perhaps less likely... they just barely got in
 
cardiff_gareth said:
So these lads are on public land, not causing a nuisance, not breaking the law, but the people that pass them do, and they've been served a notice to keep away. Surely this can be challenged?
Click to expand...
The police may be attempting to apply the doctrine of "attractive nuisance", which is basically a civil principle but the CPS may have suggested using it as an entry point for various criminal offences.

No one can know what's really going on until and if the Police decide to make formal charges but as a road user, I think the descriptions suggest that this is encouraging anti social and dangerous behaviour.
Nikon f1.8 said:
the police nowadays have no respect from the public, just go on youtube and see the incompetence of some of them.
Click to expand...
There are rotten eggs everywhere and previous decisions by senior management have not helped. That said, the British police are citizens in uniform and gernerally very good at their job.

Unless you want them replaced by a gendarmerie, it might be a good idea to go along to public meetings with the police and/or your local police and crime commisioner and get some understanding of the realities of their work.
 
Surely it's the motorbikers riding dangerously that should be given any warning/notice?
 
jchoiresearch said:
Surely it's the motorbikers riding dangerously that should be given any warning/notice?
Click to expand...

Community Protection Notices must be issued to named individuals.

s43 of the 2014 Act says [emphasis added]

43 Power to issue notices
(1) An authorised person may issue a community protection notice to an individual aged 16 or over, or a body, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that—

(a) the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality
Click to expand...


Individual bikers are unlikely to return to have their photo taken again and again, so issuing notices to them would be

- pointless

- not actually permissible under the law (not persistent or continuing behaviour as required by the Act)

However, if the photographers are there regularly then that is 'persistent or continuing behaviour'.

There is a second condition to s43, though, which is probably the photographers' best recourse for objection to the notice IHMO.

(b) the conduct is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

The police are clearly leaning into an interpretation that the photographers are encouraging unreasonable behaviour in other people, and that that is sufficient to meet the test of unreasonable conduct.
 
Last edited:
The photographers are advertising their presence at a particular location in advance on social media. This results in an unusually high number of bikers turning up at the location to have their photographs taken. Whilst I accept that the vast majority of these bikers ride in a safe manner, and observe the highway code, there are a few who play up to the cameras, and it is the behaviour of those few who are a danger to the other road users. Remove the photographers and you have removed the problem.
 
Musicman said:
The police are clearly leaning into an interpretation that the photographers are encouraging unreasonable behaviour in other people, and that that is sufficient to meet the test of unreasonable conduct.
Click to expand...
It could also be that they're considering going for a charge of "encouraging or assisting a crime" under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

It would depend on how strong they believe the threat to other people may be, given the evidence available. The charge has been used in traffic matters already, as mentioned here...

Encouraging or assisting a crime in English law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It could also be that they're considering going for a charge of "encouraging or assisting a crime" under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

It would depend on how strong they believe the threat to other people may be, given the evidence available. The charge has been used in traffic matters already, as mentioned here...

Encouraging or assisting a crime in English law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

TBQH that’s a bit of a stretch

I should be very surprised if it passed the mens rea test; as noted in the article you linked to, there’s no certainty that a crime will be committed. The police are using antisocial behaviour legislation precisely because it’s so hard to pin down offences.
 
Musicman said:
TBQH that’s a bit of a stretch
Click to expand...
I did point out that "It would depend on how strong they believe the threat to other people may be".

In this case, they chose to issue warnings and we might reasonably assume they will monitor the situation to see if those warnings are taken seriously.
 
What do you mean "finally gone mad", it went mad years ago :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top