On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:10:37 +0100, Bruce wrote:

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:32:19 -0700 (PDT), Offramp
wrote:

It seems extremely minor to me. I would have thought that if a
policeman is in first, and is not asked to move by a ticket inspector,
then it is not the PC's fault.


On the contrary, if the PC is not entitled to travel first class, but
does, then he/she is by definition committing an offence. It does not
need to be drawn to the PC's attention to be defined as an offence.

Then again, this is hardly the first time that the police have been
shown to consider themselves above the law.

Coming to this one rather late I know, but it seems no-one has yet commented
on the apparant irony of a paying member of the public holding a Standard
Class ticket being arrested, charged, and fined for merely standing on the
edge of First Class, whilst here we have hofficers of the law blatantly
misusing a *free* travel facility by taking up First Class seats, and the
matter is being dealt with internally as a case of 'misconduct'.

Anyone else care to hazard a guess as to why they haven't been arrested and
charged with the same offence as Ms Myhill (see 'Commuter fined £69 for
standing in first class' in uk.r for those who haven't already read it)?

--
WZR

wrote

On 15 Oct, 01:56, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

wrote

. There is no such thing in the UK police service as a superior
officer, {...}

The law refered to is S 178 Licensing Act 1964

... except by authority of a superior officer of that constable.
==

There are things a police "superior officer" can't order, but "go
and
get a bite to eat" isn't one of them.

The Police have senior officers, not superior officers. It is a
standard convention that every police officer starts at the same
rank,
unlike for example the armed services. it's one of the first things
taught at basic training. The rank structure,the badges of rank and
that nobody in the police service is superior to anybody else, they
may be senior in rank or experience, never superior. That is why a
suitably qualified PC can be in effective command of a situation
where
the superintendent stood next to him does not have the requisite
training or experience but is on hand to take over when practicable.

That could and does happen in the armed forces too but they
nevertheless have "superior officers". If someone is an officer and is
superior in rank then they are a "superior officer".

Do pay attention, I quoted the text of statute law above, your
assertion, like "never off-duty", implies the law is meaningless.

Judges have held otherwise.

--
Mike D

In message , at 00:05:09 on
Fri, 16 Oct 2009, WZR remarked:
Anyone else care to hazard a guess as to why they haven't been arrested and
charged with the same offence as Ms Myhill (see 'Commuter fined £69 for
standing in first class' in uk.r for those who haven't already read it)?

One simple explanation might be that they co-operated and moved to
standard when rumbled, unlike Ms Myhill.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:05:09 +0100, WZR wrote:

Coming to this one rather late I know, but it seems no-one has yet commented
on the apparant irony of a paying member of the public holding a Standard
Class ticket being arrested, charged, and fined for merely standing on the
edge of First Class, whilst here we have hofficers of the law blatantly
misusing a *free* travel facility by taking up First Class seats, and the
matter is being dealt with internally as a case of 'misconduct'.


That's because the general public is subject to the law, but many of
those who implement it believe they are above the law.


Anyone else care to hazard a guess as to why they haven't been arrested and
charged with the same offence as Ms Myhill (see 'Commuter fined £69 for
standing in first class' in uk.r for those who haven't already read it)?


Because they shake hands the right way? Who on earth is going to
prosecute them?

On 16 Oct, 00:06, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
wrote







On 15 Oct, 01:56, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
wrote
. There is no such thing in the UK police service as a superior
officer, {...}
The law refered to is S 178 Licensing Act 1964
... except by authority of a superior officer of that constable.
==
There are things a police "superior officer" can't order, but "go
and
get a bite to eat" isn't one of them.
The Police have senior officers, not superior officers. It is a
standard convention that every police officer starts at the same
rank,
unlike for example the armed services. it's one of the first things
taught at basic training. The rank structure,the badges of rank and
that nobody in the police service is superior to anybody else, they
may be senior in rank or experience, never superior. That is why a
suitably qualified PC can be in effective command of a situation
where
the superintendent stood next to him does not have the requisite
training or experience but is on hand to take over when practicable.

That could and does happen in the armed forces too but they
nevertheless have "superior officers". If someone is an officer and is
superior in rank then they are a "superior officer".

Do pay attention, I quoted the text of statute law above, your
assertion, like "never off-duty", implies the law is meaningless.

Judges have held otherwise.

--
Mike D

Dolbear, I know a hell of a lot about the law, and statute or not what
ever some outsider thinks, NOBODY is superior to anyone else within
the police. Next you'll be saying white slave owners were superior to
the people they say they owned. If some judge cannot understand the
distinction, that is not my problem. The correct terminology is
senior, not superior. Anyone claiming otherwise is just being
offensive, and anyone in the police who claimed to be "superior" soon
had the gloss rubbed off their pips, usually by someone senior to
them.

On 16 Oct, 00:06, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
wrote







On 15 Oct, 01:56, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
wrote
. There is no such thing in the UK police service as a superior
officer, {...}
The law refered to is S 178 Licensing Act 1964
... except by authority of a superior officer of that constable.
==
There are things a police "superior officer" can't order, but "go
and
get a bite to eat" isn't one of them.
The Police have senior officers, not superior officers. It is a
standard convention that every police officer starts at the same
rank,
unlike for example the armed services. it's one of the first things
taught at basic training. The rank structure,the badges of rank and
that nobody in the police service is superior to anybody else, they
may be senior in rank or experience, never superior. That is why a
suitably qualified PC can be in effective command of a situation
where
the superintendent stood next to him does not have the requisite
training or experience but is on hand to take over when practicable.

That could and does happen in the armed forces too but they
nevertheless have "superior officers". If someone is an officer and is
superior in rank then they are a "superior officer".

Do pay attention, I quoted the text of statute law above, your
assertion, like "never off-duty", implies the law is meaningless.

Judges have held otherwise.

--
Mike D

Other such texts use the term Senior Officer, for example the 1986
POA.

wrote

On 16 Oct, 00:06, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
wrote

On 15 Oct, 01:56, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
wrote
. There is no such thing in the UK police service as a
superior
officer, {...}
The law refered to is S 178 Licensing Act 1964
... except by authority of a superior officer of that
constable.
==
There are things a police "superior officer" can't order, but
"go
and
get a bite to eat" isn't one of them.
The Police have senior officers, not superior officers. It is a
standard convention that every police officer starts at the same
rank,
unlike for example the armed services. it's one of the first
things
taught at basic training. The rank structure,the badges of rank
and
that nobody in the police service is superior to anybody else,
they
may be senior in rank or experience, never superior. That is why
a
suitably qualified PC can be in effective command of a situation
where
the superintendent stood next to him does not have the requisite
training or experience but is on hand to take over when
practicable.

That could and does happen in the armed forces too but they
nevertheless have "superior officers". If someone is an officer and
is
superior in rank then they are a "superior officer".

Do pay attention, I quoted the text of statute law above, your
assertion, like "never off-duty", implies the law is meaningless.

Judges have held otherwise.

Dolbear, I know a hell of a lot about the law, and statute or not
what
ever some outsider thinks, NOBODY is superior to anyone else within
the police. Next you'll be saying white slave owners were superior to
the people they say they owned. If some judge cannot understand the
distinction, that is not my problem. The correct terminology is
senior, not superior. Anyone claiming otherwise is just being
offensive, and anyone in the police who claimed to be "superior" soon
had the gloss rubbed off their pips, usually by someone senior to
them.

Which answer does rather leave the police open to "Police Culture
forbids use of terminology used by Acts of Parliament" and "there are
three ways of saying this, the legal way, the wrong way and the police
way".

Canteen Culture rules KO.

--
Mike D

On 18 Oct, 00:40, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
wrote







On 16 Oct, 00:06, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
wrote
On 15 Oct, 01:56, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
wrote
. There is no such thing in the UK police service as a
superior
officer, {...}
The law refered to is S 178 Licensing Act 1964
... except by authority of a superior officer of that
constable.
==
There are things a police "superior officer" can't order, but
"go
and
get a bite to eat" isn't one of them.
The Police have senior officers, not superior officers. It is a
standard convention that every police officer starts at the same
rank,
unlike for example the armed services. it's one of the first
things
taught at basic training. The rank structure,the badges of rank
and
that nobody in the police service is superior to anybody else,
they
may be senior in rank or experience, never superior. That is why
a
suitably qualified PC can be in effective command of a situation
where
the superintendent stood next to him does not have the requisite
training or experience but is on hand to take over when
practicable.

That could and does happen in the armed forces too but they
nevertheless have "superior officers". If someone is an officer and
is
superior in rank then they are a "superior officer".

Do pay attention, I quoted the text of statute law above, your
assertion, like "never off-duty", implies the law is meaningless.

Judges have held otherwise.
Dolbear, I know a hell of a lot about the law, and statute or not
what
ever some outsider thinks, NOBODY is superior to anyone else within
the police. Next you'll be saying white slave owners were superior to
the people they say they owned. If some judge cannot understand the
distinction, that is not my problem. The correct terminology is
senior, not superior. Anyone claiming otherwise is just being
offensive, and anyone in the police who claimed to be "superior" soon
had the gloss rubbed off their pips, usually by someone senior to
them.

Which answer does rather leave the police open to "Police Culture
forbids use of terminology used by Acts of Parliament" and "there are
three ways of saying this, the legal way, the wrong way and the police
way".

Canteen Culture rules KO.

--
Mike D

The mythical canteen culture has nothing to do with it, the term
superior when describing one person in relation to another was deemed
offensive as it inferred some people were therefore inferior. People
persisting in using such terminology tend to be members of
organisations like the BNP, or old fashioned judges from the early
1960s. By the time of the 1986 POA law makers had started to realise
that even if you haven't.