It is legal to call a police horse "gay"

[Coito ergo sum]

Was it you, or mistermack, that said that "if you don't want to get arrested, don't be offensive?"

Didnt say that I but would say if you don't want to be arrested don't be in wrong place at the wrong time, ie you can't really absolutely avoid it.

That's ridiculous. What's the wrong place? Public streets?

I was nearly arrested when I was 14, I was pushing a pram at 5 oclock in the morning with a large sack in it.

I wouldn't be surprised if a cop asked you a couple questions, but there is no reason to arrest someone for pushing a pram at 5 am with a sack in it. If,however, the sack is filled with illegal cocaine, then I guess the analysis changes.

The police had been shouting at me for 5-10 minutes to stop to ask me what I was doing. I didnt hear them because I had head phones on which the police hadnt noticed.

So? What does this have to do with them shutting down your public speech on a soapbox in a public park because some onlookers are getting unruly over what you're saying?

I was doing a paper round and apart from the porno mag I had pitched wasnt commiting any crimes

Would it have been legal for them arrest me for refusing to stop and walking briskly away , almost certainly.

If the police had known I was wearing headphones probably not

Almost certainly not -- in the US. If police holler at you to stop here, and you just keep walking, you aren't committing a crime. If, however, they stop you and you resist in any way, then that would be a crime. They have the power to stop you if and only if they have reasonable suspicion (articulable) that you are committing a crime.

And, if they asked you questions and you refused to answer, they could arrest you only if they had probable cause that you were committing a crime. If you are not under arrest, you have a right to walk right away from police officers, except for the limited "stop and frisk." Once they've stopped and frisked you though, they either have to arrest you or let you go (unless you volunteer to stay). That's like the scene in many movies where the tough guy gets tired of asking the coppers' questions and he stands up in a huff and says "am I under arrest?!" And, the cops say "not yet." And, then he says "then we're through here," and marches out.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Would it have been legal for them arrest me for refusing to stop and walking briskly away , almost certainly.

No. Not without reasonable suspicion that you've committed some offence (or are imminently about to) or are carrying stolen goods or some prohibited item/substance.

Read and learn your rights. The police thrive on such ignorance and will take advantage regardless of whether you've done anything wrong or not...if you let them.
This country IS turning into a police state and the over-trusting sheeple here are letting it happen. This shit seriously pisses me off.

[Cormac]

Was it you, or mistermack, that said that "if you don't want to get arrested, don't be offensive?"

Didnt say that I but would say if you don't want to be arrested don't be in wrong place at the wrong time, ie you can't really absolutely avoid it.

I was nearly arrested when I was 14, I was pushing a pram at 5 oclock in the morning with a large sack in it.

The police had been shouting at me for 5-10 minutes to stop to ask me what I was doing. I didnt hear them because I had head phones on which the police hadnt noticed.

I was doing a paper round and apart from the porno mag I had pinched wasnt commiting any crimes

Would it have been legal for them arrest me for refusing to stop and walking briskly away , almost certainly.

If the police had known I was wearing headphones probably not

No, it would not.

Not without grounded suspicion that you had committed a serious crime.

[Cormac]

This is where the UK is appallingly in breach of freedom of speech and freedom of association. It reveals that at its heart, the UK still reserves sovereignty to the state.

Sovereignty lies with parliament where it is given by the people at election.

If the people had 'sovereignty' at all times they would be able to say I will break any law I feel like it because I pay Mr Policeman's wages. Again its silly idealism to say the people have it at all timez.

One definition of law is one superior group using regulations over an inferior group. Now you can argue who is inferior and superior but I'm telling you its not the individual on top. I can't send a judge to jail he he can send me

yes, but that is not how things are constitutionally in the UK.

[MrJonno]

Was it you, or mistermack, that said that "if you don't want to get arrested, don't be offensive?"

Didnt say that I but would say if you don't want to be arrested don't be in wrong place at the wrong time, ie you can't really absolutely avoid it.

I was nearly arrested when I was 14, I was pushing a pram at 5 oclock in the morning with a large sack in it.

The police had been shouting at me for 5-10 minutes to stop to ask me what I was doing. I didnt hear them because I had head phones on which the police hadnt noticed.

I was doing a paper round and apart from the porno mag I had pinched wasnt commiting any crimes

Would it have been legal for them arrest me for refusing to stop and walking briskly away , almost certainly.

If the police had known I was wearing headphones probably not

No, it would not.

Not without grounded suspicion that you had committed a serious crime.

Extreme early, dark , large pram with strange bag in it and 14 year old 'suspect' not cooperating

There are always going to be burgularies in the area so thats sounds reasonable suspicious to me

[Coito ergo sum]

The argument that cops can always make something up, so therefore we should loosen the legal protections for public speech, doesn't make a lot of sense.

That's like saying that cops can always plant evidence on you, so we may as well eliminate the requirement that they have evidence to arrest you.

[MrJonno]

The argument that cops can always make something up, so therefore we should loosen the legal protections for public speech, doesn't make a lot of sense.

That's like saying that cops can always plant evidence on you, so we may as well eliminate the requirement that they have evidence to arrest you.

No but it does mean the priority should be what happens to you after you are arrested, not whether you are arrested

[Coito ergo sum]

The argument that cops can always make something up, so therefore we should loosen the legal protections for public speech, doesn't make a lot of sense.

That's like saying that cops can always plant evidence on you, so we may as well eliminate the requirement that they have evidence to arrest you.

No but it does mean the priority should be what happens to you after you are arrested, not whether you are arrested

Those are not things that need to be "prioritized."

What happens to you after being arrested is very important, but ensuring that people aren't arrested for merely voicing offensive or unsavory opinions or political views is not something that detracts from efforts to offer protections after an arrest occurs.

[MrJonno]

All countries require reasonable suspicion to arrest someone which is impossible to judge and hence rule on. Police job is to ensure law and order, the order bit is just as important as the law

[Coito ergo sum]

All countries require reasonable suspicion to arrest someone which is impossible to judge and hence rule on. Police job is to ensure law and order, the order bit is just as important as the law

Saying offensive or unsavory things is not disorderly, and if others become disorderly because they are upset about the offensive or unsavory things, then they are the ones being disorderly, not the speaker.

[MrJonno]

All countries require reasonable suspicion to arrest someone which is impossible to judge and hence rule on. Police job is to ensure law and order, the order bit is just as important as the law

Saying offensive or unsavory things is not disorderly, and if others become disorderly because they are upset about the offensive or unsavory things, then they are the ones being disorderly, not the speaker.

It can be, go up to a crowd of drunk Man United supporters and shout you're wankers doesnt justify you being lynched but does justify the police from preventing it happening in the first place.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

All countries require reasonable suspicion to arrest someone which is impossible to judge and hence rule on. Police job is to ensure law and order, the order bit is just as important as the law

Police oath:-

I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

No mention of order there.

[MrJonno]

Cause the peace to be kept seems the equivalent to me

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I interpret it as "prevent violence".
Short of inciting violence or shouting and disturbing people at 3 am (or whatever), the voicing of opinions or views (no matter how stupid) surely does not constitute a breach of the peace. Violent reaction would, imo.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cause the peace to be kept seems the equivalent to me

Well, the issue is that not all ways to keep the peace are appropriate. If John Doe is hated because he's black, and white guys riot and chase John Doe because they hate black people, that doesn't mean that it would be appropriate to arrest John Doe, even if that would be the easiest way to prevent a breach of the peace. Similarly, if John Doe is out speaking out against the KKK, and the KKK get upset at his speech which offends them and upsets them, and they start getting unruly and riotous, it would not be appropriate to stop John Doe from speaking -- because he isn't doing anything wrong (and isn't doing anything that should be made illegal). Similarly, if John Doe, a KKK Grand Wizard, is speaking out against miscegenation, and a bunch of people start getting upset, unruly and riotous, then it would not be appropriate to stop John Doe from speaking - because he isn't doing anything wrong (and isn't doing anything that should be made illegal).