Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Cyclone 10]

Surely if they know that no crime is being committed, then arresting them is itself illegal.

You can't be arrested on a whim, there has to be reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.

 

---------- Post added 26-01-2017 at 22:03 ----------

 

Very bad decision,opening floodgates for more protestors to behave like they are above the law, the courts have set a precedent now, you can get away it.

 

In what way is peaceful protest acting above the law?

 

They had to arrest them under some obscure trade union act that prohibits a picket line blocking people attending a place of work. Of course it was dropped, the law was entirely irrelevant to what they were actually doing.

 

---------- Post added 26-01-2017 at 22:04 ----------

 

Alternative reading:

 

Amey will be removing dead/dying trees on Dobcroft Road and Whirlowdale Road.

 

You know full well that this isn't the case though.

[WarPig 78]

Surely if they know that no crime is being committed, then arresting them is itself illegal.

You can't be arrested on a whim, there has to be reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.

 

Yes, there was a criminal act, or at least an offence was being committed. But arresting someone and prosecuting someone are two entirely separate things. You can be arrested and not prosecuted. The CPS have a threshold when deciding whether to prosecute..

 

1) Is it in the public interest?

2) Is there a reasonable chance of a prosecution?

 

Police dont arrest someone because they are guilty. Guilt has to be decided at court. And sometimes the prosecution threshold isn't met.

 

Basically, when the police arrest someone its usually so an investigation can be carried out, whether that be questioning them in interview, or other investigative procedures.

 

So in this case, an offence was committed, the arrests were made to prevent the women from stopping the tree felling to take place, but the CPS decided it didn't pass their threshold. A result that the police i'm sure will be more than happy with. Im guessing all of this would have been predicted by everyone involved all along. But thats the system we've got. And it was the right result for everyone.

Edited January 26, 2017 by WarPig

[Cyclone 10]

Oh, what was the criminal offence then? It certainly wasn't standing in a picket line blocking people from attending a place of work, which is the legislation they claimed they were arresting them under.

Hopefully they'll complain to the IPCC about the wrongful arrest, as it seems unlikely that an offence was taking place and the police knew that.

[WarPig 78]

I wasn't there, but why do you automatically assume it was a wrongful arrest?

[LeMaquis 10]

I wasn't there, but why do you automatically assume it was a wrongful arrest?

 

If you weren't there why do you automatically think a criminal act was committed?

[WarPig 78]

I'm not saying it was a criminal act, just that the cops will have suspected they were committing an offence, and dealt with it accordingly.

 

If cops arrest someone who they suspect is committing an offence, but that person isn't subsequently prosecuted then it doesn't automatically mean the arrest was unlawful, how can it? Suspicion is often all that is needed to arrest, and it has to be that way.

Edited January 27, 2017 by WarPig

[BORIS 10]

The excuse about the mounds in pavements being a danger to people and the reason for cutting these trees is a nonsense. They have been like that since I was a boy (long time ago)

It underestimates the blind and other people who cope with much worse things from the state of pavements and roads in general.

Walking along ecclesall rd south near to the Ashoka resteraunt I notice that a tree has been felled and the swell in the pavement has just been tarmaced over and badly at that with no atempt to remove the roots. Maybe someone can get a pic and post it on here.

[Cyclone 10]

I'm not saying it was a criminal act, just that the cops will have suspected they were committing an offence, and dealt with it accordingly.

 

If cops arrest someone who they suspect is committing an offence, but that person isn't subsequently prosecuted then it doesn't automatically mean the arrest was unlawful, how can it? Suspicion is often all that is needed to arrest, and it has to be that way.

 

Genuine suspicion of a genuine offense.

 

"I thought they were up to no good" is not a valid reason to arrest someone.

 

"I am arresting you under suspicion of...", so when they trot out some obscure anti union law to arrest them under, everyone knows full well that it doesn't apply, and they've just made a questionable arrest. In this case with political motivation.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Genuine suspicion of a genuine offense.

 

"I thought they were up to no good" is not a valid reason to arrest someone.

 

"I am arresting you under suspicion of...", so when they trot out some obscure anti union law to arrest them under, everyone knows full well that it doesn't apply, and they've just made a questionable arrest. In this case with political motivation.

 

Laws don't just apply to union members unless they are worded as such.

[NigelFargate 10]

The excuse about the mounds in pavements being a danger to people and the reason for cutting these trees is a nonsense. They have been like that since I was a boy (long time ago)

It underestimates the blind and other people who cope with much worse things from the state of pavements and roads in general.

Walking along ecclesall rd south near to the Ashoka resteraunt I notice that a tree has been felled and the swell in the pavement has just been tarmaced over and badly at that with no atempt to remove the roots. Maybe someone can get a pic and post it on here.

 

Excellent points

[WarPig 78]

"I am arresting you under suspicion of...", so when they trot out some obscure anti union law to arrest them under, everyone knows full well that it doesn't apply, and they've just made a questionable arrest. In this case with political motivation.

 

What makes you think that law didn't apply?

[Cyclone 10]

Are you serious?

 

The lack of a picket line, the lack of a union, the lack of any of the specifics of that law actually applying to the situation we are talking about... Just think about it for a minute and get back to us.

 

I suppose we could also add on that the CPS have immediately dropped it, not proof that it didn't apply, but they clearly don't think they could get a conviction.