Drug Tests

[DrFaroohk]

So to settle the lie thing, just because I cannot let it go: It seems the argument hinges on my hoping for a false negative, correct? I was, in fact, not hoping for a false negative. I was hoping they didn't give a crap about marijuana. So there. No lie. It was not my intent to deceive anyone. If it were, I would have bought a flush kit or substituted my urine with my step son's.

It would be like someone saying "Have you ever stolen from work?" and saying no, even though there was one time you borrowed a pen from the office and forgot to return it, and it wound up back at your house. Technically you did in fact steal something, by taking something that did not belong to you, but you assume that's not what they mean when they ask you.


DrFaroohk - 1

The Liar's Club - Big fat ZERO

[crazylegs]

May I ask what your job is? Your phrasing make you sound like a parole officer, which I guess would make one suspect for criminal activity sadly.

I forget the exact terminology, but it's almost like the UK version of a Peace Officer.

I'm a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO).

[Flyndaran]

I'm a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO).

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm glad that we don't have that here in the U.S.
I really don't like that it's illegal to refuse to provide personal information to you. Here privacy laws let me tell a cop to get bent as long as I haven't broken the law.

[crazylegs]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm glad that we don't have that here in the U.S.
I really don't like that it's illegal to refuse to provide personal information to you. Here privacy laws let me tell a cop to get bent as long as I haven't broken the law.

I can only demand details if a law has been broken, or anti social behaviour (ASB) is being commited. ASB is defined as actions that can, will or have caused harrasement, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household [of the person commiting it]. That definition of ASB means that technically they are breaking the law under the Public Order Act.

[Flyndaran]

I can only demand details if a law has been broken, or anti social behaviour (ASB) is being commited. ASB is defined as actions that can, will or have caused harrasement, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household [of the person commiting it]. That definition of ASB means that technically they are breaking the law under the Public Order Act.

So being a prick is against the law there? Again, I'm glad that style of governing is not here.
That page you linked to didn't show that a law must be broken beforehand. I'm just glad free speech is quite a bit stronger over here.

[DrFaroohk]

I think it would be awesome to live in a place where being a douchebag is illegal. Where just being rude and nasty can nab you a hefty fine or a night in jail.

[Flyndaran]

I think it would be awesome to live in a place where being a douchebag is illegal. Where just being rude and nasty can nab you a hefty fine or a night in jail.

That's the problem. Only some are douchey professionally. We are all douchebags once in a while. Should we all be policed in day to day life?
So far, america has said, "no", while england said, "yes".

[lordlundar]

Flyn, ever hear of the charges of disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, public disturbance? Those are all the same as the ASB you are complaining about.

Honestly, too many Americans see Britain as a fascist state by taking these things way out of context.

[Flyndaran]

Flyn, ever hear of the charges of disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, public disturbance? Those are all the same as the ASB you are complaining about.

Honestly, too many Americans see Britain as a fascist state by taking these things way out of context.

How often are people arrested for disturbing the peace that weren't violent as well? Maybe the laws are enforced differently there. But disturbing the peace is usually code for domestic dispute, or fall down drunk here.
I bet it's our definitions of antisocial behavior that differ.
I would consider telling a cop to go fuck himself with his partner's dick all while giving him the nazi salute antisocial behavior, but nevertheless protected free speech. Could he get arrested in England for that?
Getting into an argument with my neighbor and following it up by keying his car wouldn't get me arrested. It would be a nice case for, "Judge Judy" though.
I'm sure that what a law says and how it is enforced are often quite different.

[crazylegs]

1I would consider telling a cop to go fuck himself with his partner's dick all while giving him the nazi salute antisocial behavior, but nevertheless protected free speech. Could he get arrested in England for that?
2Getting into an argument with my neighbor and following it up by keying his car wouldn't get me arrested. It would be a nice case for, "Judge Judy" though.
I'm sure that what a law says and how it is enforced are often quite different.

1
Yes, you could. It qualifies as an offence under the Public Order Act, where a person of reasonable firmness is, or could feel Harrased OR Alarmed OR distressed. It does not need to be the target that feels that however for the offence to be completed.

2
You would be arrested over here, keying the car would be criminal damage, which is an arrestable offence.

I think it would be awesome to live in a place where being a douchebag is illegal. Where just being rude and nasty can nab you a hefty fine or a night in jail.

9 times out of 10 it won't. The police are taught (and it's drummed into them) that the removal of a persons liberty must be the final act that you consider to resolve the situation. The majority of cases can be (as I did tonight) be solved by some very stiff wording which does the trick quite nicely. You do need to be more than rude to be arrested, I don't have the offence wording to hand but simply being rude won't land you in jail; even if the law is broken you're more likely to receive an £80 Penalty Notice for Disorder for the minor public order offences.

[BroomJockey]

Getting into an argument with my neighbor and following it up by keying his car wouldn't get me arrested. It would be a nice case for, "Judge Judy" though.

Vandalism. Destruction of property. Yeah, you'd get arrested.

[Flyndaran]

Vandalism. Destruction of property. Yeah, you'd get arrested.

That seems like a ridulous waste of police resources. Property damage should be settled in civil court. Only poor people get jailed for such things if ever.

[Rapscallion]

That seems like a ridulous waste of police resources. Property damage should be settled in civil court. Only poor people get jailed for such things if ever.

Seems ridiculous to me that you pay taxes for police and don't make them work to defend people and their property.

Seems ridiculous to have a justice system that favours the wealthy.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Seems ridiculous to me that you pay taxes for police and don't make them work to defend people and their property.

Seems ridiculous to have a justice system that favours the wealthy.

Rapscallion

I agree on the second point. I wish we had a loser pays law.

The first one, of course no one pays cops to protect people directly. Thier job is to arrest people after they have committed crimes. They aren't paid to be psychic or parents.

[BlaqueKatt]

Seems ridiculous to me that you pay taxes for police and don't make them work to defend people and their property.

sorry our supreme court has said they have no obligation to do so.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Also this case

says pretty much the same thing

While the U.S. Supreme Court has held the Fifth Amendment forbids the state from depriving an individual of life, liberty or property without due process, Cox said the high court didn’t impose an obligation that the state ensure those interests “do not come to harm by other means.”

Cox wrote that the right denied under the Ninth Amendment was clearly enumerated by the plaintiff, but the amendment has never been held by the court to grant a right to “adequate police protection.”