Discussion:
What if Mr Patel makes a citizen's arrest?
(too old to reply)
thedarkman
2009-09-14 12:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Another report this morning about Trading Standards officers using
schoolchildren to make test purchases of cigarettes from newsagents.
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.

Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.

What happens next?
Jeff
2009-09-14 12:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by thedarkman
Another report this morning about Trading Standards officers using
schoolchildren to make test purchases of cigarettes from newsagents.
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Which the law allows them to do.
Post by thedarkman
Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.
What happens next?
Nothing, or perhaps Mr Patel is arrested for false imprisonment. Citizen's
arrests are only lawful if a crime is actually being committed and that
crime is indictable.

Jeff
gaz
2009-09-14 16:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff
Post by thedarkman
Another report this morning about Trading Standards officers using
schoolchildren to make test purchases of cigarettes from newsagents.
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Which the law allows them to do.
Post by thedarkman
Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.
What happens next?
Nothing, or perhaps Mr Patel is arrested for false imprisonment.
Citizen's arrests are only lawful if a crime is actually being
committed and that crime is indictable.
Jeff
Pretty much all crimes are now indictable, are they not?

Gaz
Alex Heney
2009-09-14 20:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by gaz
Post by Jeff
Post by thedarkman
Another report this morning about Trading Standards officers using
schoolchildren to make test purchases of cigarettes from newsagents.
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Which the law allows them to do.
Post by thedarkman
Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.
What happens next?
Nothing, or perhaps Mr Patel is arrested for false imprisonment.
Citizen's arrests are only lawful if a crime is actually being
committed and that crime is indictable.
Jeff
Pretty much all crimes are now indictable, are they not?
No.

There are many crimes which are still summary only.

And persuading a minor to buy cigarettes is one of them.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
URA Redneck if your truck cost more than your house.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
thedarkman
2009-09-14 19:40:15 UTC
Permalink
So you are saying that trading standards officers - and police
officers? - are allowed to incite people to break the law? And how do
you feel about the case of John de Lorean for example? The tip of a
very large iceberg.
Post by Jeff
Post by thedarkman
What happens next?
Nothing, or perhaps Mr Patel is arrested for false imprisonment. Citizen's
arrests are only lawful if a crime is actually being committed and that
crime is indictable.
Jeff
Mrcheerful
2009-09-14 20:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by thedarkman
So you are saying that trading standards officers - and police
officers? - are allowed to incite people to break the law? And how do
you feel about the case of John de Lorean for example? The tip of a
very large iceberg.
Enforcement of the law
Trading standards services are required to enforce the law, which they do in
the following ways:
Providing advice and education to traders and consumers, including parents,
teachers and young people.
Investigating complaints made by consumers or by traders about shops
believed to be supplying children with tobacco.

In appropriate cases, using school children to attempt to buy cigarettes.
They behave as ordinary customers, under the supervision of a trading
standards officer. Guidelines, endorsed by the Home Office, ensure that the
exercise is fair. If a sale takes place, legal proceedings may be commenced.
Alex Heney
2009-09-14 21:01:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
Post by thedarkman
So you are saying that trading standards officers - and police
officers? - are allowed to incite people to break the law?
No. They are permitted to test whether the law is being complied with.
They aren't "inciting" anything.

Any more than the shopkeeper would be "inciting" you to commit theft
if he had some goods on a shelf outside the shop where you could
easily make off with them.
Post by thedarkman
And how do
you feel about the case of John de Lorean for example? The tip of a
very large iceberg.
Do you think that has anything to do with what is under discussion?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Big Les Wade
2009-09-15 09:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
Post by thedarkman
So you are saying that trading standards officers - and police
officers? - are allowed to incite people to break the law?
No. They are permitted to test whether the law is being complied with.
They aren't "inciting" anything.
Any more than the shopkeeper would be "inciting" you to commit theft
if he had some goods on a shelf outside the shop where you could
easily make off with them.
Oh, rubbish, Alex. They ask children to get a shopkeeper to sell them
cigarettes. Of course that is incitement to break the law. You can argue
that it is morally justified, or that the law permits it in this case,
but you can't argue that it is not incitement.
--
Les
Conspiracy theory: A suspicion that officials sometimes mislead the public in
order to protect their own interests.
thedarkman
2009-09-15 11:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Why not take it one stage further and recruit 12 year olds to put
temptation in the way of convicted paedophiles? That is where this
sort of thing leads us to.
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Alex Heney
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
Post by thedarkman
So you are saying that trading standards officers - and police
officers? - are allowed to incite people to break the law?
No. They are permitted to test whether the law is being complied with.
They aren't "inciting" anything.
Any more than the shopkeeper would be "inciting" you to commit theft
if he had some goods on a shelf outside the shop where you could
easily make off with them.
Oh, rubbish, Alex. They ask children to get a shopkeeper to sell them
cigarettes. Of course that is incitement to break the law. You can argue
that it is morally justified, or that the law permits it in this case,
but you can't argue that it is not incitement.
Alex Heney
2009-09-16 01:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Alex Heney
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
Post by thedarkman
So you are saying that trading standards officers - and police
officers? - are allowed to incite people to break the law?
No. They are permitted to test whether the law is being complied with.
They aren't "inciting" anything.
Any more than the shopkeeper would be "inciting" you to commit theft
if he had some goods on a shelf outside the shop where you could
easily make off with them.
Oh, rubbish, Alex. They ask children to get a shopkeeper to sell them
cigarettes. Of course that is incitement to break the law. You can argue
that it is morally justified, or that the law permits it in this case,
but you can't argue that it is not incitement.
I can and will, because it isn't.

It is giving them the opportunity to do so, no more.

I am sure the shopkeepers of most small shops get asked quite to sell
cigarettes quite frequently by children. And I don't regard that as
"incitement" to break the law either.

Incitement means positive encouragement, rather than just giving the
opportunity.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
AlanG
2009-09-16 08:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Alex Heney
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
Post by thedarkman
So you are saying that trading standards officers - and police
officers? - are allowed to incite people to break the law?
No. They are permitted to test whether the law is being complied with.
They aren't "inciting" anything.
Any more than the shopkeeper would be "inciting" you to commit theft
if he had some goods on a shelf outside the shop where you could
easily make off with them.
Oh, rubbish, Alex. They ask children to get a shopkeeper to sell them
cigarettes. Of course that is incitement to break the law. You can argue
that it is morally justified, or that the law permits it in this case,
but you can't argue that it is not incitement.
I can and will, because it isn't.
It is giving them the opportunity to do so, no more.
I am sure the shopkeepers of most small shops get asked quite to sell
cigarettes quite frequently by children. And I don't regard that as
"incitement" to break the law either.
Incitement means positive encouragement, rather than just giving the
opportunity.
And just what the hell is telling a 17 yr old to go into a shop and
attempt to purchase a can of lager if not incitement?
Alex Heney
2009-09-16 21:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Alex Heney
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
Post by thedarkman
So you are saying that trading standards officers - and police
officers? - are allowed to incite people to break the law?
No. They are permitted to test whether the law is being complied with.
They aren't "inciting" anything.
Any more than the shopkeeper would be "inciting" you to commit theft
if he had some goods on a shelf outside the shop where you could
easily make off with them.
Oh, rubbish, Alex. They ask children to get a shopkeeper to sell them
cigarettes. Of course that is incitement to break the law. You can argue
that it is morally justified, or that the law permits it in this case,
but you can't argue that it is not incitement.
I can and will, because it isn't.
It is giving them the opportunity to do so, no more.
I am sure the shopkeepers of most small shops get asked quite to sell
cigarettes quite frequently by children. And I don't regard that as
"incitement" to break the law either.
Incitement means positive encouragement, rather than just giving the
opportunity.
And just what the hell is telling a 17 yr old to go into a shop and
attempt to purchase a can of lager if not incitement?
I don't like just repeating what I have written, but *exactly* what I
wrote above still applies. Since it is the exact same situation, just
with alcohol in place of cigarettes.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
People who live in stone houses shouldn't throw glasses.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
AlanG
2009-09-17 07:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
Post by AlanG
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Alex Heney
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
Post by thedarkman
So you are saying that trading standards officers - and police
officers? - are allowed to incite people to break the law?
No. They are permitted to test whether the law is being complied with.
They aren't "inciting" anything.
Any more than the shopkeeper would be "inciting" you to commit theft
if he had some goods on a shelf outside the shop where you could
easily make off with them.
Oh, rubbish, Alex. They ask children to get a shopkeeper to sell them
cigarettes. Of course that is incitement to break the law. You can argue
that it is morally justified, or that the law permits it in this case,
but you can't argue that it is not incitement.
I can and will, because it isn't.
It is giving them the opportunity to do so, no more.
I am sure the shopkeepers of most small shops get asked quite to sell
cigarettes quite frequently by children. And I don't regard that as
"incitement" to break the law either.
Incitement means positive encouragement, rather than just giving the
opportunity.
And just what the hell is telling a 17 yr old to go into a shop and
attempt to purchase a can of lager if not incitement?
I don't like just repeating what I have written, but *exactly* what I
wrote above still applies. Since it is the exact same situation, just
with alcohol in place of cigarettes.
It is still incitement. The fact it is permitted by law does not make
it any less so
Cynic
2009-09-15 13:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
No. They are permitted to test whether the law is being complied with.
They aren't "inciting" anything.
Any more than the shopkeeper would be "inciting" you to commit theft
if he had some goods on a shelf outside the shop where you could
easily make off with them.
If the child entered the shop and waited for the shopkeeper to offer
to sell him cigarettes, I would agree with you. If however the child
*asks* the shopkeeper to sell him cigarettes, than that is clearly
incitement.

Your analogy (which is a lot worse than the analogies you often
criticise me for) would be more accurate if the shopkeeper placed a
sign above the goods saying, "Please take one".
--
Cynic
AlanG
2009-09-14 15:05:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:01:38 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
Post by thedarkman
Another report this morning about Trading Standards officers using
schoolchildren to make test purchases of cigarettes from newsagents.
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.
What happens next?
Mr Patel gets arrested for assault cos he didn't bother to check the
powers of trading standards officers to recruit under aged test
purchasers.
Alex Heney
2009-09-14 20:57:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:01:38 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
Post by thedarkman
Another report this morning about Trading Standards officers using
schoolchildren to make test purchases of cigarettes from newsagents.
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Utter rubbish.

There is NO chance that any shopkeeper selling cigarettes to children
is "unknowingly" breaking the law, and therefore they are not
"innocent" either.
Post by thedarkman
Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.
What happens next?
Mr Patel rightly goes to jail for false arrest.

Because even if he could somehow convince the jury that he believed
this person to not be involved in law enforcement, the "offence" for
which he would be arresting them is not an indictable offence,
therefore citizens arrests are not legally possible.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
When I tried to take an ego trip I got stopped at the border
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Cynic
2009-09-15 13:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
Utter rubbish.
There is NO chance that any shopkeeper selling cigarettes to children
is "unknowingly" breaking the law, and therefore they are not
"innocent" either.
Of course they may be unknowingly breaking the law if they believed
that the customer was older than 17.

I know a couple of 17 year olds who are never asked for ID when buying
alcohol at pubs because they appear to be in their mid to late
twenties. The barkeepers in that case are definitely *unknowingly*
breaking the law (and a reason why one bar in my area has a notice
saying ID will be requested of anyone who appears to be younger than
*40*!)
--
Cynic
Graham Murray
2009-09-15 13:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by thedarkman
Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.
Is it not also an offence for someone underage to attempt to purchase
tobacco or alcohol? So would Mr Patel be allowed to make a citizen's
arrest of the child and call the police, in the same way as he could for
a shoplifter?
Mrcheerful
2009-09-15 13:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Murray
Post by thedarkman
Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.
Is it not also an offence for someone underage to attempt to purchase
tobacco or alcohol? So would Mr Patel be allowed to make a citizen's
arrest of the child and call the police, in the same way as he could for
a shoplifter?
sigh.... no there is an exemption under home office guidelines to allow TS
to use children to attempt test purchases.
AlanG
2009-09-15 16:29:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:03:07 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by thedarkman
Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.
Is it not also an offence for someone underage to attempt to purchase
tobacco or alcohol?
No. That would be too easy.
Post by Graham Murray
So would Mr Patel be allowed to make a citizen's
arrest of the child and call the police, in the same way as he could for
a shoplifter?
Alex Heney
2009-09-16 01:07:19 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:03:07 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by thedarkman
Now, suppose Mr Patel seeks this bald bastard lurking outside, sells
the fags, then he and his cousin pounce on this creep and make a
citizen's arrest for incitement.
Is it not also an offence for someone underage to attempt to purchase
tobacco or alcohol?
No.
Post by Graham Murray
So would Mr Patel be allowed to make a citizen's
arrest of the child and call the police, in the same way as he could for
a shoplifter?
If it were, it certainly would not be an indictable offence (since the
offence of selling it isn't), so no he still wouldn't be able to.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"Nietzsche is dead." --God.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Why I Like BT
2009-09-15 13:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by thedarkman
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Cynic
2009-09-15 13:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Why I Like BT
Post by thedarkman
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
But ignorance of the *facts* are a valid defence. If the shopkeeper
could show that he had no reason to suspect that the child was
underage, it would be a valid defence.
--
Cynic
Why I Like BT
2009-09-15 14:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Why I Like BT
Post by thedarkman
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
But ignorance of the *facts* are a valid defence. If the shopkeeper
could show that he had no reason to suspect that the child was
underage, it would be a valid defence.
I agree but I assume that the kids chosen for this task are obviously
under-age else it wouldn't be a fair test. If the shopkeeper is in any doubt
then they should request ID.
Cynic
2009-09-15 16:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Why I Like BT
Post by Cynic
Post by Why I Like BT
Post by thedarkman
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
But ignorance of the *facts* are a valid defence. If the shopkeeper
could show that he had no reason to suspect that the child was
underage, it would be a valid defence.
I agree but I assume that the kids chosen for this task are obviously
under-age else it wouldn't be a fair test.
Does it have to be a fair test? If the goal is to prosecute as many
shopkeepers as possible to make the officer look good, the best would
be to use a child who looks a lot older than they are.
--
Cynic
AlanG
2009-09-15 17:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Why I Like BT
Post by Cynic
Post by Why I Like BT
Post by thedarkman
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
But ignorance of the *facts* are a valid defence. If the shopkeeper
could show that he had no reason to suspect that the child was
underage, it would be a valid defence.
I agree but I assume that the kids chosen for this task are obviously
under-age else it wouldn't be a fair test.
Does it have to be a fair test? If the goal is to prosecute as many
shopkeepers as possible to make the officer look good, the best would
be to use a child who looks a lot older than they are.
Guidelines don't allow that. The child used has to look his/her actual
age and not over 18. They are also not permitted to claim to be 18 if
challenged.
Cynic
2009-09-15 17:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
Post by Cynic
Does it have to be a fair test? If the goal is to prosecute as many
shopkeepers as possible to make the officer look good, the best would
be to use a child who looks a lot older than they are.
Guidelines don't allow that. The child used has to look his/her actual
age and not over 18. They are also not permitted to claim to be 18 if
challenged.
I have heard of a number of cases where the defendant has protested
that guidelines were not followed by the authorities who are
prosecuting him, only to be told that guidelines are not the law, and
do not have to be followed.

*If* those guidelines are followed, then a shopkeeper who does not
mind selling to undergae children need simply ensure that the customer
*says* that they are 18 or older to be safe from prosecution.
--
Cynic
AlanG
2009-09-15 18:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by AlanG
Post by Cynic
Does it have to be a fair test? If the goal is to prosecute as many
shopkeepers as possible to make the officer look good, the best would
be to use a child who looks a lot older than they are.
Guidelines don't allow that. The child used has to look his/her actual
age and not over 18. They are also not permitted to claim to be 18 if
challenged.
I have heard of a number of cases where the defendant has protested
that guidelines were not followed by the authorities who are
prosecuting him, only to be told that guidelines are not the law, and
do not have to be followed.
I have never heard of that happening but I can only speak for this
area.
Post by Cynic
*If* those guidelines are followed, then a shopkeeper who does not
mind selling to undergae children need simply ensure that the customer
*says* that they are 18 or older to be safe from prosecution.
Are you sure?
Cynic
2009-09-16 11:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
Post by Cynic
Post by AlanG
Guidelines don't allow that. The child used has to look his/her actual
age and not over 18. They are also not permitted to claim to be 18 if
challenged.
I have heard of a number of cases where the defendant has protested
that guidelines were not followed by the authorities who are
prosecuting him, only to be told that guidelines are not the law, and
do not have to be followed.
I have never heard of that happening but I can only speak for this
area.
Post by Cynic
*If* those guidelines are followed, then a shopkeeper who does not
mind selling to undergae children need simply ensure that the customer
*says* that they are 18 or older to be safe from prosecution.
Are you sure?
It follows logically that if the guidelines stated are being followed,
then any child who falsely claims to be 18 cannot be a trap.
Therefore the probability that the shopkeeper will be caught by that
particular tactic is zero. There are other ways that the shopkeeper
could be caught, but ISTM that most other methods would likely have
evidential problems if it came to a prosecution, and the shopkeeper
would be more likely to be given "words of advice" instead.
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
2009-09-16 01:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Why I Like BT
Post by Cynic
Post by Why I Like BT
Post by thedarkman
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
But ignorance of the *facts* are a valid defence. If the shopkeeper
could show that he had no reason to suspect that the child was
underage, it would be a valid defence.
I agree but I assume that the kids chosen for this task are obviously
under-age else it wouldn't be a fair test.
Does it have to be a fair test?
It does if they want to succeed in a prosecution.
Post by Cynic
If the goal is to prosecute as many
shopkeepers as possible to make the officer look good, the best would
be to use a child who looks a lot older than they are.
The *stated* goal is to deter shopkeepers from doing it in future.

But even if the individual TS man has an internal goal such as that,
it will be to *convict* a many as possible, and they won't do that by
using children who are not *obviously* under-age.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
People own dogs. Cats own people.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Cynic
2009-09-16 12:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Cynic
If the goal is to prosecute as many
shopkeepers as possible to make the officer look good, the best would
be to use a child who looks a lot older than they are.
The *stated* goal is to deter shopkeepers from doing it in future.
But even if the individual TS man has an internal goal such as that,
it will be to *convict* a many as possible, and they won't do that by
using children who are not *obviously* under-age.
I don't see why not. The child enters the shop dressed to the 9's and
heavily made-up. Later in court, the child giving evidence has
pigtails and is wearing a school uniform. That's if the child even
needs to attend court - if not, the court will know only the child's
actual age and the fact that the defendent sold cigarettes to her
claiming that he thought she was 18 or older.
--
Cynic
Why I Like BT
2009-09-16 13:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
The child enters the shop dressed to the 9's and
heavily made-up. Later in court, the child giving evidence has
pigtails and is wearing a school uniform.
What if it was a girl though? ;)
AlanG
2009-09-16 15:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Cynic
If the goal is to prosecute as many
shopkeepers as possible to make the officer look good, the best would
be to use a child who looks a lot older than they are.
The *stated* goal is to deter shopkeepers from doing it in future.
But even if the individual TS man has an internal goal such as that,
it will be to *convict* a many as possible, and they won't do that by
using children who are not *obviously* under-age.
I don't see why not. The child enters the shop dressed to the 9's and
heavily made-up. Later in court, the child giving evidence has
pigtails and is wearing a school uniform. That's if the child even
needs to attend court - if not, the court will know only the child's
actual age and the fact that the defendent sold cigarettes to her
claiming that he thought she was 18 or older.
This should help. It's Scotland but from memory there is little
difference
www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/201135/0053738.pdf
Alex Heney
2009-09-16 21:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Cynic
If the goal is to prosecute as many
shopkeepers as possible to make the officer look good, the best would
be to use a child who looks a lot older than they are.
The *stated* goal is to deter shopkeepers from doing it in future.
But even if the individual TS man has an internal goal such as that,
it will be to *convict* a many as possible, and they won't do that by
using children who are not *obviously* under-age.
I don't see why not.
First, it would be against TS guidelines.

<http://www.wirral.gov.uk/Minute/public/envreg080305rep1appendix1_26549.pdf>

There is a more recent version on the LACORS website, but you need a
user name and password to access that, and I doubt it has changed
significantly in this area.

Second, if the shopkeeper was claiming the defence that the child
appeared over the age of 18, the court would undoubtedly want to see
photographs of the child as they were dressed at the time.
Post by Cynic
The child enters the shop dressed to the 9's and
heavily made-up. Later in court, the child giving evidence has
pigtails and is wearing a school uniform. That's if the child even
needs to attend court - if not, the court will know only the child's
actual age and the fact that the defendent sold cigarettes to her
claiming that he thought she was 18 or older.
The fact that the court would undoubtedly want to see evidence of how
the child looked when making the purchase would mitigate against that.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Go shopping. Buy Stuff. Sweat in it. Return it the next day.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Cynic
2009-09-17 11:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Cynic
The child enters the shop dressed to the 9's and
heavily made-up. Later in court, the child giving evidence has
pigtails and is wearing a school uniform. That's if the child even
needs to attend court - if not, the court will know only the child's
actual age and the fact that the defendent sold cigarettes to her
claiming that he thought she was 18 or older.
The fact that the court would undoubtedly want to see evidence of how
the child looked when making the purchase would mitigate against that.
And if the shopkeeper claims that the photograph does not accurately
portray the appearance of the child at the time she entered the shop?
--
Cynic
AlanG
2009-09-17 15:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Cynic
The child enters the shop dressed to the 9's and
heavily made-up. Later in court, the child giving evidence has
pigtails and is wearing a school uniform. That's if the child even
needs to attend court - if not, the court will know only the child's
actual age and the fact that the defendent sold cigarettes to her
claiming that he thought she was 18 or older.
The fact that the court would undoubtedly want to see evidence of how
the child looked when making the purchase would mitigate against that.
And if the shopkeeper claims that the photograph does not accurately
portray the appearance of the child at the time she entered the shop?
In that case the court does what it is there for and judges who is
likely to be telling the truth. Sometimes it will get it wrong.

Alex Heney
2009-09-16 01:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Why I Like BT
Post by thedarkman
In other words, inciting innocent shopkeepers to break the law -
probably unknowingly.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
But ignorance of the *facts* are a valid defence. If the shopkeeper
could show that he had no reason to suspect that the child was
underage, it would be a valid defence.
Which is why TS are always careful to use children who definitely do
NOT appear older than they are.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I used to have a handle on life, then it broke.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...