Donate SIGN UP

relieving myself

Avatar Image
lozzzz | 09:23 Thu 18th Aug 2005 | News
8 Answers
In the telegraph today I was reading about the shooting of the Brazillian,according to the officer on surveillance outside his house that morning,he wasnt able to transmit a message or turn on his surveillance camera because he was relieving himself..I though it was against the law to do this in the street,(im assuming he didnt nip off to the nearest public loo)While it sounds petty it shouldnt be one rule for them and one for us.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 8 of 8rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by lozzzz. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It isn't "one rule for them and one for us". It is technically an offence but I don't think I've ever heard of someone being prosecuted for it if done discretely.
Surveillance officers in the army (and the officer was from the army seconded to the police), i believe are trained (in circumstances of life and death surveillance) to relieve themselves in the position they are (maybe crouching in a field). This is so that vital information is not lost while carrying out natures call. Of course this situation was not bog standard army surveillance in times of war so the officer may have relieved himself in a nearby wall.
I know of someone who was prosecuted for it.  It was put down as "indecent behaviour" even though no-one but the officers that caught him saw him

and the marathon runner Paula Radcliffe did it in front of a million people...but thats OK.

I know someone who was warned about urinating behind a tree at 3.00am and a police car just happened to be passing by.  The offence they quoted was indecent exposure!!

I read the same article and thought the fella was inside a house - it is quite clear that even in the DT (ha!) we arent getting all the details.

One effect the authorities did not expect was that since no offence was committed - the policeman thought he was armed so in common law he isnt guilty of anything.But this means that since no charges are ever going to be brought, it will never be sub judice and so media speculation can go on being rife. There is no way in which they can be shut up.

I am amazed that the police should ever say - we have so many important things to do that we are too busy to investigate the shooting of an innocent man. kinda makes you think you're really safe on the streets, dunnit ?

bog standard - lol Dom Tuk. Yes, I assumed he was inside somewhere; you're hardly going to be unobtrusive while you're surveilling if you're peeing in the street.

I have heard that, in times of war taxi drivers are allowed to pee on the rear, pavement-side wheel of their taxi.

As are people leaving nightclubs, as long as it is after 2 in the morning, and they choose a suitable shopfront.

1 to 8 of 8rss feed

Do you know the answer?

relieving myself

Answer Question >>

Related Questions