I’ve been in trouble with the law. Well, with a very special constable who apparently has the name Pyle, according to his name tag. I was happily walking – or proceeding as SPC Pyle would have put in his notebook – down Lisle Street, round the back of London’s Chinatown, when this young officer, who must have been all of 19 and wearing the most ridiculous glasses, told me to go walk on the pavement.
Now the pavements in Soho are remarkably narrow and there were no cars but plenty of people, so I simply said ‘no, i’m happy walking on the street’. He then tried to insist that I walk on the pavement and I refused, at which point he said, ‘right come with me’. I happened to be with my partner and two friends, both lawyers, and I might add had not imbibed a single drop of alcohol, and was minded not to obey, but thought better of it.
PSC Pyle then proceeded to waste five minutes of our time while he wrote out a docket, Form 5090, noting that I had been stopped. I refused to give my address or show any ID, and I later found out that I could have refused to give my name. The reason for the stop, which he had to give, was ‘refusal to co-operate with police when asked to walk on pavement. As we were eager to get to the Chinese restaurant, I acquiesced rather than walking away which was my instinct. I was handed a copy of the notice, together with a leaflet about ‘help us to defeat terrorism’
Well, I don’t think SPC Pyle has done anything to help the anti terrorism cause. Quite the opposite. While this is obviously a trivial matter, it shows the extent to which the police have been given powers on the basis of terrorism which they are all too ready to abuse. There was no question that four middle-aged people walking through Chinatown had terrorism on their minds. Moreover, there were literally hundreds of people walking in the street and actually, from a societal point of view, it is quite right that if a car came along, it should have to go at the speed of people rather than risking pushing through the crowds. What officious little coppers like young Pyle do not understand is that policing in this country is by consent and they need us to be on their side. Harassing people because they do not obey fatuous instructions is not the way to win over the public.
Popularity: 63% [?]
40 Responses
Time this bloody silly legislation was repealed.
Mind you, at least you will have added to some non-discrimination statistic on a Neu-Labour database.
Remember – if you are innocent you have nothing to fear.
My arse!
Posted on January 18th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
In addition (in Scotland anyway) there’s no legal impediment to people walking wherever they wish. Except motorways, of course. So this lad had no right to ask you onto the pavement. Probably.
Posted on January 18th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Christian, a word to the wise, but don’t start twittering about this or you’ll be off to the police station to have lights shone in your eyes for several hours.
Posted on January 19th, 2010 at 12:27 am
No they inject you back at the station now, saves their electricity. Pentathol Sodium is it?
Posted on January 19th, 2010 at 4:20 am
God I walk down the middle of Old Compton Street all the time – had better watch myself!
Posted on January 19th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Wonder if any of the BTP officers (and ex officers) so keen to post in relation to a previous article will have any helpful comments to make here?
Posted on January 19th, 2010 at 10:15 am
I used to respect you Wolmar, nor it seems you’re a deviant individual with scant respect for law and order. Like Maggie said, just respect the police and all will be well.
Posted on January 19th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
@Tim J:
“…nor it seems…” should read “…*now* it seems…”. Regardless, point stands. Just do as you’re told and stop complaining about it.
Posted on January 19th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
So all those people walking in the road when the pavements were iced up where being anti-social or disrespectful to plod or something ?
Posted on January 19th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
What you should do now, is quite simply raise an official complaint. They are duty obliged to investigate it, question you and the officer in question, and to provide you with a detailed response (and, given the madness on display here, an apology). Thank God you weren’t carrying a camera – that’s grounds to get an armed response unit on you.. But yes – it is sickening, another sign of just how petty and bullying authority has become of ordinary people in this country. Please, though, make the complaint – and publish the response.
Posted on January 20th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Raise an official complaint. Next time he will pull someone else over for walking on the cracks in the pavement
Posted on January 20th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Just as well you weren’t wearing a loud shirt.
Posted on January 20th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Indeed 198KHz – we are getting well into Constable Savage territory these days (see Not the Nine O’Clock News – nicely repeated close to New Year) – still there is something to be said for our society in that you don’t have to be from an ethnic minority to suffer these days! At least some issues of equality have moved on eh!
For anyone who has forgotten or not seen the sketch some wag has transcribed it on this page – superb stuff.
http://www.visordown.com/forum/forummessages/mps/dt/4/UTN/80115/
But Christian, as others say – make the formal complaint, after all others, possibly without the skills to know how to complain, will get harrassed by this chap. Obviously you’ll then get marked down as a ‘trouble maker’, but you probably already have been, so there is nothing to loose.
Posted on January 21st, 2010 at 11:30 am
I think the technical phrase is “an easy collar”. It’s so he can prove to his bosses that he was doing something.
Posted on January 22nd, 2010 at 6:05 pm
[...] example that came to my attention recently is of the Transport Journalist Christian Wolmar being told to walk on the pavement to "defeat terrorism". This is clearly insane, but I feel it is down to lack of [...]
Posted on January 31st, 2010 at 5:15 pm
This is fantastic,
however there is a by law that states walking in the road is punishable by death, dating back to the 1800’s
should i find it i will post it,
any officer is requierd by law to fill in a “Form 5090″ when stopping Any person and searching them or asking the to account for their Behaviour/Actions/presence in area etc…
there are as always two sides to every story and i do not belive this post to be the FULL truth,
just be thankfull this officer didnt give you the death sentance!
be happy all!
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 4:36 am
OOOOOOOO and to your terrorism point,
that leaflet is handed to EVERY person who is stopped by the police (when the “Form 5090″ is completed)
it is part of the book!
stop complaining any how.
Roads = Vechiles
Pavements = Pedestrians
your not a vehicle! Stick to the Pavement
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 4:51 am
It dosen’t matter what rank young pyle may be. SPC or PC.
If he tell’s you to get out of the road because you may get ran over. There’s no need to even reply, just do it. There are 2 sides to every story and no doubt you are giving less then half of it.
If an officer requires your details to complete the 5090. Under Sec 25 PACE you must give the relevant details required for him/her to carry out a name check to confirm who you actually are (especially in the cases for FPN’s/PND’s).As I said there is probably part of the story you have ‘forgotten’.Failure to provide these dets is an arrestable offence of that officer at the times ‘believes’ an offence has been comitted. If your lawyer friends have said you don’t need to. A- you’re causing conflict where it isn’t needed and B- Get the to revise PACE 1984 again.
As Sideshow Bob said, the Anti-Terrorism leaflets are given to everyone stopped who receives a 5090. It is a gentle reminder as to contact numbers you may need, and you would probably only complain had you not received any info on it especially with the Terrorism threat having been raised again.
As Kim said, raise a complaint, I mean, it’s not like the uniformed police inspectors have better things to do, then trail through these useless complaints which takes hours of reading and paperwork to complete, that will end in ‘young pyle, my office now …….. Now don’t get me into trouble again, my team dosen’t need it’.
How about you now write an article on how good it was to actually see a uniformed officer on the streets nowadays, and how pleased you are that SPC Pyle is one of those MoP’s who actually gives up his spare time in order to patrol the streets on his own, in order to reassure other members of the public, and that most officers are not donut-devouring station bound slobs who refuse to go out on old fashioned foot patrol.
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 6:30 am
Whichever moron said that under sec 25 PACE you have to provide your name clearly doesnt have a clue about his arse from his head. There is NO POWER to demand someones name and address from them UNLESS they have commited an offense. Walking down the road is not an offence unless it is causing an obstruction! So check your facts before you comment. It wouldnt suprise me if your one of these half witted, half trained specials. God help us!!!!!
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Dave, well you clearly dont understand PACE 1984, you have to provide your name and address when being issued with a FPN/PND. otherwise how are we meant to summons you to court? There however is no requirement to give your name and addresswhen completing a stop and search. but best that you do to stop being awkward.
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Euh, surely Lee the whole point about a free society is that you do not have to justify what you are doing unless it is illegal so why should I have given my address and date of birth. As it is, I deeply regret having given him my name which I learnt later I did not have to do. As for Me, post 18, you sound like a police officer who is just the kind that scares me rigid. The state should not interfere unnecessarily with people’s activities. And it is perfectly reasonable to walk in the street when the pavements are crowded and there are no cars.
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 10:09 pm
@Lee thats exactly what i said. If being issued an FPN/PND then you HAVE commited an offence and hence have to provide your name! What Christian was doing was not illegal and so was under no obligation to provide any details. Perhaps you should READ before commenting as im pretty sure i do understand PACE!
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 10:27 pm
This caught my eye on the web and Daves completely right. Under PACE the only time a MoP has to provide details is if an offence has been commited. FPN/PND have to be issued for offences hence details have to be provided. 5090′S ARE NOT OFFENCES LEE!!! More serious than Lee’s misunderstanding is the state of the police on a friday night in the west end. All the ones i see are SPC’s like Pyle and im not being harsh; i respect the work they do but most dont seem to have a clue. To be fair how could they… They work 25hrs a month. Pretty poor considering the powers they have.
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 10:34 pm
LEE you talk rubbish! Its not being awkward not providing your details. I bet your another copper with no clue. The only person being awkward was the SPC trying to intimidate a law abiding citizen. If a jumped up copper demanded my details i wouldnt give them. Who do they think they are? Good on you Christian
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 10:38 pm
It says something about the state of coppers that were arguing over whether christian has to provide his details. HE DOES NOT! I scares me rigid we have cops walking about thinking people do. To be fair though training at hendon is only 5 weeks now. Back when I did it it was a hell of a lot longer and residential. The crap training speaks for itself really!
Posted on February 1st, 2010 at 10:42 pm
What is it about people who post on fora? They never seem to be able to tell the difference between “your” and “you’re.” It doesn’t inspire confidence in their (they’re?) arguments, that’s for sure.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 3:29 pm
“Roads = Vechiles
Pavements = Pedestrians
your not a vehicle! Stick to the Pavement” (Sideshow Bob)
– Well, no actually. In an ideal world there would not be any vehicles in a city centre area like Soho with narrow streets, or least certainly not private cars. If allowed there at all, it should be clear that they are only there on sufferance. Cities are for people, not motorcars. In practice, you can walk in the road as long as you get out of the way when a vehicle does come along. I always make a point of doing so only slowly and with a show of reluctance, just to make it clear that pedestrians always have priority over tin boxes on wheels.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I might stop walking in the road if drivers didn’t park on the pavement. Apart from being selfish it is dangerous for blind people, mothers with prams, and young children running along the pavement (door mirrors are just the right height ot hit them in the face).
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 6:30 pm
peezedtee
“In an ideal world there would not be any vehicles in a city centre area like Soho”
firstly we do NOT live in an ideal world!
secondly a city needs vehicles,
i assume you are a green peace activist who hate vehicles full stop.
vehicles are here, pedestrians stick to the pavement!
Christian Wolmar stop being an arse!
when a Queens Constable, paid or unpaid requests you do something, DO IT.
by walking in the road you are effectively, ‘Obstructing the highway’ which IS an arrestable offence, yes look it up.
asking you to step on the pavement is a fairly justifiable action.
Posted on February 4th, 2010 at 2:53 am
Well done Christian for standing up for your rights and ours!
Recently I have had an excellent response from my local police force over an anti social behaviour problem and over the years my few dealings with the police (even when getting nicked for speeding) have been positive. However in all walks of life you come across the odd arse or two and the odd copper I have had dealings with have fallen in to this category.
As yet though there is no law that I know of that says you have to acquiesce to or be intimidated by people who are exceeding their authority. Of more concern to me are the attitudes of the likes of “Sideshow Bob” and “Me”, the “Just do as you’re told” brigade, “it’ll be good for you”! Long may the views they espouse remain a sideshow.
We now have a media, some politicians and parts of the establishment who want to see us intimidated and frightened of our own shadows. This has produced a situation where some of the population are seemingly willing to trade their rights and freedoms in the hope of protecting themselves from the latest bogeyman. Shame really as the bogeyman I’m concerned about is the one stealing my rights and freedoms.
Posted on February 4th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
I am not sure how serious a contribution certain people on this thread are actually trying to make (they know who they are) but surely the point being made here is that why pick on one person? Whether it was coincidence or fate that PC Pyle just happened to pick on a fairly well known journalist whose remit just happens to be transport is another matter of course……..
But when walking on the streets or just “off the pavement” around Soho is such a routine thing to do when it is busy (which is most of the time) – there are tens of thousands doing it every hour of the day, and drivers around the area are generally alert to this and know to expect that people are liable to walk in front of them.
Ironically the biggest hazard in this part of London is being mowed down by idiots on rickshaws – not cars!
Posted on February 4th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
“by walking in the road you are effectively, ‘Obstructing the highway’ which IS an arrestable offence, yes look it up.”
Bob – I’ve got to take issue with your post. I grew up in a rural area – they don’t have pavements there. To catch a school bus – or any bus for that matter – or to see your neighbour – you have to walk on the road. Then and now.
Is that an offence?
Is that an obstruction?
No, I suspect not, it’s just people (inc horses, cycles, cars, vans, pedestrians etc etc) sharing the space in the only way they can.
People who think that all types of vehicle should be segregated into diff sections of space seem to ignore the fact that this is often not possible, nor is society willing to pay for the infrastructure required even if it were desirable.
Posted on February 4th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
No you complete retard,
you have just taken what i said and made the most stupidest point i have ever herd,
the places you are talking about with no pavements are not very busy places and therefore dont have a lot of traffic for you to block
the road in question here, is very different to a countryside lane with no footpath.
the road we are talking about here is a busy city of London road that sees MANY MANY MANY vehicles use it on a daily bases.
Pedestrians die because people walk in the roads.
“Sharing the space in the only way they can.”
well pedestrians and vehicles do NOT need to share this space, as they have separate spaces to use in the city.
wouldn’t you ll just grow up.
The writer of this blog was upset he was asked to step out of the road and onto the pavement,
he then changed the story to benefit himself and make the police look bad and himself look good!
Q. who do you call when you’ve just be burgled.
A. THE POLICE
Q. who do you call when you are scared and someone is attacking you
A. THE POLICE
Q. who do you call when someone crashes into your car
A. THE POLICE
Q. who do you call when some twat walking in the road gets run over
A. THE POLICE
Q. when you need help and there is no one else to come, when someone attacks the country and you are scared and you are running for your life. when no one else is coming to help. who do you call.
A. THE POLICE
The Police do a job that is sooo difficult these days, and involves SO much paper work,
Special constables who do the same roles as Full time police officers who do not receive ANY payment for their time.
Regular Police Officers who do not get paid not nearly enough money for the job they do.
The Police do a job soo difficult and receive such bad press because of the work they do,
but who do you can when you need help. you call the police.
Who do you complain about when it doesn’t go your way.
The Police.
Now how about you show ALL emergency services some respect and be grateful of the work they / WE do.
How difficult is it to walk on the pavement,
as for al the people who have said he is standing up for your rights.
What rights are we talking about here.
The right for you to do as you please?
the right for you to pick and choose which laws you obey and which you do not,
RapidAssistant you say well done for standing up for your rights and ours?
what do you meant by that.
please explain to me what right he is standing up for?
and christian one more point i have to make!
you said.
“What officious little coppers like young Pyle do not understand is that policing in this country is by consent”
i think what your trying to say is, you can police but dont do what i dont want you to do,
if a motorist had run you down, what you call the police?
Posted on February 8th, 2010 at 12:39 am
Fairly offensive response Bob (not to mention one which could have done with a quick error check before posting), but on the original point we are talking about Lisle Street are we not? (central London) having just ‘walked it’ on Google Street view it actually looks like a bit of a mixed user street – the ‘pavements’ are actually laid flush with the ‘carriage way’. It’s narrow – so unlikely cars would speed through or if they did they would be doing so in an unsafe manner. The designers of the road layout here might well have expected people to ‘stray’ on to the road – if not why did they not provide raised kerbs?
Of course the Police do a difficult job (as someone who volunteers to be involved in my neighbourhood watch I get a good inkling of that, but am under no illusions about the ‘tough stuff’ that I will never be aware of). Yet, I’d argue that that job is made all the more difficult by these sorts of actions made by people in uniform. You clearly disagree.
Posted on February 8th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I’ve said all I’m going to say on this thread.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Oh dear, this discussion has got a little heated since I last looked at it.
As to the original point, rather than the other personal attacks above, the Highway Code says: “Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided.” (Pedestrian Rule 1).
Note the use of “should”. Where the Code refers to a statutory responsibility, it uses the word “must” and quotes the statutory authority below. So this is a recommendation, not a requirement. Failing to comply may have some negative results for the pedestrian in a civil action, but walking in the road (where there are pavements) is clearly not an offence.
So PSC Pyle was entitled, I suppose, to ask that you walked on the pavement, but his authority does not go beyond that.
Posted on February 10th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Good god, what on earth is all the fuss about? You were walking in the road, you were rightly asked to walk on the pavement since the street you refer to does have them and you refused. Not a copper, but I am a driver and as far as I know, failing to walking on a road where a pavement is provided is an obstruction to the highway. When you refused to follow his request, did you honestly expect the policeman to go “okay no problem” and move on?! Why is it so damn hard to walk on the pavement or at least do so when asked? Get a life, Christian. Or at least get some common sense. It seems no one knows definitively whether you committed an offence by not using the pavement. If you did, then you would be required to handover your details (name, etc). By not providing them you could really just end up in a load more bother (if it turns out it was an offence). So why be an ass? Just do the right thing next time.
Posted on February 14th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
No Reglan, you only obstruct the highway if there is somebody to obstruct. As I understand it, there were no cars – so it isn’t an obstruction.
It may even be argued that PSC Pyle was causing an obstruction of the highway when asking Christian to walk on the pavement – Christian is entitled to do so, provided he does not, in doing so, obstruct others in their use of the highway.
It is not an offence to walk on the road, even where there is a pedestrian pavement. The Highway Code recommends you walk on the pavement, if present. It is not a requirement.
In fact, as a pedestrian, you are entitled to walk on the road – it is a public highway, for the use of the public, whether or not they are in a car.
Incidentally, if you are in a car, you are supposed to show due deference to other users of teh highway, including pedestrians.
Posted on February 27th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
It doesn’t really matter does it? If a policeman asked me to move on to the pavement, I’d just do it instead of being a complete asshole for no reason. What I’m getting at is what is the big deal? Clearly the issue is that Christian just doesn’t like being told what to do by someone younger than him (since he makes numerous references to the police officers age). He’s acting like a petulant child. I see policeman asking people to move out of the road all the time and I’ve always assumed this is for their own safety. I’ve never, ever seen anyone have an issue with this.
I’m sure if Christian, the self proclaimed “leading transport commentator”, was using his car and had to slow doing because some ignorant pedestrian was walking in the road while a police officer was stood there doing nothing about it, he’d no doubt open his mouth and start bleating on about that too.
Posted on February 28th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
My old man was a copper and I have a great deal of respect for the police (and I enjoy The Bill on ITV!), but this thread has really depressed me…
I am aghast after reading the comments by Sideshow Bob (whose posts bring the force into disrepute).
Posted on March 5th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Add A Comment