Hacker News Reader

Comment by robjan | Hacker News Reader

You don't get fined for failing to produce ID but you can be fined for swearing at the police, which is what happened in this case. If he politely refused to show ID, there is nothing the police can do unless they have reasonable suspicion that the guy was committing a crime

View on HN

Sounds to me like if you don't produce an ID the cops will hit you with one of those "contempt of cop" charges that give them enough authority to haul you into the station and take prints.

As the cops say, you might beat the rap, but you cannot beat the ride. You did nothing wrong but they can still arrest you and make your weekend miserable. Maybe the charge is bullshit but you still have to show up to court.

The process is the punishment.

You can be fined for swearing at the police, in a supposedly free country? What a bunch of fucking bullshit.

> If he politely refused to show ID, there is nothing the police can do

Is it really so? Why would then police ask for an ID if anyone can refuse and get away with it?

Because police take advantage of peoples' ignorance of their rights.

probably because it is not illegal for someone to ask for your ID

Are you sure you can't get fined or detained or whatever for not showing ID? Cops would find that really really suspicious. I thought you were legally obliged to show ID when asked anyway, at least in the UK. Is it not the case? I would say that the act of not showing ID would be "reasonable suspicion" by itself. Maybe not, but curious how it plays out in practice, and what the law has to say about it.

There is no national ID card in the UK so it would be impossible to enforce. There is no law saying you have to produce ID on request and "reasonable suspicion" only applies to a specific crime. The police can't just say that they have "reasonable suspicion" that you are committing an unspecified crime.

Does "reasonable suspicion" imply an unspecified crime? Does it have to be the case? Suspicion doesn't necessarily mean that it is the case, so as long as they can come up with reasons, it's fine, and they don't need to be correct, or at least they won't get "punished" for being incorrect. Is it wrong? I am just trying to gather more information. :D

Hmm, how do you generally prove identity in the UK?[1]

[1] Actually this is something I could easily look up on the Internet, sorry. I don't mean to waste your time.

Reasonable suspicion that you are breaking the law, or are about to break the law. They may be required to justify their grounds, i.e. what they suspect you of and why. They have been known to simply ignore those requests for why.

e.g. I suspect you of going equipped to commit burglary due to your stripey jumper, crowbar and bag with "swag" printed on it.

Proving ID is usually done via passport or driving licence. If you don't have those producing a couple from bank statement, utility bill or council tax bill is usually enough. I'm old enough to have got bank account without any requirement for ID at all. Yes, that means it can be a chain of circumstantial evidence rather than proof.

Basically the police can stop you if they have "reasonable suspicion of committing crime x" and they have to tell you which crime they suspect you of and why.

To prove who we are we can use a driving license or passport, if we have one. But there are many people with neither. In that case it's quite complex and usually requires a trustworthy person (doctor, lawyer, chartered engineer) who knows you well to confirm your identity.

How does what you're saying here about UK law being respected jive with the details presented in this story?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recogniti...

It is very interesting, but how can people without an ID card vote, open a bank account or buy a ticket for a plane? How are they identified then? I guess there must be some equivalent of ID anyway. At least in Russia you need an internal passport even to exchange the currency if the amount exceeds $611 (which is great because earlier the threshold was about $250).

Somehow people managed to vote and have bank accounts before ID cards were common.

The UK wants a National Insurance number to register to vote. https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

UK residents are sent a National Insurance number automatically just before their 16th birthday. https://www.gov.uk/apply-national-insurance-number

Pulling up an arbitrary UK bank, https://www.tsb.co.uk/current-accounts/faqs/identity/ shows many options to establish identity, including ones that don't require an identification card. Those under 18, for example, can use a National Insurance card or letter.

I don't know what domestic flights are like in the UK. From what I can tell, it's left to the airlines. Most (? all?) require some sort of id, and different airlines accept different forms. For example, FlyBe allows "Council issued bus pass" and "NUS card (National Union of Students)" and "Company ID card of nationally recognised company" - https://www.flybe.com/check-in/id-requirements .

In some countries (I'm thinking Australia, based on a podcast I listened to from a couple of years ago), domestic check-in is all automated and does not always require an id check. https://www.jetstar.com/au/en/help/articles/travel-identific... says "If you’re travelling with checked baggage on a domestic flight in New Zealand, you must provide ID." "Accepted ID types" include "Original or certified copy of a birth certificate", so "ID" is pretty broad.

Something like 17 states in the US don't require any form of id to vote - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St... - so this isn't unique to the UK.

To point out, voter impersonation - the sort of fraud which ID cards might solve - are very rare. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_St... . The vote is private, so if there was an organized system it's difficult to verify that the vote actually went the correct way. It requires a lot of people in order to sway an election, and that sort of organization has a higher chance of being detected. The list of people who voted is public, so it's also possible to track down if they actually exist, and there's the risk that a impersonator will try to impersonate someone who actually voted.

If it's important to know who someone is, then it can sometimes be solve by using a chain of trust. For example, the bank might require that a current account holder in good standing be willing to vouch for me, even if I have no id. Or, I might deposit a lot of money but have limited abilities until the bank trust me more.

Regarding the UK, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_on_the_British_n... .

As I understand it, and I am not a lawyer, you don't have any obligation to identify yourself unless you are arrested.

If you get stopped in a vehicle, police may ask for your driving licence. If you don't have it you're issued a "producer" which requires you to produce your licence at a police station within 7 days. This only applies to traffic stops.

A producer is the police making life a bit easier. They don't have to do so, the offence is complete and they could charge people for it.

If you're the driver of a car and police stop you ans ask for ID you commit an offence if you refuse to identify yourself.

Section 164:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossh...

Hmm, the producer seems to be covered in the act and I'm not aware of any situations where they don't apply, or someone not getting the standard 7 day. Which is not to say there aren't any.

Yes, I see that now.

I see. I hope it works out well in practice too, but I always show ID when asked, as a "just in case" scenario. I don't live in the UK though. If I were to live in the UK, and the cops asked me to do something, I would probably do as asked because I don't want any trouble or surprises! :D

I've never carried ID, nor driving licence. The few times I've been stopped it was never an issue, even the morning after an IRA bombing as I was on my way to work.

In traffic stops or getting booked for speeding I've just taken driving licence and insurance to a station on a producer.

You only have to show ID if you're stopped under the Road Traffic Act, and that only applies if you're the driver of the vehicle.

There's other powers that PCSOs have for people who've been engaged in anti-social behviour, and those powers are probably misused.

But otherwise there's no legal requirement to identify yourself to police. If they have enough to detain you then they can detain you to find out who you are. But that's not the same as just demanding ID from everyone.

It's not compulsory to carry ID so how on earth would it be compulsory to produce it upon request... It is extremely common to not carry any official form of ID in the UK.

In Russia you are not required to carry an ID, but if you don't have it then you can be taken to a police station and held for several hours to check your identity. Is not there a similar rule in UK?

Someone also said that in the UK you don't have ID cards, so you wouldn't even be able to carry something that doesn't exist.

Do you usually get frustrated at people who are trying to obtain information, or learn? If you are not write-only, you should have noticed that it has been already answered. Seems like to me that the only reason for your comment is to let out your frustration at someone who is trying to learn. Thank you.

Please don't cross into personal attack. If another comment is wrong, it's enough to give correct information.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I didn't attack or try to attack him. He replied to my post with a seemingly frustrating attitude and used phrases to degrade me merely for asking something I didn't know. In any case, I stopped replying to him.

The word 'attack' is probably the confusing bit here, and it's not essential. The point is, if you start to comment on someone personally, e.g. about their motivations, in the context of a disagreement, it's almost certain to provoke the other person further and lead to a negative spiral. To prevent HN from being taken over by ill feelings, we all need to have the discipline not to react that way, even when another commenter is wrong or provocative.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Okay, I understand. Sorry about that. Next time I will just ignore.

> fined for swearing at the police

Punished for speech?

That is correct. UK has no enumerated right of “free speech” as it exists in the USZ This is common in most European counties.

All speech isn't equal. Nobody has the right to use threatening or intimidating language

Telling someone to “piss off” is neither threatening nor intimidating.

Why not though? It's just language, which you can decide to ignore. Being annoying by repetitively saying something, or shouting in someone's face or ears, is of course different, but not because of the content of what has been said.

@yardie it entirely depends on the intonation and any body language. If you shout "piss off" at someone whilst acting aggressively then I would argue that it's intimidating

I'd never advocate showing anything but the upmost respect to the police.

But as a matter of policy, who is really the one being threatening here? The man bristling at the government collecting personal data or the police officer with backup and (presumably) violent means of arresting the man?

> I'd never advocate showing anything but the upmost respect to the police.

I'd advocate showing nothing but contempt to a police officer who refuses to let me go about my business when I have committed no crimes.

The people being threatened are not the police, but the other members of the public.

(I'm not saying that I agree with this, but it is the argument being used).

Where is this 'public'? Is this the same group of people who keep expressing opinions that my rights should be curtailed?

Officer, arrest them! They are intimidating me by their refusal to respect my human rights!

It's kind of a slippery slope once you start trying to carve the troublemakers out from the public. That action can even be said to be incitory by it's nature.

Perhaps the police should arrest themselves for being a walking intimidation tool for the majority?

Dirty business that. If you're not interfering in a clearly criminal act, you are just acting as an intimidation force. Unjustified weaponization of suspicion can be just as harmful to a Law Enforcement Organiztion's legitimacy as unjustified use of lethal force.

The criminals you avoid creating through mounting I'll will and despair from the inevitable taint of interacting with the legal system will be a net gain for society.

I'm not saying without Leo's there would be no criminals; rather that continual nuisance and intrusion of the Systems in law abiding citizen's lives only serves to push more of the population toward unrest.

So why is the punishment for 'swearing' instead of 'intimidating a police officer'?

> @yardie it entirely depends on the intonation and any body language. If you shout "piss off" at someone whilst acting aggressively then I would argue that it's intimidating

Well I'm sure the UK has professionals who can help you with these feelings of anxiety and dread

"piss off" is accurately interpreted as "go away and leave me alone". Whereas "fucking come on then" is often a precursor to violence.

But sure, intonation is a thing. "I beg your pardon" can be said in a threatening way.

> All speech isn't equal. Nobody has the right to use threatening or intimidating language

Is being told to "piss off" intimidating or threatening?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com