On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:50:10 +0100, wrote:

The MOTP probably had a legitimate concern (LC) of something which
they thought you had done (SWTTYHD) which they will have reported ASAP
to the BTP. The MOTP also apparently reported their LC about SWTTYHD
to the BCTS who may or may not have considered the MOP's SWTTYHD to be
an IO and therefore a LC of the BCTS. Lacking legal knowledge (LK)
one cannot expect more from them.. When the BCTS said the DM wanted
to talk to you about the MOTP's LC about SWTTYHD he did not lay on
hands (LOH). In the absence of LOH the BCS did not make a CA.
Similarly the MOTP, no doubt influenced by his LC concerning SWTTYHD
and possibly considering it to an IO may well have said CA but without
LOH CA would not have occurred. You would have been free to ignore
the MOTP,DM and BCS LC about SWTTYHD. Had the BTP been summoned by
the MOTP, BCS or DM then they could have listened to the MOTP's
sincere LC about SWTTYHD and using their superior LK could have
determined from that LK if the LC about SWTTYHD would indeed raise
concerns about it being an IO and arrested you with LOH and placed you
in appropriate restraints (AR).

The DM was quite at liberty, depending upon the MOTP's LC about
SWTTYHD to prevent you traveling. I presume the DM summoned the BTP
who were unable to attend but the local Constabulary (LCon) sent a
Special constable (SC) to determine if an IO had taken place. The
LCon SC obviously used his LK to decide the MOTP's LC did not amount
to an IO and that AR was inappropriate. Having taken particulars the
SC let you go on your way (GOYW). Neither the MOTP or DM nor BCS
impeded with your GOYW so again no CA took place. I presume their LC
about SWTTYHD was eased by the presence of the LCon SC in the absence
of the BTP with specialised railway LK. The LCon SC would have passed
the case to the BTP ASAP who then presumably took a statement from the
MOTP about their LC about SWTTYHD but decided that on the basis of LK
IO did not occur and possibly that the MOTP LC about SWTTYHD was
mistaken.

It is therefore clear that no party committed an offence.
--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead

wrote:

Importantly the MOTP subsequently made a statement to the police (BTP)
where he gave no details of an inditable offence (IO) in the first
place

One suspects that this case will hinge upon an observation made by Mike
Harding. Paraphrasing heavily it depends on whether the allegation
refers to robbing a wagon or wagging your robin.

If you actually stated what the alleged offence was, without all the
TLAs and ETLAs then someone may be able to offer worthwhile advice.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:50:10 +0100, wrote:

snip good stuff

It is therefore clear that no party committed an offence.

Sir, I take my hat off to you.

On 29 Jul, 09:20, Toom Tabard wrote:
On 28 Jul, 17:15, martin wrote:



wrote:
I was accused, by a member of the public (MOTP), of something I did
not do (and can prove using video evidence)
It occurred at a train station.
Importantly the MOTP subsequently made a statement to the police (BTP)
where he gave no details of an inditable offence (IO) in the first
place (or when he mad the accusations to me and to the train staff).

From what I have read I believe that an IO is a must before making a
citizens arrest (CA), or what ever it is called.

In addition to there being no IO, the MOTP was not reasonable in
suspecting me, as the timings are all wrong and he should have known.

This parts seems quite clear to me, but the next is difficult to
understand. I don't want to waste police time if the MOTP has not
commited an offence in CA. Was I CAed or unlawfully detained?

Basically the MOTP solicited the help of the barrier control train
staff (BCTS). ...

1. The BCTS obstructed my movements by putting out his arm and saying
that the duty manager (DM) wants to talk to me. At no time was I ever
touched

2. The MOTP then verbally accused me of something that was not an IO.
CA me verbally, by saying he had done it (CA) before.

I don't know about anyone else, I lost the will to live around this
point with all the TLAs[1] and UFLAS[2]

How about telling us
What happened;
What you were reported for;
Then ask a list of questions.

[1] Three letter acronyms (see Note 1)
[2] Unknown four letter acronyms (see Note 1)

Note 1: I know they are not all acronyms.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Under the EU ARSE (Acronym Registration Standards Executive) Directive
102 (2008), you can now only use acronyms which have been registered
and approved by the Association for the Creation of Really Original
Names Yielding Meaning.

Toom

WTFAYBOA?

On 28 Jul, 20:25, "Steve Walker" wrote:

A 'verbal arrest' means nothing, unless they take your arm (for example) and
stop you from going about your business.

With 4 of them there, I would expect them to use reasonable force to
detain me. They had called the police and were waiting for them. If I
resisted (because I believe they had no valid reason), somebody could
have got hurt, unnecessarly. This does not feel right to me (although
that is why I am asking).

Being publicly accused of criminality is certainly non-trivial.
I agree

wrote:
On 28 Jul, 20:25, "Steve Walker" wrote:

A 'verbal arrest' means nothing, unless they take your arm (for
example) and stop you from going about your business.

With 4 of them there, I would expect them to use reasonable force to
detain me. They had called the police and were waiting for them. If I
resisted (because I believe they had no valid reason), somebody could
have got hurt, unnecessarly.

"reasonable force to detain" is defined by your resistance, not their
collective strength. If you'd calmly attempted to walk away and they took
hold of you to prevent this, then the arrest would be undeniable.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:50:14 +0100, TimB wrote:

WTFAYBOA?

Blathering?

On 2 Aug, 00:50, PCPaul wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:50:14 +0100, TimB wrote:

WTFAYBOA?

Blathering?

banging :-)

I am going to have a go at actually answering the OP's question. I wasn't
going to, but in the light of the ridicule that he has suffered here (on a
moderated group!) I feel he deserves some attempt at a sensible response.

First, I have no idea whether a citizen's arrest did occur. Typically, that
involves some sort of physical contact, although having four people
surrounding you might do the trick. You would need paid-for legal advice,
for someone to trawl through the relevant cases.

Second, if a citizen's arrest did occur, it was undoubtedly unlawful, given
that they got the wrong man. See he
http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/crmUnlawfulArrest.shtml

Third, whilst I have sympathy, I don't think that you are looking at a large
quantum of damages. Annoying as it must be, the transport staff acted fairly
reasonably by detaining you until the police arrived to sort it out. Whilst
it must have been annoying for you apparently not to be believed by the
transport staff, I suspect that they are under strict instructions not to
let you go until the Police arrive. This is open to abuse, of course, where
totally unfounded accusations can lead to someone being detained for no good
reason.

Fourth, rather than worrying about the actions of the transport staff, you
probably have a great case for slander against your accuser.

Fifth, any legal action you take will have to be funded by you, although you
may recover most of your costs if successful.