ChatterBank1 min ago
Stripper Arrested 22 times for impersonating Police
Police have spent �170,000 of public money trying to prosecute a strippergram for playing an officer as part of his act.
Stuart Kennedy, who performs under the stage name of Sergeant Eros, was last week cleared in court for the 22nd time.
Since March 2007, the 25-year-old genetics student from Aberdeen University has been arrested six times and spent 123 hours in custody, without police securing a single conviction.
Mr Kennedy first came under the nose of the constabulary when he was waiting outside a bar in Aberdeen dressed in his uniform.
He was spotted by two plain-clothes female officers who asked if he needed any help.
When Mr Kennedy said he was a stripper, the officers watched him perform his act with batons and a spray at the city's Paramount venue before taking him in for questioning.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-112520 2/Taxpayers-face-170-000-police-repeatedly-arr est-stripper-impersonating-officer.html
Has the world gone mad?
Stuart Kennedy, who performs under the stage name of Sergeant Eros, was last week cleared in court for the 22nd time.
Since March 2007, the 25-year-old genetics student from Aberdeen University has been arrested six times and spent 123 hours in custody, without police securing a single conviction.
Mr Kennedy first came under the nose of the constabulary when he was waiting outside a bar in Aberdeen dressed in his uniform.
He was spotted by two plain-clothes female officers who asked if he needed any help.
When Mr Kennedy said he was a stripper, the officers watched him perform his act with batons and a spray at the city's Paramount venue before taking him in for questioning.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-112520 2/Taxpayers-face-170-000-police-repeatedly-arr est-stripper-impersonating-officer.html
Has the world gone mad?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. 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.
Tut, Tut, and yet another Tut, Gromit.
Using that lying rag The Daily Mail (as you call it) once again.
It was not the Police who wasted �170,000 of public money, it was the easy going courts that wasted it.
He should have been sentenced with a heavy fine by the courts, for impersonating a Police Officer, on his first arrest. He might then have learned his lesson.
Using that lying rag The Daily Mail (as you call it) once again.
It was not the Police who wasted �170,000 of public money, it was the easy going courts that wasted it.
He should have been sentenced with a heavy fine by the courts, for impersonating a Police Officer, on his first arrest. He might then have learned his lesson.
the police have obviously never heard of the concept of fancy dress, let alone strippergrams. Simply wearing a uniform doesn't mean you're impersonating a policeman, any more than covering yourself in feathers means you're impersonating a chicken - and so the courts have recognised. Are you saying, oldgit, that the police should refuse to recognise a court ruling?
As for strippergram... more a stripperkilo, by the look of him.
As for strippergram... more a stripperkilo, by the look of him.
Sorry to disagree, oldgit, but it is not the courts who bring prosecutions, it is the CPS.
The number of times this gentleman has been acquitted suggests that insufficient evidence has been brought before the courts to support the charge.
The courts have to judge every offence brought before them based on the evidence presented. If any lessons should have been learned (and perhaps any monies saved) it was the CPS (and to a lesser degree the police) who should have learned them.
It is sometimes inconvenient, but the CPS has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, based upon the facts and the prevailing law. The fact that they have failed to do so for the same offence against the same person on so many occasions leads me to believe that the level of supervision within that organisation is somewhat lax.
The number of times this gentleman has been acquitted suggests that insufficient evidence has been brought before the courts to support the charge.
The courts have to judge every offence brought before them based on the evidence presented. If any lessons should have been learned (and perhaps any monies saved) it was the CPS (and to a lesser degree the police) who should have learned them.
It is sometimes inconvenient, but the CPS has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, based upon the facts and the prevailing law. The fact that they have failed to do so for the same offence against the same person on so many occasions leads me to believe that the level of supervision within that organisation is somewhat lax.
Suprised Gromit gave you 3 stars for this drivel.
Simply wearing a uniform doesn't mean you're impersonating a policeman, any more than covering yourself in feathers means you're impersonating a chicken
No, but to the point in question, it was not any uniform, apart from the word 'Stripper' it was for all intents and purposes, a policeman's uniform, and it is a crime to impersonate a police officer, but no it isn't a crime to impersonate a chicken.
Simply wearing a uniform doesn't mean you're impersonating a policeman, any more than covering yourself in feathers means you're impersonating a chicken
No, but to the point in question, it was not any uniform, apart from the word 'Stripper' it was for all intents and purposes, a policeman's uniform, and it is a crime to impersonate a police officer, but no it isn't a crime to impersonate a chicken.
You are perfectly right New Judge, it is indeed the CPS who decides if a case goes to court.
But even when this person, was intercepted by the police driving home in his car, the CPS said there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute, there is something wrong with the system.
I wonder if his car was tranferred up complete with the flashing lights, to also impersonate a police car?
Can one imagine the implications now he has got away with it, we won't know who is a real policeman and who isn't?
But even when this person, was intercepted by the police driving home in his car, the CPS said there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute, there is something wrong with the system.
I wonder if his car was tranferred up complete with the flashing lights, to also impersonate a police car?
Can one imagine the implications now he has got away with it, we won't know who is a real policeman and who isn't?
if he starts removing his clothing while gyrating around a pole, he isn't a real policeman (I hope). And this is the gist of my argument. Clothing on its own is seldom going to be enough to constitute impersonation; you have to make people think you're the real thing, or try to. If he did indeed have flashing lights on his car, that might well constitute evidence of impersonation - but you just made that bit up to bolster your case, didn't you, oldgit?
No, but to the point in question, it was not any uniform, apart from the word 'Stripper' it was for all intents and purposes, a policeman's uniform,
But that's kind of the point. The uniform has the word 'STRIPPER' written massive letters on the back and very clearly on the front.
Is this really the kind of situation the law is aimed at?
But that's kind of the point. The uniform has the word 'STRIPPER' written massive letters on the back and very clearly on the front.
Is this really the kind of situation the law is aimed at?
It's the CPS' fault. Now, a decision by one magistrates'court is not binding, on fact or law, on any other magistrates' court, but one might reasonably expect that each local CPS would take cognizance of the history.The facts of each case must be pretty much the same. Therefore the next CPS person getting the case ought to decide then and there that the case isn't worth running. The CPS has this right, which is one reason why it was created (save expense, bring consistency to prosecutions over the whole country).
If the CPS has decided that any given magistrates' court has 'misdirected itself ' on the law, then it should appeal the decision, on law, and get a ruling for the future. Even then, common sense suggests that the cases won't be worth pursuing, because this man's actions don't really amount to the mischief at which the law was directed.
If the CPS has decided that any given magistrates' court has 'misdirected itself ' on the law, then it should appeal the decision, on law, and get a ruling for the future. Even then, common sense suggests that the cases won't be worth pursuing, because this man's actions don't really amount to the mischief at which the law was directed.
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.