Male stripper in policeman's uniform.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-115702 3/Baby-carjack-terror-Thief-dressed-policeman- orders-mother-Lexus-races-child-back.html

Perhaps those who a few weeks ago, thought that the police went over the top when they arrested a male stripper for wearing a Policeman's uniform in the street, will now have second thoughts?

[Kromovaracun]

Personally, no.

Y'know why?

Because nowhere in the article does it say that this thief had the word 'STRIPPER' written in great big glow-in-dark, white-on-black letters in several places on his uniform.

There's a difference. This case is exactly why laws against impersonating officers exist - the stripper one isn't.

[paraffin]

I think Kromovaracun is a bit mixed up. The stripper was not arrested for having that word emblazoned on his get-up, it was for the offence of impersonating a Police Officer.
Just as the guy in the article above who also dressed as a Police Officer, it makes no difference whether or not they choose to have any words tacked onto the uniform, it's the absolute offence committed which matters. The only difference is that this guy also committed far more serious offences, i.e. theft of motor vehicle etc etc.

[Kromovaracun]

The stripper was not arrested for having that word emblazoned on his get-up, it was for the offence of impersonating a Police Officer.

But he wasn't. As far as I know, police officers don't go around peoples' houses and take their clothes off. The reason he was wearing a police outfit was because of the whole 'man in uniform' thing - not so he could walk about pretending to be an officer. Let's just say if he had, he would have failed miserably because his vest was clearly labelled 'STRIPPER'.

it makes no difference whether or not they choose to have any words tacked onto the uniform

It makes a huge amount of difference. Wearing similar clothes that are obviously fake, and wearing the uniform and posing as an officer are two completely different things.

[Kromovaracun]

not so he could walk about pretending to be an officer. Let's just say if he had, he would have failed miserably

Sorry, I think this sentence is a but unclear.

What I meant to say was if he'd have gone around trying to commandeer vehicles or give people tickets etc (ergo actually impersonating an officer, as this car thief was) he would've failed miserably. I'd imagine that's exactly why he was labelled.

[Gromit]

The male sripper was followwed into a club by two WPCs who watched his act, stripping out of his 'uniform' as rubbed himself down in Johnsons baby oil. The WPC then arrested this man for impersonating a police man.

Anyne who thinks that case, and the carjacking one in the post are comparable, must be lacking basic comprehension skills.

The basis of the male stripper story was that he was not impersonating a policeman but was wearing a uniform with STRIPPER in big letters on the back, and several juries had the good sense to aquit him because it was ludicrus to suggest a bloke gyrating to Boney M records in a club with no clothes on resembled a police man in any shape or form.

Any one thinking the two cases are in any way similar must be a comletely gullible dimwit.

[brachiopod]

"[it's] ludicrus to suggest a bloke gyrating to Boney M records in a club with no clothes on [resembles] a police man in any shape or form."

Oh I don't know - I 've heard some dodgy things about the coppers round my way!!