Destroyed Respect..

[hermes]

those of you that voted labour have got the police force you deserve.!

What a thoughtless think to say. People may have voted Labour because they believed Labour would provide better education, health service, housing etc but because of that they deserve a cr*p police force?

. It may be thoughtless but its based on an inside perspective.

If the best you can do is based on subjective opinion then it's not really worth posting it.

 

[BoxBasher]

I forgot to mention, SY police now deal with many shoplifting offences by post.

Thats right, BY POST. They send us a padded envelope and witness pack. We fill it in and send it back with a tape. The long arm of the law just got longer. Quite frankly, I cant be arsed.

This is one way that they reduce crime figures... you always hear on the news "the number of robberies reported went down by x%"

the Police now have the powers to arrest anyone for virtually anything

The funny thing is that you DON'T have to give them your name unless you are being arrested for something... but they CAN detain you under PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act) until they are happy with your identity...

they usually wind you up to the point of saying something like "thats b*ll*cks" or "now you're just being f***ing stupid" and they lock you up for a section 5 public order offence.

 

[Softus]

The funny thing is that you DON'T have to give them your name unless you are being arrested for something...

With respect, isn't that irrelevant if you've just driven through a red light?

 

[hermes]

The funny thing is that you DON'T have to give them your name unless you are being arrested for something... but they CAN detain you under PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act) until they are happy with your identity...
.

what happens if they're not happy with your identity... say they think you have jamaican origins, for example?

 

[Big_Spark]

Hermes, I have no idea how many offences you CAN'T be arrested for, I only know from Police Officers I know, and those I had dealings with on Monday/Tuesday, that changes in the PACE Act and others have allowed Police Officers far ranging and sweeping powers to arrest anyone for anything (almost)

Now if I have been told *******s by the Police and someone can point to actual legislation that details this, then I will be happy to review my thoughts on this, but as no-one can, PACE certainly gives a clue about this, and a Solicitor has confirmed this is the case now..I think it unlikely that you can show this thought to be wrong.

One of the big problems in this country is that many things we consider as an Offence fall outside PACE (so I am told) and as such the Police CANNOT arrest you for it without a warrant from the magistrates or a judge, HOWEVER, PACE makes it clear that the distinction between the two sets of Legislation is now blurred more than ever, as such it is possible for Police Officers to arrrest for even these "offences" by simply reinterpreting the offence under Public Order or related legislation (According to a Sergeant that I met on Tuesday)

 

[Big_Spark]

Here is an extract from Section G of PACE ..

2 Elements of Arrest under section 24 PACE
2.1 A lawful arrest requires two elements:
A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the
commission of a criminal offence;
AND
Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.
2.2 Arresting officers are required to inform the person arrested that they have been
arrested, even if this fact is obvious, and of the relevant circumstances of the arrest
in relation to both elements and to inform the custody officer of these on arrival at the
police station. See Code C paragraph 3.4.
Involvement in the commission of an offence'
2.3 A constable may arrest without warrant in relation to any offence, except for the single
exception listed in Note for Guidance 1. A constable may arrest anyone:

Codes of practice – Code G Statutory power of arrest by police officers
• who is about to commit an offence or is in the act of committing an offence
• whom the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting is about to commit an offence or to be committing an offence
• whom the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of an
offence which he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting has been
committed
• anyone who is guilty of an offence which has been committed or anyone whom
the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of that offence.

Now I see the important one here is ..

• whom the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting is about to commit an offence or to be committing an offence

As it is wide ranging in it's scope and relies on the integrity and opinion of the arresting officer and requires no actual evidence to make the arrest..although holding in custody would obviously be more difficult.

Further, the old idea that Officers can be ignored by refusing to give personal details when stopped in the street are wrong now...Officers have the right to stop and search without actually arresting you..and refusal to allow the search is arrestable..that way they take you to a Police Station and serach you there!!

Further, it is now an offence to refuse to reveal your identity to a Police Officer when he makes a "reasonable request" for it...

I know this as I have just sat and read PACE and a few referred to acts on the home office website....it's a little disconcerting to think that many of the old safeguards we had have been removed..

 

[Softus]

Here is an extract from Section G of PACE .

Not a very good extract, IMO, because you omitted the following:

Necessity criteria

2.4 The power of arrest is only exercisable if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person. The criteria for what may constitute necessity are set out in paragraph 2.9.

...where paragraph 2.9 says:

The criteria are that the arrest is necessary:
(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name)
(b) correspondingly as regards the person’s address
an address is a satisfactory address for service of summons if the person will be at it for a sufficiently long period for it to be possible to serve him or her with a summons;
or, that some other person at that address specified by the person will accept service of the summons on their behalf.
(c) to prevent the person in question –
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury ;
(iii) causing loss or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency (only applies where
members of the public going about their normal business cannot
reasonably be expected to avoid the person in question); or
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct
of the person in question.
This may include cases such as:
(i) Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person:
• has made false statements;
• has made statements which cannot be readily verified;
• has presented false evidence;
• may steal or destroy evidence;
• may make contact with co-suspects or conspirators;
• may intimidate or threaten or make contact with witnesses;

So, you are tenuously correct, in that the recent change makes possible an arrest for "any indictable offence", instead of the previous qualification, which was for "a serious arrestable offence".

However, your persistent use of the phrase "almost any" is wrong, and is wrong in such a way as to be stupid beyond comprehension. This whole moan of yours about police powers is, just as I expected, yet another example of you spouting your opinion without first checking facts.

Further, the old idea that Officers can be ignored by refusing to give personal details when stopped in the street are wrong now...Officers have the right to stop and search without actually arresting you..and refusal to allow the search is arrestable..that way they take you to a Police Station and serach you there!!

Please explain your use of the word "now", for example by stating when you think there was a change to the powers of stop and search.

Further, it is now an offence to reveal your identity to a Police Officer when he makes a "reasonable request" for it.

Again, please explain why you believe that this is a recent change in police powers.

Police State....whine....moan....whinge....bleat

So, all of your previous assertions about a Police State were based on no first hand knowledge whatsoever of PACE, since you say that you've read it tonight.

 

[Big_Spark]

Softus.

Reread my previous posts and you will see that I have simple said that this is what I have been told. As for when the PACE Act was changed, I don't really give a stuff.

I love nthe way you grudgingly accept that my comments earlier are right, then you go on to say they are wrong..Jesus your a pathetic person on occasion.

Simply admit that in theory it is possible for a Police Offcier to arrest you for anything that constitutes and offence as he can simply "interpret" the PACE Act to suit the circumstances if he/she is so inclined.

As fo the giving of your identity, it used to be a simple matter to simply ask the officer stopping you if they thought you had committed an offence, if they said NO, then you could go on your way. However now that is clearly not an option under this version of PACE, and to refuse to reveal who you are is arrestable, I dare say it changed in the last few years, probably when they updated it to account for the newer offences covered in the Terrorism Act.

 

[Softus]

Reread my previous posts and you will see that I have simple said that this is what I have been told.

I hardly need to re-read them, but I have anyway, and have found such gems as these:

You are allowed to use your mobile hand held in an emergency.

I have no idea to the phone question, I would assume no.

Softus, almost EVERYTHING is an arrestable offence these days.. ask a Policeman.

So, no mention of you being "told" things in those examples.

As for when the PACE Act was changed, I don't really give a stuff.

Clearly - but I wonder if that is merely because it would undermine your ludicrous and paranoid claims that the change towards a Police State (sic.) is recent, and sudden, and all-encompassing.

I love nthe way you grudgingly accept that my comments earlier are right, then you go on to say they are wrong.

I don't begrudge you being right, but it's a rare thing to encounter. I was making the point, perhaps too subtly for you, that even when you are right it is tenuous, at best. I was giving you the benefit of the massive doubt that you were in anything other that accidentally correct.

I went on to point out that you were wrong, because, well, because you were wrong.

Simply admit that in theory it is possible for a Police Offcier to arrest you for anything that constitutes and offence as he can simply "interpret" the PACE Act to suit the circumstances if he/she is so inclined.

How can you even propose such a "theory" when the PACE code is so clearly written?

To remind you:

Necessity criteria

2.4 The power of arrest is only exercisable if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person. The criteria for what may constitute necessity are set out in paragraph 2.9.

As fo the giving of your identity, it used to be a simple matter to simply ask the officer stopping you if they thought you had committed an offence, if they said NO, then you could go on your way. However now that is clearly not an option under this version of PACE, and to refuse to reveal who you are is arrestable, I dare say it changed in the last few years, probably when they updated it to account for the newer offences covered in the Terrorism Act.

I dare say that you are right, i.e. that there has been a change in PACE, but this reveals what I thought was the case, which is that you don't know.

And as for your driving claims, the relevance of which some people have challenged, they are wholly relevant because they show you to be a liar.

Being a credible forum member is very simple, but it seems to be a challenge for you. If you state things as fact then they aren't, then you're wrong. And the more vociferously you state them, the more wrong you are. If you make up things and pretend that they have happened, then you are a liar. And the more grandiose the claims, and the more times that you assert their verity, the bigger the liar you are.

 

[Moz]

wheres B.A.S when you need him to calm down these quoted arguments,lol...lol

 

[Thermo]

those of you that voted labour have got the police force you deserve.!

What a thoughtless think to say. People may have voted Labour because they believed Labour would provide better education, health service, housing etc but because of that they deserve a cr*p police force?

. It may be thoughtless but its based on an inside perspective.

If the best you can do is based on subjective opinion then it's not really worth posting it.

where would you like me to start, because it will be a very very long list of things that have changed and gone downhill since 1997, and it will be factually based.

 

[Steve]

wheres B.A.S when you need him to calm down these quoted arguments,lol...lol

or pour petrol on the fire lol

 

[2scoops0406]

the Police now have the powers to arrest anyone for virtually anything...

Bigspark, if I can list 50 things that you can do that the police can't arrest you for, will you publicly acknowledge that you talk b*llocks?

Walking on the cracks in the pavement

 

[Softus]

...or being accompanied by an offensive wife?

 

[ellal]

As for when the PACE Act was changed, I don't really give a stuff.

Jan 1st 2006 - under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. funny how littering became an arrestable offence under the above act..

The bit that really is a load of cr*p is this wording...

Arrest must never be used simply because it can be used.

yeah right...give out a power and it WILL be abused!