Destroyed Respect..

[Thermo]

not biased in any way are we?

 

[trotter]

It narks me that somebody can steal £800 and it is easily proveable yet the police don't want to know. It's morally wrong.

If I were using someone elses card in a fraudulent transaction - I'd wear a hoody - wouldn't you? You would? Well so would they then.

Get your brain in gear.

So they assume the offender is too smart to catch and therefore don't try?

Rubbish.

The fact is the police didn't know that the card had been used at a certain cash point as they DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW about the offence and wouldn't give me a crime number unless I fought for it. Let alone actually take an interest in finding out what had happened.

Is that the type of police force you want for Britain?

 

[Softus]

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

It didn't.

 

[Big_Spark]

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

It didn't.

I hate to make a pantomine out of a serious matter, but Oh Yes it did..

I grant you that it is not direct, simply dropping litter is not directly arrestable, however the Police have the powers to arrest indirectly if the Officer is unhappy about your attitude, your identity or anything else that may fall into the description of "Anti-Social Behaviour".

Obviously any Police Officer would have to be able to support such actions, so whilst I do feel the change is distastful and potentially open to a lot of abuse, to be honest I think that there has to be some "trigger" for such actions that the Officer could not only support to a custody sergeant, but also the CPS, afterall it is they whom decide what charges to lay on people, the Police only present the evidence and I would assume (could be wrong) opinion of the case.

In order to clarify this, I telephoned the Home Office today..just to see if the Act was being misinterpreted or at least it's actual intent being confused.. I recorded my converstion with the person I spoke to, this is the converstaion.

Is it correct for members of the public of believe that changes to PACE over the last couple of years have given the Police unprecedented powers that give them the ammunition to arrest for almost any offence which previously would not have been the case

It is true that recent changes to PACE have meant that Police Officers have greatly extended powers of arrest and that these powers now cover a range of offences previously outside the arrest envolope. However it should be remembered that whilst the Police have these powers, the public can be assurred that safeguards have been written into the legislation which protects the rights of the individual..

But what you mean or meant to mean is not what the Police and the public percieve of the changes, many genuinly believe these changes to mean that the Police can now arrest anyone for anything if the Police are satisfied that their decision is in the public interest

Well yes in theory this is correct, the Police have the powers to now arrest anyone at any time should they feel that their concerns meet the criteria as laid out in PACE, it is for the CPS to decide if this action was justified. So long as the Police meet the criteria as laid down in PACE they are able to arrest for all but Civil Offences.

Obviously to differentiate between civil and criminal offences one would need a reasonable understanding of the Law in order to seperate the two. A good example is that many traffic offences are considered civil matters and the Police cannot arrest for, however other offences that are considered traffic are arrestable..is this correct?

Unfortunatley it is not as simple as that, Legally speaking almost all traffic offences are civil matters, however changes in PACE and other related legislation over recent years has changed the manner in which the Police are able to deal with such matters. Traditionally the Police could not arrest a person for a traffic offence, unless it was for the safety of the Public, the individual or to assist in the investigation of an accident and the Police had reasonable cause to be concerned that the arrestee would not assist in this investigation unless in Police custody. Now this role has changed, any traffic offence now allows the Police to arrest a driver if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is not whom they claim to be or that other offences may have been committed or about to be committed by this person

But surely this allows Officers a very broad scope, changes mean that the Police have the right to search a person or vehicle at any time by the roadside, refusal to allow this instantly gives the Police cause to arrest the driver and or occupants of that vehicle..correct or not?

Yes, your interpretation is correct, a Police Officer can stop a person for any traffic offence, request to search the person or persons in the vehicle and/or the vehicle itself, they do not need to arrest the person in order to do this, however refusal to allow such a search does constitute an offence and this offence is arrestable..

So the Police have the ammunition to set a person up so they can then justify an arrest..is this acceptable in a democratic and just society..history has shown that such powers, introduced with the best of intention, are often abused and used to oppress certain sections of a community or society. A good example of this is the so call Sus Law of the 1980's, does this not concern you?

Of course the abuse of power concerns the government, and it would be wrong to ignore such concerns. The Sus Law was introduced by the Conservative government with the intent to give the Police the powers to stop people on the street to discover what they were doing in order to prevent and detect crime sooner. The legislation was not at fault per se, but it was rushed in, badly drafted and the Police were not given the legal guidance required to implement it properly. The changes to PACE have safeguards built in, the Police cannot simply stop anyone on the street for no reason, they need to have reason to believe that the perosn has committed or is about to commit an arrestable criminal offence. It is not for legislators to decide how the Police make such decisions or how they use such information, except where it directly relates to an arrest. The Police must use the legislation and guidance notes correctly and to use experience and knowledge to detect person acting in a suspicious or anti-social behaviour

So the Police are able to make on the spot decisions about anyone walking down the road if the Police Officer thinks they may be acting in an unusual, suspicious or anti-social manner, thats fair enough, but surely there should be constraints put on their behaviour to reduce the risk of abuse. Afterall, don't these changes to PACE simply give the Police the powers of the old Sus law in a more enforcible and manageable manner and further in a way that can allow the unscrupulous to avoid discrimination charges simply by stopping those outside their ethnic targets in order to massage their figures?

Well this is always a danger of any legislation that has to convey wide ranging powers to any of the security services. The Terrorism Act gives Police and other security services extremely wide ranging powers, ones that go beyond PACE, and for very good reasons, however due to the nature of Terror groups it is easy for people to read in discrimination of certain ethnic groups as a result due to these groups being those generally, but not exclusively, targeted by Counter Terrorism Units. To finish Mr (Big Spark), it is true that the Police can arrest a person for anything that they consider to fall inside the scope of PACE, and yes this means unprecedented powers. We have introduced safeguards, but as with anything, there will always be those who abuse these powers, we are committed to removing these officers from the ranks, but it is not a simple matter.

Generally innocent people do not get arrested by the Police, if the Police stop you on the street, then I would believe you must have committed some form of offence, The Police are not in the habit of wasting their time with frivilous persecution of innocent people or abusing their powers.

Thank you for your time and the clarity of your explanation, I hope that your interpretation of the Act and the manner of it's implementation by the Police are as the Home Office intended

I think the conversation speaks for itself. The Police now have wide ranging powers that the Government hope will not be abused..afterall the Police and CPS do not have any experience of locking up innocent people do they..

The closing statement by the lady from the Home office is a little concerning as it indicates a nievety as to the way the Police actually operate and the history the Police have for persecuting innocent people!!

I only hope the vast bulk of officers implement it the way the government wanted!!

 

[Softus]

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

It didn't.

...Oh Yes it did..

I grant you that it is not direct, simply dropping litter is not directly arrestable...

So; it isn't then.

 

[Big_Spark]

Softus..give it a rest, your wrong, it's a simple as that. Be a Man for once in your sorry existance and accept that your assertion and stance is at odds with what everyone else knows and understands.

I agree that on something as trivial as litter it may be down to semantics and perhaps a very extreme and highly unlikely example..but the fact is, as the Home Office have confirmed...

THE POLICE HAVE THE POWERS TO ARREST ANYONE, AT ANYTIME, IF A POLICE OFFICER FEELS THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE.. and this is down to the officer, not the legislation..

And this is a LOT different from how it used to and should be..

Oh by the way Softus..when will you stop posting as BAS does... perhaps only when you stop taking the pills??

 

[Softus]

Softus..give it a rest, your wrong, it's a simple as that.

Then state clearly what I'm wrong about, and see if you can do it without involving irrelevant detail such as gender.

I agree that on something as trivial as litter it may be down to semantics and perhaps a very extreme and highly unlikely example..but the fact is, as the Home Office have confirmed...

THE POLICE HAVE THE POWERS TO ARREST ANYONE, AT ANYTIME, IF A POLICE OFFICER FEELS THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE.. and this is down to the officer, not the legislation.

You're being obtuse, on two counts:

1. What the officer is entitled to do is down to the legislation.

2. Today, you spoke to the equivalent of the Home Office Customer Service department. What such a representative of the Home Office says on the telephone, as helpful and clear as it might indeed be, doesn't constitute the law - it's merely an interpretation of the law and the intent behind it.

A police officer may, of course, act unlawfully, but that has always been the case. I take it, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you believe the most recent set of changes to PACE to have had the effect of increasing the likelihood of (a) an officer acting unlawfully and/or (b) that transgression failing to be addressed.

If this is what you believe, then my basic point remains that I believe you to be paranoid. The bare fact that you started out with one belief, based on hearsay, and then spend a significant amount of time reading the legislation, and then 'phoning someone, then published a conclusion which contradicts your first claim, illustrates that you were wrong.

You've written that "almost" any offence is arrestable, whereas the fact is that every indictable offence is arrestable. These are two contradictory statements. You appear to continue to believe that the first is true, because you keep on writing it on this forum.

Oh by the way Softus..when will you stop posting as BAS does... perhaps only when you stop taking the pills??

Why should I change the way that I post, and what does it have to do with any other forum member? It's far more apposite to ask you when you will stop posting misinformation and outright lies.

 

[ellal]

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

It didn't.

...Oh Yes it did..

I grant you that it is not direct, simply dropping litter is not directly arrestable...

So; it isn't then.

semantics aside, maybe then you can comment on this..

Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ( EPA ) makes it a criminal offence to drop, throw, deposit and leave litter.

the relevant section..

87.—(1) If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place to which this section applies, and leaves, any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies, he shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be guilty of an offence.

(2) No offence is committed under this section where the depositing and leaving of the thing was—
(a) authorised by law, or
(b) done with the consent of the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the place in or into which that thing was deposited.

Prior to 1st january littering was an offence, but not arrestable...however after that date all offences became arrestable..

On the wider point of 'directly or indirectly arrestable', in the real world the police can and do what they want..and the result is basically the same..

An example: on a legal static demo near here, the police tried to move people to the other side of the road. When this was pointed out that this could in effect constitute a 'moving demo', the police threatened arrest for 'refusing to obey a police order'...when people started to move, three were arrested for an illegal moving demo!!

the charges were later thrown out, but then that didn't prevent the collection of DNA etc from innocent people and the hassle involved..

So irrespective of what the wording may or may not say, in reality this is the result. Of course it is not (yet) regularly used this way, but the point is it can be!!

 

[Softus]

87.—(1) If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place to which this section applies, and leaves, any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies, he shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be guilty of an offence.

(2) No offence is committed under this section where the depositing and leaving of the thing was—
(a) authorised by law, or
(b) done with the consent of the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the place in or into which that thing was deposited.

Are you interpreting this Act as saying that littering is an indictable offence? If not, are you interpreting some other Act as saying that littering is an indictable offence? If so, then can you say which one, because I would like to read it.

Prior to 1st january littering was an offence, but not arrestable...however after that date all offences became arrestable.

They didn't. All indictable offences became arrestable, and even then only under the conditions stipulated in PACE, as I've previously posted within this topic.

On the wider point of 'directly or indirectly arrestable', in the real world the police can and do what they want..and the result is basically the same.

The police can't lawfully do what they want. If your argument is that they can do what they want unlawfully, then nothing has changed.

An example: on a legal static demo near here, the police tried to move people to the other side of the road. When this was pointed out that this could in effect constitute a 'moving demo', the police threatened arrest for 'refusing to obey a police order'...when people started to move, three were arrested for an illegal moving demo!!

These are the consequences you face when demonstrating.

I don't know all the facts about that case, but, based on the information you've presented, it might or might not have been a peaceful demo performed in a safe way in a safe place.

the charges were later thrown out, but then that didn't prevent the collection of DNA etc from innocent people and the hassle involved.

I don't see the problem there.

So irrespective of what the wording may or may not say, in reality this is the result. Of course it is not (yet) regularly used this way, but the point is it can be!!

Your argument, which is similar to that of Big_Spark, is that the wider powers are automatically A Bad Thing because they offer more opportunity for abuse. However, you utterly omit to present any balanced reasoning that takes into account the positive effect of the change in the law, which is intended to bring order on those occasions where most law-abiding citizens have been complaining that order has been distinctly lacking.

Moreover, you omit to propose any alternative, let alone any reasonable alternative, to the recent legislative changes.

It's precisely those two omissions, on the part of both you and Big_Spark, that lends you both the air of extremist doom-mongerers. Where you and he differ, however, is that you appear to be more rational and accurate, whereas Big_Spark is a crazed liar who, anecdotally, is known to drive like a lunatic.

 

[Big_Spark]

Softus/BAS..at the moment your showing yourself to be a dozy sod, which we all know your not.

I never stated I thought the Police were acting unlawfully...dramatically, abusivley, and several other such descriptive terms, but never actualy illegally.

The examples in the origional post I would say all occured within the operational powers of the law, it was HOW they excercised those powers that should be a concern to all..that is what this whole thread has been about.. I have not accused the Police Officers of being corrupt, simple over zealous bully boys...there is a massive difference.

Ellal. has pointed out that littering is actually an Offence (Which I didn't know it was in such a direct way) and it shows that the littering example used above is more relevent than any of us may have thought.

Softus/BAS, you seem determined to insult anyone who disagrees with you rather than simply discussing the topic like an adult, give it a rest and discuss sensibly or don't discuss at all.

You still cannot admit your wrong..

Look, I have done a little hunting about on what constitutes Criminal Law..

Here is a quote from Hansard.

How is the law created?
English law has been developed over centuries and consists of 'Common Law,' 'Statutory Law' and most recently 'European Union' Law.

Common Law
This is also known as 'case law,' and is made by judges in the course of hearing individual cases. This is known as the system of 'precedent.' Precedent effectively means that a decision that has been reached during one particular case will then apply to all similar cases. In theory, it gives the law some degree of flexibility and allows it to respond to changes in public standards or society in general.

Statutory Law
This consists of laws that have been made by an Act of Parliament. Governments may introduce a 'Bill' to update existing laws or develop new ones to respond to changes in society. A Bill is debated in Parliament and once passed is drafted into law.

Changes to law

A new law that was implemented to respond to changes in society is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Key parts of the Act are a direct reaction to changes in technology, and include a provision that allows a police surgeon or doctor acting on behalf of the police to take 'intimate samples' (hair, saliva, blood etc) for use in a national DNA database, from anyone convicted of a 'recordable offence.'


Another example of a government response to 'new' crime is the decision to increase the penalty for mobile phone theft. Offenders may now face a sentence of up to five years in prison, an increase designed to deter the recent rises in this type of crime.
European Law
This has had an increasing effect on English law since the introduction of the European Communities Act 1972. In effect, any established UK law that contradicts European Law will be overruled by its European equivalent through the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. For more info on this, see our section on European Law.

And further on it says this about Arrestable Offences...the truly interesting part is at the end..

Arrest without a warrant
This is a much more complex area of law, as it involves European justice laws as well as English Common and Statute Law. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights states in Article 5 that people have the right to liberty and security. However, it permits arrest on several grounds, but not a general power of arrest to maintain order - such as not being able to arrest an individual for "breach of the peace" unless there is an immediate risk of violence for example.

Under PACE however, the police can arrest people to take fingerprints, to answer bail, to have a sample taken, or, in the case of a young person, for breaking conditions of remand. Officers can also make an arrest when they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that someone has committed or attempted to commit an offence, but not on suspicion that an offence will be committed in the future.

Where the offence is relatively minor, police officers are expected to use other means, such as a summons, before resorting to arrest. In other words, arrest should only be used if the police cannot find your name, or suspect that you have given them a false name or address.

Police officers can also arrest people who refuse to say who they are or if they have reasonable grounds for thinking that the person involved could assault someone else. They can also act if the person is seen committing an offence against public decency, or causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway. But, if you have been arrested under this power, the officer is supposed to let you go if you find a way of identifying yourself, or proving that you are no longer at risk of causing of any damage or injury.

However, when drawing up PACE, the power of arrest without warrant was not completely reformed.

An "arrestable offence" is defined as one that would attract a prison sentence of five years or more. But there is a long list of exceptions, some of which are understandable, while others appear to be more for the convenience of the state. For instance, you can be arrested without a warrant for offences under the Official Secrets Act - this includes the infamous section 2 in which almost any information known to a government employee might be considered a 'secret'.

In its recommendations, the commission said that, for an arrest to be valid, it had to be necessary. What it meant by this was that the police needed to have good reason for taking someone into custody if they had not seen an offence being committed. For example, they have to be reasonably certain that the person would not turn up at court or was likely to injure someone else.

Under PACE however, this appears to have been largely ignored. So the police can arrest someone without a warrant if an officer thinks the person is giving false information about their name or address, or believes that they will cause damage to property.

In reality, this means that the police have almost unlimited powers of arrest if they choose to exercise it. Unless you are carrying some kind of identity card, any offence could be regarded as arrestable. For example, there was a case in 1987 where a cyclist who refused to place both hands on the handlebars was eventually arrested 'for failing to give his name and address'. The court accepted the validity of this arrest.

As Hansard is written by sitting Judges and other Legal experts, I think their interpretation superceds all of our definitions and interpretations combined, and even Hansard acknowledges that the Police are able to arrest a person for virtually anything..

 

[Big_Spark]

Now here is an update on my situation. Had a court date this morning, and fully intended to simple plead guilty and finalise the matter.

The CPS Prosecutor approached me and handed the "Advance Disclosure" documentation and said, no need to worry?

When I was stood in front of the Beak, the Prosecutor rose, stated he needed to make a statement to the court before proceedings got underway..

This was granted and he said..

" After reviewing all the evidence and the particulars of this case, we feel that, whilst committing an offence, Mr "BigSpark", clearly had the best of intentions and did not set out to commit the offence he is charged with. Further, after a full review of the statements given by witnesses to the accident, the arresting Police Officer, Mr "Big Spark" and CCTV evidence from the junction, we have concluded that the Police Officers statement cannot be used as evidence as he could not have seen Mr "Big Spark" proceed through the traffic signal, the only evidence of this came from Mr "BigSpark" in his statement to the Officer. The danger to the Public was exagerated my the Police and also by Mr "Big Spark" as there is a 18m "safe area" between the traffic signals and the path of oncoming traffic. It was clear in the CCTV image that Mr "Big Spark" thought he had presented a danger and simply got out of the path of approaching vehicles, he was clearly visible braking before the white line and did actually come to a complete stop, albeit across the white line.

Mr "Big Spark" had telephoned the 999 emergency operator and had requested the Police, however this call was disconnected, we accept that the battery in his mobile telephone expired and that this was what precipitated the events I have just spoken. Call records clearly support Mr "Big Spark's" statements in custody on this matter.

This being the case, we feel that it is not in the Public Interest to proceed with a prosecution at this time. The Crown offer no evidence in this case and we are dropping the charge for which Mr "Big Spark" appears here today"

The charge was then dismissed by the CPS/Court and and I was free to go.

The CPS Solicitor then "suggested" that I make a formal complaint against the Police for the property searches, detention for a traffic offence etc and the 11 stops by Police in the last 7 days, as he felt this unacceptable and undermines the dredibility of the Police.

Before I make that decision I intend to speak to Officers I know personally and get their opinions.

 

[Richardp]

Big_Spark
despite my remarks (mostly tongue in cheek) I'm glad it worked out ok for you, I'd hate to think of you in prison over christmas with just dry bread an cheese for dinner.
save's baking you a cake with a file in it

 

[tim west]

maybe the bars might be made of plastic not metal aka Camera Bodies

 

[Softus]

maybe the bars might be made of plastic not metal aka Camera Bodies

Is that you Freddie?

 

[Moz]

after following this thread , I now know why I was always drunk here ....

pass me a can ..quick lol < joke

as said Im also glad your not in prison now .....so it will be a big compo payout you are after today , I think there was an advert on today about compensation lawyers etc ..lol