Destroyed Respect..

Not open for further replies.
Very well, since you asked...

Big_Spark said:
And what is the conclusion of the statement I repeated
WTF does this mean?

...and have been lambasted for
No you haven't. You've simply been told when you're wrong.

that the Police can arrest for virtually any offence where they feel justified...
What percentage of offences are arrestable then? In other words, WTF does "virtually" mean?

Afterall I never stated this was what I thought, it is what I was told by Police Officers and Solicitors.
What you've been told is either wrong, or irrelevant, or both. Only the law is relevant, and a surprising number of police officers are not sufficiently knowledgeable about it.

I agree that obviously PACE is only a code of practice to guide Police Officers in the administration of their duties and the decision to arrest must meet the criteria set out in we have all agreed throughout this thread.
I agree.

Any Offence the Police arrest anyone for must be enforcable by other legislation that details offences within it, such as the EPA Act, Criminal Justice Act, Theft Act etc etc.
I don't know what you mean by "must be enforceable" - it sounds like gibberish.

The problem is that the first actual hurdle Officers face is their colleagues in the Custody Suites of Police Stations, and these are in a position to either support the charge or dismiss it, likely by telling the arrested person that no further action will be taken.
The Duty Officer has strict rules to follow, so you appear to be making things up as you go along. Hurdle indeed :rolleyes:

The Officer in the street has the powers to stop a person for almost anything as the reasoning can be subjective as well as objective ( I personally have no issue with this per se).
Again with the "almost" - WTF does this mean?

If the Police Officer can justify their actions, then the Officer now has the powers to arrest a person for even the most trivial offence
No, they don't. stating they do not believe the identity of the person they are speaking too, believe they may have committed another offence and need to arrest them for further questioning/investigation or any of the other criteria as set out in PACE.
They have to do more than "believe" this - they have to show that their action is justified, or the arrest is both invalid and unlawful.

I think we can all agree that this is the case.
I think we can't, therefore we can't.

Afterall it is what the legislation states,
No, it isn't. For the umptillionth time. :rolleyes: does the Home Office and the Police and Legal Profession.
Those parties do not make the law, therefore their opinions are irrelevant when determining the meaning of the legislation, unless a court with sufficient jurisdiction holds that their opinion is correct.

That being the case, it is correct to state that the Police have the Powers to arrest a person for virtually any offence a person can commit, so long as they are able to justify their actions.
I agree, caveat that the use of the word "virtually" is both unnecessary and meaningless in this context.

This being the case, it is then the issue of abuse of powers. I am sure that the vast majority of Officers do not abuse this power, or at least without a very good reason, however I think we can all see that this power is open to abuse and to think otherwise is nieive. Police Officers are human, they lie, cheat, steal and abuse in just the same way as other sections of our society.
This is a reasonable statement, but is this really the only foundation of your belief that we are close to the advent of a Police State?


As per my previous summary - you're mostly wrong. :rolleyes:
Sponsored Links
Softus, I am tired of this rubbish.

Thank you for actually quoting properly but I have some questions for you..

  • 1: What do you do for a living?

    2:What makes you a greater expert on the Law than the Police, Home Office and Solicitors?

    3: Why do you seem unwilling to accept that Officers can operate in a way that is an abuse of power, yet still within the law?

All through this thread you have simply disagreed with 80% of mt comments, even when they have been quotes from sources of information that know more about the law than everyone here, you do not even accept what the Home Office said, you made the INCORRECT assumption that is was simple a "Customer Service Advisor", when in fact the person I spoke to is actually a Lawyer employed by the Government and works in the Criminal Justice Unit..hardly someone with a different interpretation.

As for the comment about Police State, I did not say we are there, or near it..but what has happened is taking us down that road if it is not kept in check now, and the only way that will happen is for the Public to stand up and be counted to ensure that our rights and freedoms are not removed by excessive powers for the Police or that the Police start making laws (By undue influence with Policiticians) which are designed to give them greater powers.

Further, my earlier comment about the Police Officers statement being with my Solicitor (in their hands) is not for them to make a decision, but to make contact, on my behalf, with the correct authority for a formal complaint to be made. The Officer is an armed responce Officer, if he will lie so blatently about a traffic stop, then what would he do for a serious crime, such as murder? As a member of the public I find this worrying and question if he has the right personality to be carrying a firearm. I would hope such behaviour would be of concern to you too.

Moderator 4

Enough, now go and play elsewhere
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links