• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Stop-and-search powers ruled illegal by European court

Status
Not open for further replies.

Polls

Member
Joined
16 Dec 2009
Messages
81
Location
West London
Can I just say, for anyone who feels affronted by CCTV everywhere and thinking they are being watched and followed and phones being tapped by the government or the police....unless you are a member of an extremist group or run a group of smugglers or drug dealers, they really arent going to be bothered about you....You are not that special :lol:

I agree that if I was mugged or worse I would hope there was a CCTV nearby so they catch the buggers! But it would be just my luck it would be the only time there isn't one for miles :roll:
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,823
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
or used in a later court case

IIRC, a lot of CCTV isn't of good enough quality to actually be used as evidence in court. :|


I have no problem with the CCTV itself, but when it gets misused. <(

This is a story that has been around for some time - the use of CCTV to fine motorists. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to appeal against a fine from it, and it can miss out on things - such as someone stopping to read a map or someone with a disabled badge, as mentioned in the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/6968607/Motorists-hit-with-ghost-tickets.html

"CCTV enforcement is being done on an industrial scale and its intention has moved away from deterrence to a flourishing and lucrative industry, with drivers' wallets being harvested for cash," he said.

"The system is seriously flawed. Cameras do not necessarily spot blue disabled badges, people who have stopped briefly to look at a map or those who are letting passengers out - as they are entitled to do on many yellow lines.

"We regard them as ghost tickets, because drivers are unaware of their alleged offence for some time afterwards.

"These tickets are very had to challenge because drivers are in no position to check the roadside signs or whether the ticket was issued by mistake.

"A civil enforcement officer can deter people from parking illegally - which is why they are there in the first place. All a camera does is raise cash."


If you get a parking ticket unfairly from a warden, you can get evidence to show that it's wrong. If you get a fine through the post a fortnight after, without knowing exactly what it's for, how can you prove that it's wrong?
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Can I just say, for anyone who feels affronted by CCTV everywhere and thinking they are being watched and followed and phones being tapped by the government or the police....unless you are a member of an extremist group or run a group of smugglers or drug dealers, they really arent going to be bothered about you....You are not that special :lol:
Aren't they? What about that couple of anti-weapons protesters where the police took their registration number and are constantly being pulled over after being added to a list of suspects.
 

Polls

Member
Joined
16 Dec 2009
Messages
81
Location
West London
Aren't they? What about that couple of anti-weapons protesters where the police took their registration number and are constantly being pulled over after being added to a list of suspects.

Protesters! Are you a protester? If not, no need to worry then....clearly they had caused some problem in the past which as given them a record. I'm sure they dont appreciate being pulled over so frequently, but sadly that comes with being a protester and being anti-weapons protesters I can imagine they have been found in some pretty dangerous places giving police a reason to be cautious.

Come on now give me some good stories like a little old man has been followed by special forces and had his phone tapped and even been strip searched in Sainsburys for NO reason but the authorities continue to do it just for ****s and giggles.....now that story might make me change my mind.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
I was just exaggerating to be humorous... :|

Seeing how rude you appear to be I'm not surprised the Police officer treated you like this, but that isn't the point. Are you saying this all happened to you personally? Be honest.

Here's a tip for free, you are NOT required to give your name and date of birth under Section 44. Check this out for yourself, but I believe the only bit of information the Police Officer actually has to have is your ethnicity, as that has to go on the form and onto a record so to ensure the officer/force isn't picking on any specific ethnic groups.

If your story is something you've personally experienced then I feel sorry for you, but I still maintain that these instances aren't as common as some people love to make out.

Right, firstly - making a joke out of a serious issue is one thing but not when you want to ridicule the opposing view by associating it with something stupid.

Secondly, if you re-read my text again (in bold or not), you'll see that I never said any of the things - that was my summary.

And, 'be honest'.. what the hell does that mean? Are you saying I made the story up or that it happened to someone else? If you think that's the case then let's not bother to talk to each other anymore.

Maybe all the other examples in the media are made up too? That's okay then. Life goes on and we're all going to be just fine.

What a nice world you live in!

And where did Section 44 come into things in my example? I wasn't searched - I was approached for taking a photograph and was threatened with arrest and confiscation of my equipment. When I proved myself as a journalist, he backed off quick smart.

Okay, so anyone else has the same rights as me - but he probably knew that I could take things further if he'd tried to use any powers he didn't actually have.

There's more than abusing powers they DO have, it's making up ones they don't. And so your final bit about PCSOs is even more worrying because they can make up all sorts of wonderful laws and rules that don't exist because they actually don't know - but think that they're real police officers in their own heads.

I do agree with the later comment about us not being that important in most cases. Keep your head down and comply with everything and, yes, you'll probably never have any cause of concern. Until one day you're stopped and detained because you matched the description of someone else and held without charge or access to legal representation under the terrorism laws.

It's nice that you did say you feel sorry for me, but I'm not looking for sympathy. I just happen to know that it is a bigger problem than you think.

But, you're entirely free to think what you want. However, I suspect you will change your mind in time - and come to remember this discussion.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
IIRC, a lot of CCTV isn't of good enough quality to actually be used as evidence in court. :|

Yeah, I've heard this too, though I don't know how much is considered unsuitable.

I have no problem with the CCTV itself, but when it gets misused. <(

This is a story that has been around for some time - the use of CCTV to fine motorists. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to appeal against a fine from it, and it can miss out on things - such as someone stopping to read a map or someone with a disabled badge, as mentioned in the article.

Yeah, I certainly don't stick up for this use of CCTV.

Right, firstly - making a joke out of a serious issue is one thing but not when you want to ridicule the opposing view by associating it with something stupid.

Calm down chap, I never intended to offend anyone, it was just a joke... :roll:

And, 'be honest'.. what the hell does that mean? Are you saying I made the story up or that it happened to someone else? If you think that's the case then let's not bother to talk to each other anymore.

I just wanted to be sure. :oops:

Maybe all the other examples in the media are made up too? That's okay then. Life goes on and we're all going to be just fine.

What a nice world you live in!

Where have I denied that it isn't a problem at all? That's why I said Section 44 should be scrapped in the first place! My point is that I don't believe it is as big a problem as some like to make it out to be.

And where did Section 44 come into things in my example? I wasn't searched - I was approached for taking a photograph and was threatened with arrest and confiscation of my equipment. When I proved myself as a journalist, he backed off quick smart.

I mentioned Section 44 because you said he wanted to see the footage on your camera. As I understand it, this would have to be done under a Section 44 search and even then I hear it on the fringes of what the section lawfully allows.

I presumed the officer would want your name and date of birth for your Section 44 search form, even though you name and date of birth aren't legally required to go on it. The PNC check led me to believe you had formally been informed of being stopped under Section 44, I may be wrong, but I assumed this was a requirement, as I didn't think you could do a PNC check, or even detain a person, without the person in question being informed as to why they have been stopped, otherwise, they can legally just walk off.

I do agree with the later comment about us not being that important in most cases. Keep your head down and comply with everything and, yes, you'll probably never have any cause of concern. Until one day you're stopped and detained because you matched the description of someone else and held without charge or access to legal representation under the terrorism laws.

It's nice that you did say you feel sorry for me, but I'm not looking for sympathy. I just happen to know that it is a bigger problem than you think.

But, you're entirely free to think what you want. However, I suspect you will change your mind in time - and come to remember this discussion.

I know you think I'm terribly naive chap, even though I seem know my rights better then you, but I'm afraid that you haven't convinced me to scared of the Police. You've obviously had a bad experience with the Police, it seems you were dealt with by a completely clueless copper, but I do believe these bad cop are in the minority. I'd be interested to know, did this incident occur in London? The Met and City of London Police do seem to have more then their fair share of numpties. :lol:

Keep on rocking in the free world buddy. :smile:
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
I'm sure they dont appreciate being pulled over so frequently, but sadly that comes with being a protester and being anti-weapons protesters I can imagine they have been found in some pretty dangerous places giving police a reason to be cautious.
No. They appear outside a Brighton factory (on the street) every Friday and nothing else has come of it or happenned. This isn't an isolated incident, look at the climate camp, RBS protests and everything else and shouldn't happen full stop.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/surveillance-police-number-plate-recognition
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
Keep on rocking in the free world buddy. :smile:

As I said, wait and see. There's no point me arguing a case and trying to change your mind when you have a different experience - nor would I want or expect you to change your mind based on what I say.

I'm saying wait and see - and time will reveal all. If I'm wrong, neither of us have 'lost' anything.

One more thing; this isn't one isolated incident - it happens in my line of work and goes beyond a trainspotter being picked on by security staff that are bored and want to pick on someone they perceive to be easy prey.

But, I know that we're not yet at a point of martial law and no freedom at all - or people disappearing and never returning home. However, it doesn't happen instantly. Done gradually, you'll barely notice it happening at all.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
Maybe for a police officer who is bound by rules of confidentiality. Bit different for your example Yorkie.
Yes it's different, I wouldn't do any of these acts of violence. They do. You must obey them and let them beat you up. If you do not you have something to hide, and are a terrorist. Resistance is futile.
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,753
Location
Essex
Well that video is from America, where one can't deny that the police are tougher there, with good reason, yet that does not excuse beating up a minor.

We have only seen isolated incidents like these in the UK, all of which are referred to the IPCC.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
The police in the USA are certainly more likely to come at you with a gun pointing at you, but they usually seem to be fairly polite and respectful (if you watch the TV shows they're in). I got stopped a couple of times in the US and they were always firm but fair. First was for driving a hire car around a car park a little too fast, the second was trying to sneak beer into Universal Studios on New Year's Eve.

Now we have those TV shows here too, and if you think the US cops are simply being nice on camera then why aren't the cops here? Instead we get cops that will goad people into doing something to nick them under public order offences, trip them up to make them fall that bit harder, accidental elbowing etc - and this is IN FRONT of cameras? You couldn't make it up.

I do wonder if our justice system that takes a kid who drove for 5 hours tearing up the roads, street furniture and nearly wiping out innocent people, and lets him off with a fine or a ban actually (or drops the case despite the evidence we've just watched on Sky 1) creates a police officer that is so disillusioned that they just want to dish out punishments there and then - and, sadly, the odd innocent bystander can get caught up through no fault of their own; just the wrong place at the wrong time.

Standards seem to have dropped, partly due to poorer training. More cops are breaking laws, having accidents and committing fraud - which isn't particularly reassuring for the people upholding the law. The less said about PCSOs the better.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,703
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
the sniper
I was intending to respond in more detail but looking at your responses I don't think I will bother.

The big deal about S44 is that it was for use against suspected TERRORISTS.

60% of those stopped and questioned under S44 were white.

Now at risk of causng another big bust up with the various Leftist who hovver in the background white people do not fit the profile for radical Muslim terrorists. Neither do old men at Labour Party conferences.

Whilst you may refuse to give your name and address UNDER S44, there is OTHER legislation that can be used to detain you for refusing, not least the "Obstructing a Police Officer" route.

The debate here is about the loss of freedom that has occurred in the last 13 years.

You appear to have this rather warm and rosy picture that law enforcement just deals with the baddies and anyone innocent is OK, well sorry to disappoint but life is not like that and there are a whole series of Appeals going through the Court system based upon false and misleading evidence used to imprison people.

Many, many years ago I too believed, as I think you do now. Experience in life has completely turned my attitude and approach around.

As much as we may not like what people say, provided that they say is within the Law and not offensive or inciting to others then they should have that freedom, because ONE day it could be YOU that needs to make the point.

The Police have moved far and away from being the nice friendly bobby on the beat type to a more cynical and less tolerant, insofar as it applies to white middle class men and women. If you fall into these groups then you will have trouble.

The feral youths, raging drunk, and violent are treated much more leniently and there is a reluctance to arrest even when arrestable offences have occurred.

The Police have been Politicised and now work against targets set by Government. They are Politicised because Labour have had a policy of appointing to senior positions only senior officers who are sympathetic to Labour's cause. Policing statistics are cynically manipulated to allow Labour to claim that violent crime has fallen when we all know it has not fallen but probably increased. The Police will also regularly "downgrade" a crime report if it looks like affecting their statistics. Arrests are also based upon targets, so IF you just happen to do somehting that is flavour of the month arrest target wise you will be nicked good and proper simply so that target is met. All Police Officers now have arrest / Prosecution targets to meet, or be marked down onto performance management.

If you look at the rise of Stalin, and read how Felix Dherzinsky operated, then you will see unbelievable parallels with how Labour have acted since 1997.

This is not the rantings of some lunatic but someone who has travelled and worked in the Former Soviet Union and seen how the people lived, and how even several years after the Wall came down and the Soviets had gone, people still feared strangers.

I do happen to know Russiansd and I can tell you that they are stunned at how repressive the UK has becoem, with powers far and away of anything that the KGB had or even wished.

This is from the Independent of 20th Feb 2009
The full extent of state powers to detain people without charge, cover up Government errors, hold the DNA of the innocent and share personal data between public bodies has been revealed in a devastating analysis of the erosion of civil liberties in Britain over the past decade.

Almost 60 new powers contained in more than 25 Acts of Parliament have whittled away at freedoms and broken pledges set out in the Human Rights Act and Magna Carta, according to a new audit of laws introduced since Labour came to power in 1997. The dossier, compiled by the Convention on Modern Liberty, criticises police powers to detain terror suspects for 28 days without charge, new stop-and-search powers handed to police (allowing them to stop people without reason at airports and other designated areas), and restrictions on the right of peaceful protest.
It is the first time such a picture of the erosion of rights under Labour has been published. The rise in surveillance in Britain is also documented, including new laws allowing individuals to be electronically tagged, and the legal interception of letters, emails and phone calls.
Related articles

Control orders, designed to confine terrorist suspects who have not been found guilty, are also cited. The orders, created under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 2005, can include the power of house arrest and electronic tagging.
"The right to privacy has been eroded, perhaps permanently, by broad powers to intercept, collect, store and share our private information," the dossier states.
The Coroners and Justice Bill, currently going through Parliament, is accused of seeking to hand the state the power to prevent embarrassing revelations of Government failure becoming public. Coroners are currently able to criticise the Government and any of its agencies that cause a death. But the Bill would hand the state new powers to suspend inquests, or force them into secret. It would also allow Government agencies to share personal data.
David Davis, the Conservative MP who resigned as shadow home secretary and called a by-election to campaign against what he described as the Government's growing attack on British liberties, said the measures cited in the report give hundreds of bodies the power to "snoop, spy and bug" on the public.
"It is a real, serious, systemic problem," Mr Davis said. "I cannot believe it is happening. It's up to us to make sure it is stopped."
Mr Davis said that he did not regret leaving his post as shadow Home Secretary to fight the cause "for a second". "We had to put a check on this process, dribbling away, salami slice by slice," he said. "And if I'd found a cheaper way of doing it, I would have done it more cheaply."
Henry Porter, one of the organisers of the Convention on Modern Liberty, said that there was "little doubt that there is a crisis of liberty in Britain".
"We needed an account to show the legislative programme that swept away many centuries-old rights and transferred so much power from the individual to the state actually existed," he said. "We now have that evidence [and can] oppose what is happening to one of the world's oldest democracies."
A spokesman for the Home Office said that CCTV surveillance and the use of a DNA database were "essential crime-fighting tools".
"The Government has been clear that where surveillance or data collection will impact on privacy they should only be used where it is necessary and proportionate," he said. "The key is to strike the right balance between privacy, protection and sharing of personal data."
Britain under Labour: The Convention on Modern Liberty's take
"Laws stopping people taking pictures of the police have little to do with tackling crime"
Moazzem Begg, Former Guantanamo Bay detainee
"We are now the most spied-upon country in the developed world"
Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats
"We have lived under one of the most authoritarian ages in living memory"
Shami Chakrabarti, Head of Liberty
"This attack on our freedoms under this government threatens us all"
Dominic Grieve, Shadow Justice Secretary
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...labours-curbs-on-civil-liberties-1627054.html

Here is a list current at 6th March 2008 of freedoms lost and restrictions placed upon our freedom.

This is the list of losses of liberty and rights since 1997.

Protest and assembly


- Protests are banned within one kilometre of Parliament Square without police permission (penalty: 51 weeks in jail and/or a £2,500 fine).
- Groups may be dispersed under antisocial-behaviour laws.
- Groups may be dispersed within designated areas under the terror laws.
- The new offence under SOCPA of trespass within a designated site (no justification for designation is required).

Communications


- Under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act, government agencies may intercept email, internet connections and standard mail without seeking a court's permission (the latest figure is 500,000 secret interceptions a year).
- Since summer 2007, the government and some 700 agencies have had access to all landline and mobile-phone records. There was no primary legislation and no debate in parliament.

Databases


- Without primary legislation, police introduced a national network of all ANPR cameras. The travel data may be stored for two years.
- The National Identity Register will store details of every verification made by an ID-card holder and give access to government agencies without the knowledge or consent of the private citizen.
- ID-card enrolment requires every citizen to offer up 49 piece of personal information to the national database, with heavy and repeated fines for non-compliance.
- All children details are to be stored on a central database, with access granted to a wide range of public bodies.
- The Children's Common Assessment Framework database stores all details of children with problems, indefinitely.
- The Home Office has announced that it wishes to take 19 pieces of information, including mobile-phone and credit-card numbers, from everyone travelling abroad.

Free Expression


- Public-order laws have been used to curtail free expression. A man wearing the slogan "Bollocks to Blair" on his T-shirt was told to remove it by police.
- The Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) bans incitement of hatred on religious grounds.
- Justice Minister Jack Straw proposes new laws which would ban the incitement of hatred towards the disabled and on the grounds of a person's sexual orientation
- Terror laws are used to ban freedom of expression in designated areas. Walter Wolfgang was removed from the Labour party conference for heckling Jack Straw. People have been searched simply for wearing slogans on their T-shirts or for carrying banners. A man was detained while collecting signatures against the ID card
- The Protection from Harassment Act (1997) bans the repetition of an act. People prosecuted for repeated protest by email.
- Terror laws ban the glorification of terrorism, which has resulted in the prosecution of a young woman for writing poetry.

The Courts


- ASBO legislation introduces hearsay evidence, which may result in a person being sent to jail.
- The Criminal Justice Act (2003) allows the prosecution to make an application to be heard without a jury where there is a danger of jury tampering. This will include fraud trials.
- The admissibility of evidence concerning a person's bad character, previous convictions and acquittals.
- The Proceeds of Crime Act (2002) gives the state powers to confiscate assets in circumstances where it does not have enough evidence for prosecution.
-Special Immigration Appeals Court hearings are held in secret. Those terror suspects whose cases come before the court are not allowed to know the evidence against them or to be represented by a lawyer of their own choice.
- The Courts and Tribunals Enforcement Act abandons the tradition of an Englishman's home being his castle, which since 1604 has made breaking into a home by bailiffs illegal.

Terror Laws


- Terror laws have been used to stop and search ordinary citizens. The current rate is 50,000 per annum.
- A maximum of 28 days without charge is allowed under terror legislation. The government has announced plans to increase this to 42 days.
- Control orders, effectively indefinite house arrest, were introduced after the Belmarsh decision
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/2008/03/06/loss-of-liberty-and-rights-since-1997
 
Last edited:

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,753
Location
Essex
Instead we get cops that will goad people into doing something to nick them under public order offences, trip them up to make them fall that bit harder, accidental elbowing etc - and this is IN FRONT of cameras? You couldn't make it up.

As always, I would be interested to see evidence for this.


I also think it is incredibly unfair to place the onus on the policeman himself, when as proved today in the sledging story, it seems that management are the ones out of touch with the situation.

I don't think standards have dropped per se, it is just that a new type of crime and criminal has been created that the system cannot cope with.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,823
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
From the article you posted OT, I don't understand why these two are bad things :?

- The Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) bans incitement of hatred on religious grounds.
- Justice Minister Jack Straw proposes new laws which would ban the incitement of hatred towards the disabled and on the grounds of a person's sexual orientation
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,703
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
From the article you posted OT, I don't understand why these two are bad things :?
Both of those Laws have been used to suppress comedy shows for example.

This is what Liberty said about the Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006)

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "This offence is capable of catching attacks on ideas as well as people. At best this is an empty sop to a community sorely let down by government. At worst it is a dangerous new blasphemy law out of step with our best traditions."

Leaders of major religions and race groups, as well as non-religious groups such as the National Secular Society and English PEN spoke out against the Bill.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
I'm saying wait and see - and time will reveal all. If I'm wrong, neither of us have 'lost' anything.

Well, I think we can both agree that, hopefully, your doomsday theory won't come to fruition. :)

Yes it's different, I wouldn't do any of these acts of violence. They do. You must obey them and let them beat you up. If you do not you have something to hide, and are a terrorist. Resistance is futile.

Oh come on, that's a low blow. All British coppers are bad because of the actions of some Indian and US Police officers? :shock:

Now we have those TV shows here too, and if you think the US cops are simply being nice on camera then why aren't the cops here? Instead we get cops that will goad people into doing something to nick them under public order offences, trip them up to make them fall that bit harder, accidental elbowing etc - and this is IN FRONT of cameras? You couldn't make it up.

You really do have a skewed view of British Police!

the sniper
I was intending to respond in more detail but looking at your responses I don't think I will bother.

The big deal about S44 is that it was for use against suspected TERRORISTS.

60% of those stopped and questioned under S44 were white.

Now at risk of causng another big bust up with the various Leftist who hovver in the background white people do not fit the profile for radical Muslim terrorists. Neither do old men at Labour Party conferences.

This is one of the reasons I believe Section 44 should be scrapped!!! All I object to is the view that anyone with a camera will be stopped, as I honestly don't believe this to be the case.

Whilst you may refuse to give your name and address UNDER S44, there is OTHER legislation that can be used to detain you for refusing, not least the "Obstructing a Police Officer" route.

Do you know how many people have been done for obstructing a police officer by failing to give a name and address under Section 44? Is it many? Seeing as you legally don't have to give your name or address under S44, how would anyone make that stick as a conviction? I doubt even the Desk Sergeant would be impressed...

The debate here is about the loss of freedom that has occurred in the last 13 years.

You paint a very bleak picture of the Britain Old Timer, what an incredibly depressing read. :(

I can only be honest and say I haven't really felt like I've had my freedom encroached upon, maybe I am naive, but I'm am more worried and saddened by the Governments soft treatment of criminals and yobs then I am about my apparent lack of freedom. :|
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
Well that video is from America, where one can't deny that the police are tougher there, with good reason, yet that does not excuse beating up a minor.
The video contains worldwide footage, including from the UK.

Why is there "good reason" for police to be "tougher"?
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,753
Location
Essex
Well, In the USA for instance, the fact that most people own a gun, I'm not suprised that their hand is almost on the trigger when the pull someone, and to get them in handcuffs ASAP.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
Oh come on, that's a low blow. All British coppers are bad because of the actions of some Indian and US Police officers? :shock:
Did I say that? No. And clearly you've not seen the video.

The people depicted in the video are not to be trusted. They are police officers throughout the world, some of them are from the UK. That does not mean they represent all of them.

You anti-civil liberties people seem to think that we all have nothing to be afraid of by giving these people ridiculous powers? Yet evidence clearly suggests that is not the case, as some of them cannot be trusted.

If just some of them cannot be trusted then that's enough evidence to say that we should be more careful with what we allow them to do. Why should we allow them to search us for no reason whatsoever and use terrorism as a pathetic excuse? They are abusing that power. They broke the law. And yes I've been a victim of them breaking the law. And hardly anything is going to be done about the fact they broke the law because they're the police and they get away with things like that.

We are on the slippery slope to becoming a police state that all right-minded people oppose. If you want to live in a police state, there are plenty to choose from that are openly oppressive, so go to one if you think it will make you safe from crime if you want.

We're theoretically not a police state but it's getting that way:-x
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, In the USA for instance, the fact that most people own a gun, I'm not suprised that their hand is almost on the trigger when the pull someone, and to get them in handcuffs ASAP.
Not a bad answer, although I'm not sure it should make them "tougher" in the sense that they should beat more people up than ours do, but "more prepared" and "better armed" I'd agree with.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I was intending to respond in more detail but looking at your responses I don't think I will bother.

The big deal about S44 is that it was for use against suspected TERRORISTS.

60% of those stopped and questioned under S44 were white.

Now at risk of causng another big bust up with the various Leftist who hovver in the background white people do not fit the profile for radical Muslim terrorists. Neither do old men at Labour Party conferences.
I agree with much of what you say on this topic, but I think it's not a good argument to use the race card in this. By that logic, in the 1980s and 1990s they should have stopped mostly Irish people as it was the IRA bombing us then. Manchester, Warrington, London, to name just three places out of several that were bombed and where innocent people killed by the IRA. Also remember the station closures as a result of IRA bomb scares?

And given that the people who are behind out those attacks are probably still alive today, should we go for Irish people on the basis that they may resume attacks or should we forget about them because they seem to have stopped these days?

I was searched by a pathetic individual at Leeds in 2006/07 who was bored waiting for rowdy football fans, the train was late and they had nothing better to do. Due to the delay I decided to take a photo of a train while waiting. This was when this pathetic officer broke the law by searching me under the terrorism act, when it was clear that I was not in any way acting in a way that a terrorist would act.

People like sniper who go on about how they have not been searched therefore it does not affect them are so, so, wrong and are, in my opinion, traitors to other enthusiasts and photographers, and indeed the general public.

I've got a copy of the search record somewhere, but I doubt I can do anything about their illegal act, after all they're the police, and get away with breaking the law.:|
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
As always, I would be interested to see evidence for this.

Well, prepare for some serious time sitting on a couch watching Traffic Cops, Road Wars, Police Interceptors and the millions of other 'reality' cop shows. I will admit that it's somewhat different seeing them going after real criminals, and I would probably have to say I'm a bit of a hypocrite. Harassing someone who has just been racing around recklessly on the roads after a robbery is a world apart from going after someone that just took a photograph.

Actually, the Essex cops on Police Interceptors are amazing. Here's a county that were proud of the money they made from speed cameras, reducing a 70mph limit on the M11 with a camera to rake in a record (for the whole of the UK) amount of money - and yet, there have been fatalities that never happened before there purely because of people slamming their brakes on by the camera. On the flip side, cops who get thrills from driving like loons in their Evo's and Impreza's.. and wearing dark glasses that many police forces have banned.

Can you believe that my grandfather was a police man, I used to go regularly to the Chigwell Sports Club, have been out WITH the police on raids for my job, know many specials and other serving officers.. and I still have this view? Maybe it's because I actually see more than an officer on the street. At the same time, can I also add as a 'get out' that most police officers are perfectly fine, polite, out with best intentions. Some would refuse to do what they could be ordered to do, such as carrying out a raid on the office of an MP. Others will comply and keep their heads down. Sadly I also know cops that deal drugs and stolen goods and generally abuse their powers - and then there are the stories in the press about many other abuses of power and breaches of trust.

@thesniper has admitted there are bad apples. How many bad apples do you need to make a serious impact on our freedoms? Give them more powers that are easily abused (like reasonable suspicion of anything) and bingo - the problems we face now or will face, or could face if you want to try and refrain from being too negative.

It's all fixable, I'd hope. I just wonder who will have the guts to do something before it's too late and people DO start to disappear from their homes. Today, that statement might be read as a bit of an hysterical overreaction. Come and read it again on www.archive.org in 10 or 20 years.
 
Last edited:

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
(I might have mixed bits of you post up Yorkie so I can reply to certain points all in one).

Did I say that? No. And clearly you've not seen the video.

The people depicted in the video are not to be trusted. They are police officers throughout the world, some of them are from the UK. That does not mean they represent all of them.

You anti-civil liberties people seem to think that we all have nothing to be afraid of by giving these people ridiculous powers? Yet evidence clearly suggests that is not the case, as some of them cannot be trusted.

I have to admit, I stopped watching about 5 minutes in, sorry. :oops:

I'm sorry I got the wrong end of the stick with you post, I should have sort clarification before I replied like I did.

The whole point of my presence in this thread has been to say that I believe the majority of Police aren't crooks in a uniform like those in the video or those who randomly bully people with the terrorism laws. I don't deny there are stupid coppers and never have done, they're the main ones that make S44 unworkable and they're why I think it should be banned!

I was searched by a pathetic individual at Leeds in 2006/07 who was bored waiting for rowdy football fans, the train was late and they had nothing better to do. Due to the delay I decided to take a photo of a train while waiting. This was when this pathetic officer broke the law by searching me under the terrorism act, when it was clear that I was not in any way acting in a way that a terrorist would act.

I really am sorry to hear that, what a sad state of affairs. :(

People like sniper who go on about how they have not been searched therefore it does not affect them are so, so, wrong and are, in my opinion, traitors to other enthusiasts and photographers, and indeed the general public.

I didn't say that! All I have said that it hasn't happened to me, yet, and surely it hasn't happened to the majority of people? Maybe the mods could put up a poll just to see how many rail enthusiasts here have been bothered by the Police in the name of the Terrorism Act while carrying out their hobby, to see if I am right or wrong to believe what I do?

Also, I've said that there is a problem with the use of S44 powers and have said that I would want S44 scrapped all together, yet I'm branded as a traitor? :|
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
No worries, sounds like we actually agree on more than we both thought!

I still think it matters a lot even if it only happens to a minority, it's still wrong.

I'll retract the branding of you as a traitor and I apologise for that. I still think that people who do believe that these now ruled unlawful searches should take place are traitors, but I'm glad to hear you are not one of them after all!! :)
 

Polls

Member
Joined
16 Dec 2009
Messages
81
Location
West London
No. They appear outside a Brighton factory (on the street) every Friday and nothing else has come of it or happenned. This isn't an isolated incident, look at the climate camp, RBS protests and everything else and shouldn't happen full stop.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/surveillance-police-number-plate-recognition

I am in a very tricky inbetween place where I understand what you are saying and I'm sure that some Police are too heavy handed at the wrong times, but knowing a lot of Police officers, they also get blamed for many things that are as unjust....for example; one of my friends helped a 13 year old girl down from some scaffolding because she was stuck and when she escorted her safely home to her parents all she got from the parents was abuse for touching thier child! My friend also recieved an official complaint in the morning from the parents which caused an internal enquiry.

There are many things about what I saw at the RBS protest/riot that I was disgusted at. Some of the Police looked brutal, and the example of the man that was killed was awful. As I'm sure you were aware the media only shows the worst parts because that is what the 'great unwashed' like to see. But, there were the vast majority of the Police that supported the protest and were simply there to make sure it didn't get too out of hand and infact protect the protesters. They also detest the violence they saw from the few colleagues as this gives them all a bad name.
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,753
Location
Essex
Well, prepare for some serious time sitting on a couch watching Traffic Cops, Road Wars, Police Interceptors and the millions of other 'reality' cop shows.

Of which hundreds of hours of footage is taken out, to make it more exciting.. When you see on those shows someones car window smashed and them dragged out, how do we not know that in a briefing earlier they were told that the man had a history of violence? It is an extremely thin point to base it on.

Not a bad answer, although I'm not sure it should make them "tougher" in the sense that they should beat more people up than ours do, but "more prepared" and "better armed" I'd agree with.

Yes, that is what I meant. Just couldn't think of the correct word.
 

Polls

Member
Joined
16 Dec 2009
Messages
81
Location
West London
I do wonder if our justice system that takes a kid who drove for 5 hours tearing up the roads, street furniture and nearly wiping out innocent people, and lets him off with a fine or a ban actually (or drops the case despite the evidence we've just watched on Sky 1) creates a police officer that is so disillusioned that they just want to dish out punishments there and then - and, sadly, the odd innocent bystander can get caught up through no fault of their own; just the wrong place at the wrong time.

Standards seem to have dropped, partly due to poorer training. More cops are breaking laws, having accidents and committing fraud - which isn't particularly reassuring for the people upholding the law. The less said about PCSOs the better.

I can tell you that unfortunately this is just getting worse. Have you all noticed how much money has been put into advertising the recruitment of Special Constables? They have upped the hours of the Specials to a minimum of 25 hours a month (from 18 ) and have reduced the time they have to train to 4 weekends. After this small amount of training they have full powers of arrest and are sent out on the streets. Because they do this for free the government have decided to exploit this and get more and more 'free police' looking after our streets. Recruiting for fully trained paid police has been halted until 2012!! The Specials are becomig so many that police overtime is a thing of the past which is causing BIG problems internally. I believe another cost cutting idea from the Government was to order that Officers patrol on their own!....you may as well just put posters up for criminals saying 'free for all! Don't worry there is no chance of you getting caught!'.

The government have basically decided its fine to give BILLIONS to Bankers and to get some of that money back, take it away from us AGAIN (ie Police force, Army, NHS) How much more do we have to pay to keep Mr RBS happy and fed with steak dinners nightly? <D
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,753
Location
Essex
I personally think there should be a massive recruitment drive so specials become regulars.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
No worries, sounds like we actually agree on more than we both thought!

Indeed. :)

Polls and Ralphchadkirk raise a number of good examples as to why I seem to defend the Police, it's my belief that the majority are good but get a bad name because of the minority of bad officers. The press are only too happy to pounce on the actions of bad officers, quiet rightly too, but how often do you see good stories being given any decent amount of space in the papers or on TV news? Sadly because the good work isn't heavily reported (Daily Mail editors have openly admitted they prominently like to report things that outrage people), if at all, some sections of the public like to think there isn't any happening, which is obviously not the case.

I can tell you that unfortunately this is just getting worse. Have you all noticed how much money has been put into advertising the recruitment of Special Constables? They have upped the hours of the Specials to a minimum of 25 hours a month (from 18 ) and have reduced the time they have to train to 4 weekends. After this small amount of training they have full powers of arrest and are sent out on the streets. Because they do this for free the government have decided to exploit this and get more and more 'free police' looking after our streets. Recruiting for fully trained paid police has been halted until 2012!! The Specials are becomig so many that police overtime is a thing of the past which is causing BIG problems internally. I believe another cost cutting idea from the Government was to order that Officers patrol on their own!....you may as well just put posters up for criminals saying 'free for all! Don't worry there is no chance of you getting caught!'.

Though I don't doubt what your saying, I think that is specifically the case in the Metropolitan Police, isn't it? Just speaking for the BTP, which I actually hope to join as a Special, their initial training takes place over 8 weekends, followed by 11 further weekends over the following year. You only have to do a minimum of 4 hours a week (though you'd usually do 1 full shift) and for a good while (I believe it may be up to a year) you are attached to an experienced regular officer. The Met is the strictest on required hours, I believe most other forces ask their Specials to do a minimum of 4 hours a week. Also, you may be interested to know that it isn't just Regular officers that are unimpressed with the change in hours in the Met, it's the Specials too. Many long serving Specials are looking to leave, either to go to the BTP or quit all together.

If anyone is interested, the BTP has 2,885 Regular officers and just 218 Specials, almost all of which are based in London, outside of London BTP SC's are rare; for example, I've been told Birmingham only has 1!

Also, don't the majority of Specials just work Friday or Saturday nights? I was led to believe by a West Midlands Police officer that they're glad that there are Specials because they put extra bodies on the streets to deal with the drunks at kicking out time, freeing up more Regular officers to deal with other incidents over a weekend.

The government have basically decided its fine to give BILLIONS to Bankers and to get some of that money back, take it away from us AGAIN (ie Police force, Army, NHS) How much more do we have to pay to keep Mr RBS happy and fed with steak dinners nightly? <D

Too true. :(
 

Polls

Member
Joined
16 Dec 2009
Messages
81
Location
West London
Indeed. :)

Though I don't doubt what your saying, I think that is specifically the case in the Metropolitan Police, isn't it? Just speaking for the BTP, which I actually hope to join as a Special, their initial training takes place over 8 weekends, followed by 11 further weekends over the following year. You only have to do a minimum of 4 hours a week (though you'd usually do 1 full shift) and for a good while (I believe it may be up to a year) you are attached to an experienced regular officer. The Met is the strictest on required hours, I believe most other forces ask their Specials to do a minimum of 4 hours a week. Also, you may be interested to know that it isn't just Regular officers that are unimpressed with the change in hours in the Met, it's the Specials too. Many long serving Specials are looking to leave, either to go to the BTP or quit all together.
:(

Yes I think you are right it is the MET I was reffering to. I apologise for omitting that information. I have a close friend in the BTP. It is a good force to work for. Have you applied yet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top