Rant Stopped, ID'd and cautioned under the Terrorism Act today!

[Tom]

In the time honoured tradition, strict proof please.

Stop and search policy

That's for Scotland, but the law is the same in Scotland as it is in England.

 

[MYstIC G]

...yes, and then see them get torn to shreds once you sue them for wrongful arrest.

Are we to understand that you are going to fund his legal expenses then?

 

[old.user4556]

...yes, and then see them get torn to shreds once you sue them for wrongful arrest.

Well that's the conclusion I came to today, I could have pursued my photography and I'm sure I'd have been arrested under the LOL act, then I would have had pursue something through the IPCC or go to court and have the judge throw it out with a large helping of fail. It was easier to just stop and walk away.

 

[Tom]

Are we to understand that you are going to fund his legal expenses then?

Am I to understand that G has asked me to, or that he will pursue further action?

A silly question deserves an equally silly question in response.

 

[Tom]

Well that's the conclusion I came to today, I could have pursued my photography and I'm sure I'd have been arrested under the LOL act, then I would have had pursue something through the IPCC or go to court and have the judge throw it out with a large helping of fail. It was easier to just stop and walk away.

I respect that. I'm quite stubborn though, and I'd have probably ended up in a police cell, just to prove a point

 

[MYstIC G]

Am I to understand that G has asked me to, or that he will pursue further action?

A silly question deserves an equally silly question in response.

Says the man who makes out there is a foregone conclusion, i.e. a certainty.

Since we are discussing a "shouldn't have but did" scenario, the following response seems appropriate

"rofflecopters"

 

[tris-]

are you sure you were cautioned (you do not have to say anything, but anything you do bla bla)? youre usually only cautioned when questioned in relation to an offence you have allegedly committed.

if you didnt commit an ofence, as the officer said, why were you given the caution?

or do you mean you did actually commit an offence, pleaded guilty, and then recieved a simple caution?

 

[old.user4556]

I don't know exactly tris-, It came from when I said I was within my rights to take photos in a public place and that's when he said he had to "caution" me under that under the terrorism act that this particular shopping centre could be considered a sensitive area.

Then he proceeded to ask me for ID, profession, what I was doing and why I was doing it, to look through my memory card, took my home address and my employer details etc.

My understanding is that falls into a stop and search and a verbal caution which is different from a formal caution down the nick.

 

[cHodAX]

Personally I would have given you the old rubber glove cavity search, you can't be too careful with these Scottish nationalist terrorists!

 

[tris-]

a caution is a caution really, whever the location is. perhaps he tried to manipulate you in to answering questions in that case. if he said you hadnt committed an offence, then there is no need to state the caution to you. reason being, you are not being questioned in relation to an offence you may have committed. if youre at the bobby station or in the middle of a street, you must be read the caution before you can be questioned about your involvement in any potential offence.

these might be a bit of a dry read, but they are the codes of conduct an officer (be it police, customs or other law enforcer) should follow in relation to their powers. if they dont, theyl have a hard time in court and possibly have the thing thrown out because they acted outside of their powers.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - PACE Code A (amended 1 January 2009) | Home Office

PACE Code D 2008 | Home Office

code a deals with stop and search, and d with questioning and identifying.

 

[old.user4556]

..at the end of all this discussion, all I did was take a photo of an escalator and the exterior of a building.

What a load of fucking trivial tripe.

 

[tris-]

im only looking cos im interested now, but s40 of the terrorism act says

Terrorist: interpretation

(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—

(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or

(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of
terrorism.

and you can only be searched if you meet the definition of terrorist given there.

you do not meet either imo, so he had no power to search you. he cant simply presumre you are a terrorist under s40 1 b, it has to be shown that you are one first.

 

[Calaen]

Might have been worthwhile you asking to speak to a building manager before you started taking the photos?


I know that's neither here nor there right now, but it might save you the hassle.

I would be more pissed off with some jumped up female assuming I was a paedophile and taking pics of kids, than I would have been with the security guard.

 

[Trem]

I bloody knew G was up to something

I bet his sisters are just a cover to get someone high profile like me interested and on side then *WHAMMO* parliament is blown up, Big G, the G isn't for Guy Fawkes by any chance is it?

 

[old.user4556]

Funny you say that Trem, I was leaving my mum and dad's earlier on today and parting words were "you know, i'm with Guy Fawkes".

 

[Trem]

Funny you say that Trem, I was leaving my mum and dad's earlier on today and parting words were "you know, i'm with Guy Fawkes".

I bloody knew it!!







Heh, the system is bullshit mate, those security guards need to feel important at least once in their lifes, thats what you gave them today. Wankers. I once got banned from PC World because I fell out with one, he was a fat **** who shat himself when I stormed back at him.

 

[Gumbo]

With a bit of luck stuff like this will stop people voting labour for a very long time.

 

[pcg79]

im only looking cos im interested now, but s40 of the terrorism act says

Terrorist: interpretation

(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—

(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or

(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of
terrorism.

and you can only be searched if you meet the definition of terrorist given there.

you do not meet either imo, so he had no power to search you. he cant simply presumre you are a terrorist under s40 1 b, it has to be shown that you are one first.

nope, police are allowed "reasonable suspicion" that you may be a terrorist under section 43. further for any areas that are the hot areas as per section 44, the police can confiscate anything they reasonably suspect is connected with terrorism (and the preparation/collection of information etc).

 

[rynnor]

nope, police are allowed "reasonable suspicion" that you may be a terrorist under section 43. further for any areas that are the hot areas as per section 44, the police can confiscate anything they reasonably suspect is connected with terrorism (and the preparation/collection of information etc).

Yeah and by taking pictures in a 'sensitive area' you are giving him reasonable grounds to stop/search/question you under that act.

 

[Calaen]

With a bit of luck stuff like this will stop people voting labour for a very long time.

You're living in the coulds if you think any other party is going to be any different. As a country we are fucked up beyond repair, it's not like theres any party out there that can reverse these mini countries of ethnic minorities spouting up all over the place.

It's a fucked up place, and the sooner I get myself and my family out of it the better.

 

[Shagrat]

I thought they could only invoke the Terrorism Act in specific areas these days, areas that have been "registered" as possibly under threat from a terrorist act.

I'd expect it in London, but not somewhere like Loch Ness for instance, unless someones trying to find Nessie to strap a friggin great bomb to her.

 

[Tom]

I don't know exactly tris-, It came from when I said I was within my rights to take photos in a public place and that's when he said he had to "caution" me under that under the terrorism act that this particular shopping centre could be considered a sensitive area.

Then he proceeded to ask me for ID, profession, what I was doing and why I was doing it, to look through my memory card, took my home address and my employer details etc.

My understanding is that falls into a stop and search and a verbal caution which is different from a formal caution down the nick.

If it was a stop and search you must have been offered a stop and search form, which is about 34 feet long.

 

[Embattle]

In the past I might of known about business/consumer law but I personally knew very little general criminal law. Now I know next to bugger all and quite frankly I sometimes need to check that I've not walked into some secret forum where legal expert linkers like to practice law.

Personally either you should make some proper enquiries about it or just do what I would probably do and shrug it off.

As for silly comments about this country being totally broken sorry but I'll never agree with that, it has some issues to resolve but then again you can get that in nearly any country.

 

[Zenith.UK]

You're living in the coulds if you think any other party is going to be any different. As a country we are fucked up beyond repair, it's not like theres any party out there that can reverse these mini countries of ethnic minorities spouting up all over the place.

It's a fucked up place, and the sooner I get myself and my family out of it the better.

I hear and agree with you, which is why my long-term plan is to eventually end up on the west coast of Scotland. Close-knit communities where everyone knows everyone else.
Put it this way, my Mum is involved with the Scottish Women's Rural Institute (SWRI) on Mull and *EVERYONE* knows her by name. It's kind of strange when I introduce myself and they reply "Ohh, you're Alison's lad aren't you?"

 

[Thadius]

As aBrit, I hate to say Calaen is true. But he is.

More and more white, British people are emigrating to other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

This is why people vote the BNP, because the 3 major parties have daft policies.

 

[Bugz]

This is why people vote the BNP, because the 3 major parties have daft policies.

I think the reasons go much deeper & wider than that.

 

[Thadius]

Not everyone who votes the BNP is racist. Most of the time its disallusioned voters who see things going off in Brussels and see mass migration to the UK.

Putting two and two together making five, sorta speak.

The government should take a step back and address these problems, otherwise it will start snowballing and, god forbid, the BNP might actually get in power.

 

[ECA]

As aBrit, I hate to say Calaen is true. But he is.

More and more white, British people are emigrating to other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

This is why people vote the BNP, because the 3 major parties have daft policies.

To be honest, if you don't like any of the major parties you can vote green, independant or even Lib dem.

 

[Ctuchik]

I respect that. I'm quite stubborn though, and I'd have probably ended up in a police cell, just to prove a point

you and me both.


i can be retardedly stubborn if someone piss me off when i know i'm right.

i'm just completely unable to back down at that point.

 

[Dark Orb Choir]

no member of any mainstream political party will ever talk about sorting immigration out.......... its too much of a hot potatoe.

getting stopped by the security guards were them just doing their jobs, i suppose they could have been a bit nicer but what did you expect, its private property...