Rant Why I hate the police (more photography woes)

[Krazeh]

Ive nothing more to argue. His personal insults due to losing an argunment say to me he is not worth my time. Now he assumes because I dont agree with his opinion that I am a labour voter. And he has lost, ive spoken to someone in the police which i quoted that they had the right to arrest him etc.

I'd argue the point about him losing the argument to be honest. At the moment there's a number of points that have been raised about the Police's use of anti-terrorism powers which haven't been answered by you or anyone else who has sided with the Police in this case. And frankly just because you've spoken to someone who says they have the right to arrest him for refusing to give his details when being charged for anti-social behaviour doesn't have any relevance on the rights or wrongs of using anti-terror legislation to harass photographers who are doing nothing more than taking photos in public areas.

Also where did he say anything about you being a Labour voter? It looks to me like he says you're a product of the society Labour have pushed us towards, not that you necessarily vote for them.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Witness the child of the labour revolution, compliant and unquestioning.

You're not exactly covering yourself in glory with comments like that, that's just plain silly to the point of it being nearly the silliest thing said in this thread.

 

[rynnor]

No its not wrong. It is an arrestable offence to refuse to give your details to the police, when they suspect you are doing something wrong.

You only have to give your details when arrested - the police do not have a power to demand details from random people.

Bare this in mind tho :

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/post/538274

 

[Jiggs]

Of which a lot of officers use section 44.

Thus, the photographer refuses, knowing full well they don't have suspicion to suspect them as a terrorist. Then the Police get itchy because they are refusing details. In one case, the lady obviously got her superior, they figured out another law they could nap the photographer for (anti-social law - again, not that easy to prove I imagine) & used that instead.

s43 requires suspicion, s44 does not. Link.

Regarding the recent ruling on s44 at the European Court of Human Rights: until the UK Government's appeal is settled s44 usage remains unchanged.

I thought this was quite interesting reading. The current legal status quo is indeed draconian and the general public are essentially relying on Police Officers to use good common sense in their implementation of the law. Are we panicking about nothing? Are they getting it wrong that much? I honestly don't know and it is hard to draw conclusions from the articles posted. What we do know is that s44 searches have declined in number recently (Guardian link). In my opinion that can only be a good thing.

You only have to give your details when arrested - the police do not have a power to demand details from random people.

No, you are almost correct - failing to give your details where a constable has suspicion that an offence has been, is being or is about to be committed is grounds for detention.

 

[Chilly]

No, you are almost correct - failing to give your details where a constable has suspicion that an offence has been, is being or is about to be committed is grounds for detention.

Which is a perfectly reasonable power.

 

[Tom]

I guess your a torie then, says it all.

Proud of it, too.

 

[Tom]

Ive nothing more to argue. His personal insults due to losing an argunment say to me he is not worth my time. Now he assumes because I dont agree with his opinion that I am a labour voter. And he has lost, ive spoken to someone in the police which i quoted that they had the right to arrest him etc.

I dont understand some people, its like some Americans think they're the savour of the world & they know best, and if you dont agree with them, they get personal. I guess all his general section cronies are coming to stick up for him now though .. whatever, i couldnt care less. I said before if you dont like the countries laws which protect the majority.. leave, i don't care. Bye.

Where did I say you were a Labour voter? Oh, that's right—I didn't.

 

[Tom]

You're not exactly covering yourself in glory with comments like that, that's just plain silly to the point of it being nearly the silliest thing said in this thread.

I aim to please

 

[- English -]

Where did I say you were a Labour voter? Oh, that's right—I didn't.

Okay you didnt say those words, but gratz on quoting someone else.

 

[Tom]

I thought I wasn't worth your time?

 

[rynnor]

What we do know is that s44 searches have declined in number recently (Guardian link). In my opinion that can only be a good thing.

Still over 200,000 searches last year under S44 - that still sounds excessive unless you really think theres 200,000 terrorist suspects in the UK?

No, you are almost correct - failing to give your details where a constable has suspicion that an offence has been, is being or is about to be committed is grounds for detention.

Has to be an arrestable offence tho no? I must admit my knowledge of police procedural law is pretty patchy - I dont really have much contact with them

Only thing usefull I remember is if you get cautioned by a copper who has irritated you badly enough when he reads the caution you can say
"I do not recognise the significance of those words... and I would like to exercise my legal right to refer to a copy of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.'

You then have as long as you want to read it - literally hours if you want to really upset them - they cannot continue beyond this point and depending on the offence are likely to give you a warning

If you get really bored you can put it down and say 'I still dont understand it...' .

Always try polite co-operation first but if they read you the caution then the gloves are off and its in your interests to raise all possible doubts.

Oh and as my first Law lecturer always said 'Never voluntarily go to a Police Station for questioning' only go once you have been arrested or they can question you for ages with no statutory limit and little protection.

 

[ECA]

Just a +1 to every encounter with the police being negative and the police being either incredibly stupid or abusing their power.

My parents run a pretty nice business, someone bounced a cheque for ~£80k.

The police's sole line of thought was not "hmmm so someone was trying to scam £80k worth of xxx", but "oh that business must be in trouble and tried stealing money" and came and arrested my parents and confiscated every single computer at the office, for which we had to pay for the return of a month or so later after the police informed us they wouldn't be pressing charges ( no apology ). ( Serious Fraud Office from london as well, coming up here for a fucking holiday jolly most likely ) .

About 5 other encounters that I can't be bothered going into, but suffice it to say my feelings on the police:

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

 

[Jiggs]

Still over 200,000 searches last year under S44 - that still sounds excessive unless you really think theres 200,000 terrorist suspects in the UK?

I know what you are saying but they aren't suspects - that is the point of s44, you just have to be in a designated area to be searched, no suspicion required.

For s43 there doesn't seem to be a countrywide figure available but the article quotes The Metropolitan Police as performing 1,896 stop and searches in 2009 under s43 (this is section which requires suspicion). Sounds a bit more reasonable doesn't it. Although the arrest rate is still low.

Has to be an arrestable offence tho no? I must admit my knowledge of police procedural law is pretty patchy - I dont really have much contact with them

cba I suggest you read Wiki.

As for the other stuff...um I don't know I guess you could do worse than read Nightjack's A Survival Guide for Decent Folk.

 

[Scouse]

You're not exactly covering yourself in glory with comments like that, that's just plain silly to the point of it being nearly the silliest thing said in this thread.

Actually, I'm 100% behind Tom. Makes a lot of sense, so much so it almost beggars belief that everyone can't see it.

Then I remember that I'm 36, and experience counts

 

[Ch3tan]

Comedian Mark Thomas wins £1,200 over police search | UK news | The Guardian

 

[Scouse]

Lol. Nice. You just know that he's too tempting a target for police not to stop - even though that action will always play directly into his hands.

Love it. Plod is so dumb.

 

[Scouse]

Gah. Double post?

 

[Jeros]

People will bitch about this.

Then when there is another terrorist attack people will be up in arms saying the police/security services "failed".

*sigh*

 

[Tom]

Yes, and they will be two different groups of people, the former intelligent, the latter thick.

 

[Pfy]

I think the main problem isn't that the police randomly stop whomever they please no really justifiable reason (although that is obviously problem) but that people have been fed so much shit by this government and the british press that everyone is a peodophile/terrorist/racist/criminal to them.

The government has succeeded in being reelected many times by scaring the electorate into the belief that if big brother isn't watching then we're almost guaranteed to be murdered/raped/robbed etc.

We therefore end up with people like Edmond who think that the state should be able to do whatever they want and that we, the people should simply abide by what they choose.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Yes, and they will be two different groups of people, the former intelligent, the latter thick.

How is actionless bitching an indicator of intelligence?

 

[Tom]

Well if the statement was true, you'd be a fucking genius.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Exactly.

 

[tierk]

There is no legislation on this earth that will stop terror attacks plain and simple and until people understand this we will continue to have one stupid law after another passed and implemented. All that is happening is that peoples rights and freedoms are slowly being eroded. I have said this over a number of threads.

People will not understand just how draconian these laws are until they are directly affected by them. They are used against people demonstrating against the Wars - Iraq and Afghan - and everyone just turned a blind eye to the abuse - the the law - and now its the turn of the photographers to see how bad these laws are and just how many rights we have lost.

Yet we still have people determined that everything is just working fine and that people should go along with all these infringements on what are our basic rights as citizens as it is designed to stop terrorists.

I would be more than happy to live with the threat of terror attacks and have been directly affected by terrorism - Hyde Park Bombing, a bomb (much less lethal) planted less then 200m from my apartment in West Hampstead and again 7/7 bombings - and i will never accept all these measures stop terrorists because they are ineffective.

 

[Tom]

They never learn, do they:

Stop and search photographer held again under terror laws | UK news | The Guardian

 

[rynnor]

They never learn, do they:

Stop and search photographer held again under terror laws | UK news | The Guardian

The only way they will stop using it is if the law is changed.

 

[Scouse]

Yup. Plod's a ****. Always has been. Law needs changing.

 

[Tom]

YouTube - Photographer detained in Romford

This makes me bloody angry.

 

[TdC]

that's disgusting

 

[Scouse]

Fc8Kcing

This is my normal experience of the police force in the UK.