View Full Version : Police State
j4bberw0ck
27-May-07, 14:16
Tony Blair and John Reid intend to push through new powers for the police, before they leave office. (http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1845196.ece)
Summary:
The police will have the power of stop and search extended. You will be able to be stopped, searched, required to identify yourself, tell the police where you've been, what you were doing, where you're now going, and why.
If you decline to answer you can be arrested and charged, and since there's not much doubt you'll be found guilty, fined £5,000.
Police will not need to show that they suspected you were involved or had been involved, in a crime. They can do all this just because they want to.
They can legally take from you any documents you happen to be carrying and please themselves when they give them back
They can confiscate your car.
Do the initials KGB ring any bells with anyone? Sorry, forgot to add that under other legislation John Reid is bringing in, if you exercise your right to silence, it can be construed as indicative of your guilt
Just sounds like going back to the old "sus law" days?
But they can do most of what you have summarised already.
If you exercise 'your right to silence' now it is actually left to he courts to decide if it adds to your 'guilt'. If you refuse to answer questions during interview you would be given a 'special warning' and a court or jury may draw inferences from the refusal to answer. So I don't really see that much of a change?
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Section_37_special_warning_explain ed
Not much change since the old days, j'w0ck.
My husband was stopped by the police on his way home from his work way back in the 1970s. His "crime" was to bear a passing resemblance (or as they put it, he was a "dead ringer") to someone they suspected of burglary.
He was dressed in the usual shirt, tie, jacket etc and had been given a lift home part of the way (we didn't have a car) by a colleague. Within a few yards a police car drew to a stop and two officers jumped out and demanded that my husband should show them his hands!
He was so taken aback that he did. :eek: No obvious signs of housebreaking, luckily. Not sure what they'd have said if he'd shown signs of recent DIY perhaps?
They asked him for ID -back in those pre credit card days people didn't necessarily have much, and he had no driving license. So...they insisted on driving him to our front door and waited until I appeared there to open it.
We were both so astonished we never thought to complain.:roll:
DeHaviLand
27-May-07, 15:41
Tony Blair and John Reid intend to push through new powers for the police, before they leave office. (http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1845196.ece)
Summary:
The police will have the power of stop and search extended. You will be able to be stopped, searched, required to identify yourself, tell the police where you've been, what you were doing, where you're now going, and why.
If you decline to answer you can be arrested and charged, and since there's not much doubt you'll be found guilty, fined £5,000.
Thats a worry, I cant remember this myself half the time :D
I am sorry, I see nothing wrong with this, if your innocent of any crime, why not co-operate with the police, they are only doing their job. IMO if you do not wish to co-operate then I suspect you may have a guilty secret to hide.
If you house was burgled or your car stolen, would you not want the police to stop and search to find your property?
In this day and age of Organized Crime and the current use of illegal drugs, why hinder the police in doing their duty? More crimes have been discovered by cold pulls than all the intelligence orientated crime busts
percy toboggan
27-May-07, 18:07
We are where we are. There is nothing for the ordinary, law abiding citizen to fear in this. Not in our lifetimes anyway.
In times such as these we cannot hamstring the Police, who are there, in the final reckoning, to protect the law abiding.
It's a shame we are surrendering a few of our old freedoms because of the mass influx of migrants - a small percentage of which wish to do us harm. Also the third and second generation descendants of those who were grateful for being allowed here. Some of the new breed are unable to 'adapt, or 'fit-in' I don't blame them, as there is much to baulk at in our 'way of life' however, if they don't like it they know where Dover is.Again only a very small percentage feel this way badly enough to plot against us.
Sadly, the percentage is big enough to be taken very seriously. The Government would be irresponsible not to take it seriously and the only measures available are ones like this one.
I shall sleep easily in my bed. I don't think they will be coming for me just yet.
j4bberw0ck
27-May-07, 19:03
If you exercise 'your right to silence' now it is actually left to he courts to decide if it adds to your 'guilt'.
True. But this is being strengthened by adding a "presumption of guilt" if you refuse to answer questions.
As to those who believe "if you've done nothing wrong, there's no need to worry" then I suggest you read, or re-read, your Orwell. Once legislation is framed it's very difficult to get rid of it again, and who's to say that a future administration will be quite as, ah, understanding about your innocence?
When you get to the this stage then you might complain about a police state...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6695913.stm
I have to say I had a chuckle to myself at the images of a gay rights protestor being bundled into a Police van by police wearing vests with OMOH writtten on the back.
(OMOH are the Special Purpose Police Units)
When you get to the this stage then you might complain about a police state...
No, when you get to that stage it's too late to complain.
Now is the time to be complaining because that's where we're heading.
I'm glad you had a laugh at some severely battered human rights activists MP.
Like Golach and Percy this idea is not a threat to me, not because i come onto caithness.org proclaiming my innocence, but because i am unlikely to be mistaken for an Asian Muslim with extremist tendencies.
j4bberw0ck
27-May-07, 21:33
Gleeber, if you think that means it isn't a threat to you, you definitely haven't read your Orwell. And if you have "read" it, you clearly weren't paying attention. As the State grows in power and influence it's easy to imagine a point where the State is right, always - because it's in control of the laws. And from there it's the blink of an eye into the situation that existed in the old Soviet Union, where to disagree or dissent meant - clearly - that you're mentally ill and must be detained for your own safety, and "treated" until you see "the truth".
This government recently introduced the means to do just that; it's mentioned in the Times article:
The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre, which is run by Scotland Yard and whose staff includes psychiatrists and police, can authorise the indefinite detention of people it identifies as mentally unstable and potentially dangerous
(my emphasis)
I don't doubt that at the moment it's probably doing sterling work - but who's to say that'll always be the case?
percy toboggan
27-May-07, 22:05
Gleeber, if you think that means it isn't a threat to you, you definitely haven't read your Orwell. And if you have "read" it, you clearly weren't paying attention. As the State grows in power and influence it's easy to imagine a point where the State is right, always - because it's in control of the laws. And from there it's the blink of an eye into the situation that existed in the old Soviet Union, where to disagree or dissent meant - clearly - that you're mentally ill and must be detained for your own safety, and "treated" until you see "the truth".
This government recently introduced the means to do just that; it's mentioned in the Times article:
(my emphasis)
I don't doubt that at the moment it's probably doing sterling work - but who's to say that'll always be the case?
Assuming I accept your siren voice just where exactly are they going to lock all these people up? Last time I heard the prisons were fit to bust, and all those huge old mental hospitals have long gone. Fear not, don't listen to the ultra-liberals and the Guardianista on this one. They will lead you down the path of appeasement and surrender even before the civil war arrives.
As arrive it will, one day.
j4bberw0ck
27-May-07, 22:11
And just how long do you suppose it would take a determined, oppressive regime to build a gulag? Find a "prison ship"? Put 4 people to a cell?
Percy, you may have a point, but it's entirely the wrong one.
Winston Smith had the thought police after him aswell. I'd rather not have them after me.... I enjoy my rebelious thoughts and private moments and want to keep them as my own with no-one allowed to demand them of me. Thoughtcrime should remain fiction, though I believe it is becoming more and more real in this world.
I wonder how the police can demand documents off you? I really would like to know if here in the UK my identity documents are my own...... back home the police can ask to see them but are not allowed to remove them from your person unless you give them up to the police. And even then they are given back when you ask for them back.
I'm glad you had a laugh at some severely battered human rights activists MP.
Like Golach and Percy this idea is not a threat to me, not because i come onto caithness.org proclaiming my innocence, but because i am unlikely to be mistaken for an Asian Muslim with extremist tendencies.
You know what, I think I'll just pack my chuffin bags and hit the road.
I was not laughing at the protestors getting arrested just the irony of the Police having the title OMOH (HOMO in reverse, just in case you missed it) on their backs.
No doubt you'll find this unacceptable so save your breath and don't bother replying.
Thank you and goodbye.
And just how long do you suppose it would take a determined, oppressive regime to build a gulag? Find a "prison ship"? Put 4 people to a cell?
they could build Prisons in a very short time, cant remember the exact timescale but "low to medium category" type prison accomodation can be built in a very short timescale, if not there are many such already available or adapted easily ( vacant MOD bases )
So the regime could change very quickly :eek: if such a thing was on the agenda
concerned resident
28-May-07, 00:05
The Government know what’s in your Bank, There are Camera’s watching you, they know if your car is not insured, Taxed, MOT. Can Bug your Phones, read your e-mails, every day more of the individuals rights are being eroded. ID cards are coming just in case they have missed some information about you.
You can Ignore it, as it does not effect you, thats until the day when they look your way, as you must be hidding some thing, as you are such a quite law bidding person.
I'm glad you had a laugh at some severely battered human rights activists MP.
Like Golach and Percy this idea is not a threat to me, not because i come onto caithness.org proclaiming my innocence, but because i am unlikely to be mistaken for an Asian Muslim with extremist tendencies.
Gleeber I am with you , I see no threat to my life style
The Government know what’s in your Bank, There are Camera’s watching you, they know if your car is not insured, Taxed, MOT. Can Bug your Phones, read your e-mails, every day more of the individuals rights are being eroded. ID cards are coming just in case they have missed some information about you.
You missed this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6676809.stm)
I am sorry, I see nothing wrong with this, if your innocent of any crime, why not co-operate with the police, they are only doing their job. IMO if you do not wish to co-operate then I suspect you may have a guilty secret to hide.
If you house was burgled or your car stolen, would you not want the police to stop and search to find your property?
In this day and age of Organized Crime and the current use of illegal drugs, why hinder the police in doing their duty? More crimes have been discovered by cold pulls than all the intelligence orientated crime busts
I agree with Golach on this one (yes, I know we don't always ;) ). If you have nothing to hide you can certainly rest easy that the police are working hard to protect us. I was pleased to see several Moslems commenting that they felt the same way - no problem, nothing to hide. If someone asks you to produce your membership card for Blockbuster should you feel your civil liberties have been invaded? Of course not. We often have to prove we are who we are. Why should the (very rare) query from the police be any more threatening?
j4bberw0ck
28-May-07, 08:49
Also, I suspect, missed Tony Blair attacking the judiciary for interpreting the law in ways that doesn't suit the Government. The judiciary in this country has been completely and utterly independent of Government for the better part of a thousand years, and there's good reason for it; it makes it very difficult for the Government to use the judges to get rid of people they don't like. There's every reason for questioning whether judicial independence will follow habeas corpus and the right to silence right down the pan and round the U bend.
But so long as the flock's happy..... baaaaaa! baaaaaa! :lol:
Blazing Sporrans
28-May-07, 12:20
As far as I am aware, the English caution at common law is worded along the lines of
You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence
(thanks to The Bill) or even apparently
You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you. If you do wish to say anything, what you say may be given in evidence
which is a bit more explanatory than the first version (thanks Wikipedia!). While it is only my own interpretation, I think the inclusion of the word may in both versions is the crucial point (the highlighting is obviously my emphasis). Any presumption of guilt would/could/should defer to the use of a caution such as
You do not have to say anything, but it will harm your defence....etc
Now in Scotland, we still have the use of a caution along the wording
You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence
which enshrines the right to silence from the outset of the caution being administered. So I'm afraid that all these portents of doom about being carted off and convicted for not telling the nice Polis that you're off up to Granny's for Saturday tea are a bit premature, if not far-fetched. Having an independent judiciary to preside on such a spurious scenario would soon see to that and the subsequent stated case law would sound the death knell for any similar attempts at prosecution. Again, it's only my guess, however I'm assuming that the proposed offences would have to be accompanied by some other physical or circumstantial evidence to infer criminality on the part of the person stopped by the Police and asked to identify themselves.
As an aside, if we go back to the merits of the Scots caution -v- English caution, now call me sceptical, but surely no self-respecting Scots lawyer or advocate would get embroiled in assisting their client in a Scottish court to concoct a defence or alibi, because that would be just plain wrong. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find a loose tooth for the tooth fairy and after that I'm going to write my letter to Santa.... :roll:
Blazing Sporrans
28-May-07, 12:40
An important quote from the article link quoted by Jabber in the first entry on this thread....
"Home Office officials admitted, however, that the final wording of the new power to stop and question in the rest of the UK might have to include a requirement for reasonable suspicion"
The "rest of the UK" quote, for those who haven't read the article, only refers to the fact that similar legislation has been in place for many years in Northern Island to combat terrorist activity and is currently being repealed as part of the peace process.
j4bberw0ck
28-May-07, 14:41
As far as I am aware, the English caution at common law is worded....
Well, that's the standard caution, yes. Certainly there's implicit danger in simply saying nothing at all, but effectively making it illegal to exercise the right is (when you think it through) doing away with the presumption of innocence; not only do they not have to have an reason to stop and question you, they can arrest you for declining to answer the question! In other words, you have to demonstrate your innocence, not the Police, your guilt.
And that's a major change.
You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence
which enshrines the right to silence from the outset of the caution being administered.Yes, as I understand it, that's how it works. But laws specifically put in place to deal with "terrorist threats" override Scottish law niceties. Perhaps Boozeburglar would chip in with a view on that one, since I'm not a lawyer, just a libertarian.
So I'm afraid that all these portents of doom about being carted off and convicted for not telling the nice Polis that you're off up to Granny's for Saturday tea are a bit premature, if not far-fetched. Having an independent judiciary to preside on such a spurious scenario would soon see to that and the subsequent stated case law would sound the death knell for any similar attempts at prosecution.Yes, the independent judiciary. You'll have seen the post about Tony Blair publicly criticising the independent judiciary for erring on the side of the individual rather than the government? And whilst being banged up for not talking may seem far-fetched now, it's simply giving powers to possible regimes in the future which might be prepared to use the terrorist threat to use them in ways not intended by the unlovely Dr Reid.
Again, it's only my guess, however I'm assuming that the proposed offences would have to be accompanied by some other physical or circumstantial evidence to infer criminality on the part of the person stopped by the Police and asked to identify themselves.Not really. If the police stop you and ask you to identify yurself and account for you movements and give a reason, and you refuse to answer, that's an offence in itself under the proposals. Fine up to £5,000.
I'm off to find a loose tooth for the tooth fairy and after that I'm going to write my letter to Santa.... :roll:Enjoy! :lol:
If you want to know how far we are down the road to "You have been found guilty and sentenced, you will appear in Court for the Show Trial next week!" then be aware of the following.
I cannot vouch if this is the case in Scotland but it certainly is in England.
If a child over 10, yes that's 10 years of age, is taken to a Police Station regarding an arrestable offence then the child will automatically have a DNA sample taken. It has always been the case that a child, for their own protection, should have a parent, guardian or, failing their availability, a responsible adult present when they are interviewed.
Now the parents, or anybody else for that matter, do not even have to be informed of the sample being taken.
Even if the child has done nothing wrong whatsoever then it is up to the Police to decide if the sample should be destroyed. (No prizes for guessing how often that will happen or not as the case may be)
This might just well explain why you now get children being accused of "Causing damage to a pavement" (and no this is not an urban myth) by marking it with chalk to play hop-scotch! Another was questioned about an "assault", he had thrown a piece of cucumber at another small child!
Over 80,000 children, who were found to have done absolutely nothing wrong,
had such samples taken during last year alone.
Am I alone in thinking that such things are not so much caused by Plod being over-zealous or being rather silly but that such things are quite deliberate in order to add to what is already the largest DNA Database in the whole world.
And that includes even the most oppressive and restrictive Police States. Even the Stasi were not able to go so far in the “Interests of State Security!”
Both Stalin and Hitler were able to go to the extremes they did because, until the mid-night knock was at their door, people were only too were willing to believe that "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear!"
And yes, I already know that, "this is Britain and it could never happen here". Somebody once told be that about Terrorism in the mid-1960s. Anybody want to make the same claim about that now?
And yes, I already know that, "this is Britain and it could never happen here". Somebody once told be that about Terrorism in the mid-1960s. Anybody want to make the same claim about that now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
If you scroll down the above page to the section "Historical Comparisons", you will see that there is, thankfully, not a lot of History of events similar to the London Bombings. Nobody can tell what the future holds but, for now, it is a bit early to be so harsh on a claim made 40 years ago.
A whole lot of belly-aching goes on about how Britain is going to the dogs. I am sure that, with all the Poles etc that are coming into the UK, there must be many vacancies for the complainants to relocate to if they are unhappy with our Police State.
"Ask not what your Country...etc"
j4bberw0ck
28-May-07, 21:37
A whole lot of belly-aching goes on about how Britain is going to the dogs. I am sure that, with all the Poles etc that are coming into the UK, there must be many vacancies for the complainants to relocate to if they are unhappy with our Police State.
"Ask not what your Country...etc"
Turkeys, voting for Christmas :lol::lol: gobble,gobble........
Strikes me that all this stuff in the name of security is a bit like drug addiction - let's take drinking as an example. Starts in a small way and it's fun. Grows some into a regular habit and it's more fun. Before you know it, what you took for granted as a little harmless diversion is directing your life. Then it takes over and your life adapts to it. Then you're told you have cirrhosis or liver cancer and you're too far in to just give up..... you're in, it's ruling your life, and it doesn't matter what you want to do or can do - it is calling the shots (no pun intended but since it's quite a good one I'll go with it).
It's not perhaps the best analogy in the world, but it serves to indicate a principle where something harmless now can be anything but in the future, when you think you've adjusted to living with it.
If you allow a continuing erosion of personal and civil liberty, one day you'll find you don't have any.
Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves. ~D.H. Lawrence, Classical American Literature, 1922
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
If you scroll down the above page to the section "Historical Comparisons", you will see that there is, thankfully, not a lot of History of events similar to the London Bombings. Nobody can tell what the future holds but, for now, it is a bit early to be so harsh on a claim made 40 years ago.
A whole lot of belly-aching goes on about how Britain is going to the dogs. I am sure that, with all the Poles etc that are coming into the UK, there must be many vacancies for the complainants to relocate to if they are unhappy with our Police State.
"Ask not what your Country...etc"
I suggest you tell the people of Warrington, Manchester, Birmingham and London if they know anything about Terrorist Bombings in the last Forty years.
For 35 of those 40 years there have been bombings on many occasions on mainland Britain, in fact far to many for every one of them to be recalled. The ones mentioned on the Wikipedia site would not amount to one fiftieth of the total.
To my knowledge there were bombings and killings going as far back as 1973 and for many years after that on a regular basis.
I make no claim to my comments that long ago as being particularly far sighted because it wasn’t. I suggested the possibility simply because I do not subscribe to the blind faith that, “But this is Britain, that could never happen here!”
I suggest also that you don't just rely on Wikipedia for your information as what is there is very scant and hardly touches the surface!
As for your last quote, perhaps you should consider the fact that the "belly-achers" are the ones who are doing something for their country. Cutting and running and the silencing of critics is what every Tyrant wishes to happen.
“All it takes for evil to prevail … ” might be a more relevant quote.
[QUOTE=j4bberw0ck;227587].
It's not perhaps the best analogy in the world.]
You got that right!!
"It starts off in a small way and it's fun"
No that does not apply at all to increased security, your analogy is lost before it starts.
We all like to think of ourselves as free spirits but being part of a society means accepting at least some of the rules. Co-operating with Police is something that I think is reasonable to embrace in the name of security. I happen to believe that the average Brit is savvy enough to know what is reasonable and has enough spunk in them to stand up if it does start affecting their liberty.
I think there is a little too much of the "Hey man, you're crushing my freedom dude" attitude at the first sign of anyone having the audicity to ask you to identify yourself.
By the way, how does D H Lawrence manage to come under "Classical American Literature"? I thought he was English.
I suggest you tell the people of Warrington, Manchester, Birmingham and London if they know anything about Terrorist Bombings in the last Forty years.
As for your last quote, perhaps you should consider the fact that the "belly-achers" are the ones who are doing something for their country.
I assume you wish me to ask rather than tell. The statement makes no sense otherwise. That is the oldest and cheapest trick in the book when trying to make a point in any case.
Of course, I would not expect a tiny organ like Wikipedia to compare to the mighty Jaws but I think they have probably covered the major incidents, if you know of major atrocities missed then you are welcome to fill me in on them.
You can argue what numbers constitute a sustained feeling of threat from terrorism. I would be willing to walk the streets of Britain knowing that statistically there is a very small chance of me being the victim of a terrorist attack. I cannot say that of several other places in the world. That is the bottom line.
I simply do not agree that belly-achers are doing anything for their Country. In my experience, these types are usually pretty well self-absorbed.
Finally, would you like to ask the families of any of the victims of the London Bombings whether they would have found it acceptable for the Bombers' Civil Liberties to be broken so terribly, by having been stopped, searched and thwarted by our "Gestapo"? (Emotional cheap-shot alert) ;o)
A number of people on here have said they are not bothered because it will not affect their life style, if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about etc.
Have we all forgotten about Jean Charles de Menezes? I am sure he thought the same thing until that fateful day.
A number of people on here have said they are not bothered because it will not affect their life style, if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about etc.
Have we all forgotten about Jean Charles de Menezes? I am sure he thought the same thing until that fateful day.
Whilst I can't talk for the others who don't feel threatened by this idea, for me everything hinges on how i feel when I get up in the morning.
I'm one of those people who lives by my feelings. If it feels good it is good. Perhaps Charles de Menzies had a similar philosophy when he got up in the morning and unfortunately he was caught up in something that threatened all of us, not just some guy who was being asked his name or his business.
I don't feel threatened living in Britain, other than from the lunatics who strap bombs around their bellies.
I notice. the usual scaremongers totally neglect to include the bad guys in their doom and gloom scenario.
As for Orwells abilities as a prophet of doom. I'll remind his disciples that he was a writer of fiction, and like most writers of fiction, an ability to use reality as a backdrop always brings the conspiracy theorists to the surface.
I don't feel threatened living in Britain, other than from the lunatics who strap bombs around their bellies.
I notice. the usual scaremongers totally neglect to include the bad guys in their doom and gloom scenario.
There isn't much to include. Statistically we have a lot more to fear from the police than from the terrorists. From April 2004 to March 2005 104 people died in the UK as a result of police contact, none as a result of terrorism.
Infact the only year there has been any competition at all since Lockerby was 2005/6, terrorists 56, police 118.
As a law abiding citizen i feel it is my right to go about my business without having to say what i doing and where i am going. i cant shake this at all. I resent the idea that the police can stop and ask me for NO REASON what my business is - i feel that its nosey and interfering in the same way that if someone else i didnt know stopped me and asked me what i was doing and where i was going i would tell them to mind my own business.
If hte police had a suspect for a burglary who was pregnant, 43 and wore glasses then i wouldnt have a problem being asked to explain my movements or provide an alibi but to stop me just cos they can is not on
NickInTheNorth
29-May-07, 09:48
There isn't much to include. Statistically we have a lot more to fear from the police than from the terrorists. From April 2004 to March 2005 104 people died in the UK as a result of police contact, none as a result of terrorism.
Infact the only year there has been any competition at all since Lockerby was 2005/6, terrorists 56, police 118.
Do those figures break down to show how many were totally innocent law abiding citizens going about there normal day to lives, and how many were involved as a result of suspicion of criminal activity?
I suspect that those figures may be a little more interesting.
fred,
cherry picking stats again.
For a breakdown of the 118 deaths which include road traffic fatalities, fatal shootings and deaths during or after police contacts download this pdf and view tables from pages 20/21 on.
http://uk.sitestat.com/ipcc/ipcc/s?pdfcountername&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/death_report_0506_v7.pdf
A death after police have attended a domestic and one party murders the other is classed as a death after police contact.
NickInTheNorth
29-May-07, 10:11
fred,
cherry picking stats again.
For a breakdown of the 118 deaths which include road traffic fatalities, fatal shootings and deaths during or after police contacts download this pdf and view tables from pages 20/21 on.
http://uk.sitestat.com/ipcc/ipcc/s?pdfcountername&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/death_report_0506_v7.pdf
A death after police have attended a domestic and one party murders the other is classed as a death after police contact.
Thanks for that MadPict, the sort of figures I expected :) Slightly more illuminating than fred's bald numbers.
Yeah,
Police are responsible for the death of a burglar who makes off from officers, tries to swim a river at night, gets into difficulty and despite rescue attempts drowns. The figures of "deaths after police contact" are littered with such police brutality.
Death in Police Custody? Drunk dies from acute alcohol withdrawal? Murdered by police!!!!
Road traffic fatalities? Two youths on a motorcycle at night with no helmets and no lights drives through red light and into side of police van on return from non emergency call. Pillion passenger dies at scene driver makes off (probably as police tried to save pillion passenger?). It's all the fault of the Police speeding around in their vehicles thinking they own the road blah blah blah....
But for fred it looks far better to use the shock figure of more people dying at the hands of the cops than at the hand of terrorists 'freedom fighters fighting against the oppression in their homelands by the imperialistic forces of the neo-con oil robber barons and their lapdog supporters like Blair blah blah blah'.....
1.Road traffic fatalities - 48
2.Fatal shootings - 5
3.Deaths in or after custody - 28
4.Deaths during or after other contact - 37
Yeah,
Police are responsible for the death of a burglar who makes off from officers, tries to swim a river at night, gets into difficulty and despite rescue attempts drowns. The figures of "deaths after police contact" are littered with such police brutality.
Death in Police Custody? Drunk dies from acute alcohol withdrawal? Murdered by police!!!!
Road traffic fatalities? Two youths on a motorcycle at night with no helmets and no lights drives through red light and into side of police van on return from non emergency call. Pillion passenger dies at scene driver makes off (probably as police tried to save pillion passenger?). It's all the fault of the Police speeding around in their vehicles thinking they own the road blah blah blah....
But for fred it looks far better to use the shock figure of more people dying at the hands of the cops than at the hand of terrorists 'freedom fighters fighting against the oppression in their homelands by the imperialistic forces of the neo-con oil robber barons and their lapdog supporters like Blair blah blah blah'.....
1.Road traffic fatalities - 48
2.Fatal shootings - 5
3.Deaths in or after custody - 28
4.Deaths during or after other contact - 37
Are you trying to say more people died as a result of terrorist activity than police activity?
You accuse me of distorting the facts yet the fact is we have very little to fear from terrorists and if it wasn't for our government invading innocent defenceless countries it would be practically nothing at all.
It isn't me distorting the facts, it's the people who get the population shaking in their boots over nothing so they can push through draconian new laws.
All the "it wasn't their fault, he fell down the steps to the cells" in the world isn't going to change that.
NickInTheNorth
29-May-07, 11:10
I think that the simple fact is people die all the time in all sorts of situations. It just so happens that some of them die in close proximity to Police contact. Not the fault of the police, just coincidence. Sometimes their is a more direct relationship between police contact and the death, where for example the police pursue a vehicle and it crashes out of control resulting in the death of the occupant.
It does not mean we are more likely to be killed by the police than killed by a terrorist, which is the real point. We may be more likely to die after police contact than after a terrorist outrage. But we are far more likely to be killed by a terrorist act than a police act.
For my money I am quite happy for the police to have the power to stop and search etc, but would be far happier for the terrorists to lay down their weapons and give up the fight.
Now where is that thread about do you believe in God... ;)
Are you trying to say more people died as a result of terrorist activity than police activity?
No, you're trying to say that more people died at the hands of the police than died as the result of terrorism.
You accuse me of distorting the facts yet the fact is we have very little to fear from terrorists and if it wasn't for our government invading innocent defenceless countries it would be practically nothing at all
"...little to fear from terrorism"?
OK fred, you tell that to the relatives of the 52 people killed on 7/7. And while you have found the courage you can also confront the families of the 191 killed and the 2,050 injured as a result of the Madrid train bombs.
Oh, and while you are feeling really, really brave, maybe we can get you to stand up in front of the 1000's of family members affected over the years by the terrorist atrocities of the IRA?
Tell them they have little to fear from terrorism.
Have you ever been affected in any way by an act of terror? And I don't mean you not being able to fly off on your hols following 9/11 and the grounding of many flights.
It isn't me distorting the facts, it's the people who get the population shaking in their boots over nothing so they can push through draconian new laws.
All the "it wasn't their fault, he fell down the steps to the cells" in the world isn't going to change that.
Sorry but while you may not be "distorting" facts you only use facts which suit your side of the argument. Remind me to never trust the FBC (Fred Broadcasting Co.)
Who is shaking in their boots? I'm not.[lol]
I think that the simple fact is people die all the time in all sorts of situations.
Yes, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist, more likely to drown in your bathtub.
So if it aint broke why fix it?
NickInTheNorth
29-May-07, 11:56
Yes, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist, more likely to drown in your bathtub.
So if it aint broke why fix it?
Do you honestly believe that if the UK government and the police sit back and do nothing there will be no further terrorist attacks in the UK?
Or do you believe that you won't be directly affected and therefore it doesn't matter?
Terrorists can, have and will kill people in this country, and if some further strengthening of security measures are required then I am happy to see them. I musr say however I would like to see them put in place the same way as the Anti-terror laws for Northern Ireland, with the provision that the legislation runs for 12 months at a time and lapses unless renewed by parliament
Yes, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist, more likely to drown in your bathtub.
So if it aint broke why fix it?
fred,
You forgot "hit by a bus".
The point which you seem to conveniently miss, is that while being the victim of a 'natural disaster' such as lightning or an 'accident in the home' such as drowning in your bath, falling victim to a suicide bomber along with 50 other innocent commuters might be preventable.
Yeah, sure you can prevent drowning in your bath by never taking a bath. You can perhaps take steps to prevent being struck by lightning, such as not playing golf in a thunderstorm or not standing on your roof holding a metal rod.
But if a suspected religious extremist sets out with 30lbs of explosives in a ruck sack that is a deliberate action which might be prevented.
But not in Fre(e)donia where anyone can do what they wish with impunity, safe in the knowledge that no-one will stop them or ask them what they are doing walking around with a bag of explosives.
Hail Fre(e)donia...
Blazing Sporrans
29-May-07, 12:55
Going back a few posts, I can see that the very nature of emergency service work and response takes the Police into many a scenario where there are subsequent fatalities that are recorded as deaths after Police contact (I didn't know that until now though). So if we are to examine mere statistics then fred, I suggest we pay closer attention to the murderous NHS regime, whose statistics for death after contact must be many times worse than the Police....
Hmmmmm - and I've always wondered about the Fire Brigade..... :confused
I can see both sides of the argument here. I firmly beleive that the intorduction of these new stop and question laws are part of the smokescreen which politicains create to shout from the hill tops "look at what we are doing to combat terrorism and deal with illegal immigrants - identity cards and stop and search rules - arent we good clever and taking your concerns seriously". I dont actually beleive that stopping someone in the street and asking where they are going is going to get the response - "Im meeting my mate we are planning a terrorist attack". It doesnt make any sense to me.
I also think that to an extent Fred is right in that we are whipped into a frenzy of fear over terrorism when the actual chances of being a victim of terrorism is quite small. That does NOT negate the affects on those people who have been victims of terrorism by one iota but there has to be a balance. I dont agree with Fred that the Police are to be feared more than the terrorist and i think he is being a bit selective about his statistics - I owuld be more impressed if the statistics said how many died as a direct result of police action, so how many were beaten up, shot and killed by policemen and even how many died whilst in police custody but the statistics quoted are a little to broad - in my opinion to make a comparison.
j4bberw0ck
29-May-07, 13:42
I was just taking my ease (not to mention a bacon roll :lol: ) in the car at lunchtime, and listening to Radio 4 - the topic was the increasing use of CCTV and as a peripheral item, the growth of Government databases.
Heard a lovely phrase used - "function creep" - which describes how legislation (or databases, or equipment such as CCTV for that matter) are put in place for one set of circumstances or one purpose, only to end up used for something else entirely. And that, in a nutshell, is the danger of the proposed police powers. Just occasionally, you hear of someone being charged with a crime under some archaic piece of legislation; imagine, say in 30 years or less we have a government not so benign as the current one.... BNP-alikes, if you will. Who's to say that they won't use these powers in a way which was never envisaged when they were granted?
You got that right!!
"It starts off in a small way and it's fun"
No that does not apply at all to increased security, your analogy is lost before it starts.
No, not really. You're simply being too literal because you want to make a point, and I suspect you know it. The analogy works quite well, really, because it conveys the gradual decline of an apparently harmless pursuit (or one regarded usually as pretty harmless) into the irrevocability of something else entirely, which is definitely not what was envisaged, and definitely harmful.
We all like to think of ourselves as free spirits but being part of a society means accepting at least some of the rules. Co-operating with Police is something that I think is reasonable to embrace in the name of security. I happen to believe that the average Brit is savvy enough to know what is reasonable and has enough spunk in them to stand up if it does start affecting their liberty.
"Certainly sir! Standing up to the Police in pursuit of their duty just because you finally, 30 years too late, feel your liberty's threatened? Excellent! Congratulations on your "spunk"! (at this point the armoured, helmeted and booted police officer reaches for his Taser, shoots scorrie, and drags him off to the cells until he's sufficiently recovered to receive his summons, his guilty verdict, and able to watch the bailiffs enter his house to seize belongings to the value of £5,000).
I agree we need to cooperate with the Police; but I also think the Police need to cooperate with us, their masters (lest they forget) and not alienate the entire population.
I think there is a little too much of the "Hey man, you're crushing my freedom dude" attitude at the first sign of anyone having the audicity to ask you to identify yourself.
"Audacity" is exactly the right word.
By the way, how does D H Lawrence manage to come under "Classical American Literature"? I thought he was English.
No idea, chuck. Tonight's homework? :lol:
j4bberw0ck
29-May-07, 13:50
But not in Fre(e)donia where anyone can do what they wish with impunity, safe in the knowledge that no-one will stop them or ask them what they are doing walking around with a bag of explosives.
Hail Fre(e)donia...
Er, Mad (may I call you Mad? :lol: ).... if the Police are to detect this individual and can't presently do so because they lack the "necessary" powers, then if they're given the powers, they still won't have x-ray vision, or bloodhounds' noses to smell explosives.
So, in order to detect this individual they'll have to use their new powers to stop one helluva lot of people to happen across them by chance. And that's the issue.
Or, if they're as clever and resourceful as they say they are every time 0.000001% of the country's supply of cocaine is intercepted, they should be able to determine that the individual is involved in something illegal anyway, so the stop and search rules kick in, and there's no problem in demanding ID and where they're going / what they're doing, because they'll be under arrest.
So tell me again why they need these powers?
Blazing Sporrans - good points about 'NHS atrocities' and 'Fire & Rescue coverups'...
Squidge,
If you care to download the PDF I link to earlier it will provide you with a full breakdown of every death following ANY contact with the Police.
For what it is worth I am not being whipped by anyone into any frenzy.
I fully appreciate that the police and the 'secret services' have a highly difficult job to do. They are damned when they act and damned if they fail to act.
The critics are only too swift to line up and complain but have NO idea of what is going on. They just like to think they know...
What's the expression? "Walk a few miles in my shoes"?
There seems to be a lot of pinning the blame on the government as the dark shadowy body driving through these measures.
The problem is the government have lost the plot with the state of crime in this country. So, unfortunately some of the new 'measures' are being asked for by the police chiefs because their hands are now tied by various new bits of legislation, brought in by the government, in their drive to harmonise the UK with the rest of Europe.
Now if someone is stopped in the street they scream "Human Rights Abuse" "Infringement of Civil Liberties" and "Police State".
Years ago a police officer could give a kid a telling off for committing a minor case of criminal damage and he could take him home for another bollocking from their parents. Not possible now without the street savvy kid giving the cop a torrant of verbal abuse.
But while you all sit up in the far north safe and sound, some of the population have to actually frequent the areas which are prime targets for the terrorist.
Well j4bbs, the article seems to indicate that it will reduce the need for stop and search as much. Less time will be spent doing paperwork and I'm sure we'd want the police out on the street fighting crime rather than spending days filling out forms?
Does it all bother me? No. So why should I spend time fretting about it.
These arguments all get very confrontational - sigh!!!
I am not apportioning "blame" at all but i do agree that the government has lost the plot with many of these and other issues. They seem incapable of getting the departments concerned to do their jobs properly and make sure that the procedures we have in place already work as they should do before going hell for leather to bring in yet another sticking plaster to simply make things look better without actually DOING anything. The sex offenders register is a case in point. Make the systems robust and they will work better. Stop cutting resources and make sure there is adequate staff to do the job and these systems will eventually do the jobs they are supposed to do. Slapping a sticking plaster over it in the form of some spurious "new law" is never going to work. Living inthe North of Scotland does not mean that you never go anywhere else and are never likely to get caught in Terrorist activities but i would rather see armed police at the airport and feel sure that any intelligence was being followed up accurately and that time was not being wasted on stopping and enquiring as to where some auld wifie was going for her afternoon sabbatical.
Oh dear, Squidge has been taken mid sentence!
:D
im suffering with maternal dementia MP - the more pregnant i am the worse my spelling is and the worse my fingers work - sigh
No, you're trying to say that more people died at the hands of the police than died as the result of terrorism.
Well if no people have been killed by terrorism in the UK since 7/7/2005 it would be hard to get any less.
"...little to fear from terrorism"?
OK fred, you tell that to the relatives of the 52 people killed on 7/7. And while you have found the courage you can also confront the families of the 191 killed and the 2,050 injured as a result of the Madrid train bombs.
Oh, and while you are feeling really, really brave, maybe we can get you to stand up in front of the 1000's of family members affected over the years by the terrorist atrocities of the IRA?
While I'm doing that you can explain to the Birmingham Six how they had nothing to fear from the police.
I'm sure that if the security services had al sat back in their offices twiddling their thumbs since 7/7 that would not be the case.
Miscarriages of justice happen. History is littered with them. We should be grateful that the death sentence is not still in place eh?
At least they received compensation ranging from £840,000 to £1.2 million.
And it would be hard to explain to "the Six" - one, Richard McIlkenny, died just over a year ago. Surprised you didn't know that......
I'm sure that if the security services had al sat back in their offices twiddling their thumbs since 7/7 that would not be the case.
Miscarriages of justice happen. History is littered with them. We should be grateful that the death sentence is not still in place eh?
At least they received compensation ranging from £840,000 to £1.2 million.
And it would be hard to explain to "the Six" - one, Richard McIlkenny, died just over a year ago. Surprised you didn't know that......
Yes miscarriages of justice happen far too often when members of the police force decide to abuse their powers, forge witness statements, plant evidence. The West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad had quite a reputation and the Birmingham Six were far from being their only victims, very far indeed.
Can the police be trusted with too much power?
[QUOTE=
The analogy works quite well, really, because it conveys the gradual decline of an apparently harmless pursuit (or one regarded usually as pretty harmless) into the irrevocability of something else entirely, which is definitely not what was envisaged, and definitely harmful.
"Certainly sir! Standing up to the Police in pursuit of their duty just because you finally, 30 years too late, feel your liberty's threatened?
I agree we need to cooperate with the Police; but I also think the Police need to cooperate with us, their masters (lest they forget) and not alienate the entire population.
[/QUOTE]
The analogy does not work at all. Drinking is something done voluntarily with the person involved fully aware of the effect of the product. How can that compare to something foisted upon one, with no immediate understanding of how it will effect one, if it affects one at all? You are purely speculating, and contradicting yourself, because many people enjoy alcohol on different levels without any affect on their health. If you are happy with your analogy then I am cool with that.
Right now, I am pretty sure that most people would not consider this country to be a Police State. I continue to go about my business on a daily basis without let from the Police. Why should I interpret a proposal made today as a call to arms to prevent an "inevitable" unbearable situation 30 years hence?
When the time comes, I would not be standing alone against Robocop with his Taser gun. There would be many more, of a like mind, standing shoulder to shoulder. Right now, what is on the table does not represent a threat to people who are behaving themselves, other than they don't like being asked who they are. If you call that co-operating with the Police then what point is their in having a Police force with no power to approach people. The trouble with Idealism is that we do not live, and never will live, in an ideal world.
Just for the record, I think that it would be pretty hard to have enough manpower to enforce a Police State. There is enough talk about not enough Bobbies on the beat as it is, without having to keep an eye on every Tom, Dick and Winston.
j4bberw0ck
29-May-07, 18:28
Well, scorrie, you live in the most heavily observed / recorded / spied on country in the world, bar none, with 4.4 million CCTV cameras for 60 million people. You're entitled to your view, of course, even if you don't like my analogy because you're determinedly treating it as a similarity instead.
Not to worry. A few seconds with a dictionary will set you right.
I happen to think you're sleepwalking into something that's best avoided; the legal niceties that have protected the people of this country from abuse by the State have been slowly but surely given away after 1000 years of our having the most balanced, humane, protective legal system in the world. By the time the proposed powers are voted through we'll have gone from best practice to something more like Burma or Saudi Arabia where almost any official of the State can do almost anything he wants to you simply because he's an official of the State and you're not. That, for me, is a fundamental part of a working definition of fascism.
And what will it all achieve? It's already been claimed under the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act that the Police target young black men when they stop and search. The fact that it's young black men who seem to be responsible for about 80% of street crime gets overlooked. When the Police are stopping every other Pakistani / Arab-looking male under their new powers because let's face it, all the recent bombers are Muslims and young ones at that, and that becomes the rallying cry for the mullahs and radicals, you'll have open warfare on the streets. These people are dangerous and organised and need something greatly more sophisticated than PC Plod demanding ID.
You seem to think that I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of someone who's a namby-pamby, warm and cuddly forgiveness-junkie liberal. Think again, scorrie. Subject to realistic hard evidence (and before anyone picks me up on the Birmingham 6 or Guildford 4, we've moved on since a scribbled out confession in pencil was regarded as evidence) bombers, in my world, would get shot. Bomb plotters would get shot. No problem. Mugabe and half a dozen other African leaders would disappear and never be seen again; somewhere in the local river, a crocodile would burp loudly.
I'm a libertarian, but that does not make me a liberal. It makes me someone who doesn't trust the State not to abuse its power; I wouldn't trust a junkie not to abuse drugs, either.
The Police used to be well thought of in this country and in some places still are. But as they've withdrawn into their patrol cars instead of the beat, and taken to lounging by the side of the road on sunny days laser-trapping motorists instead of responding to burglaries and assaults, and become increasingly heavy-handed, people's faith in them has reduced. The essential decency of the vast majority of Police is shown by the fact that when they actually have to deal with them, most people say they're surprised by how friendly, understanding and supportive the Police are.
Adopting these powers will have the Police throw away the last scrap of faith that people have in them, by and large, as the powers become used more and more regularly. The wedge is driven half in anyway.
There'll always be turkeys who vote for Christmas, scorrie. They always get stuffed one way or the other.
I like this quote: "The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants". Albert Camus, to you. Happy Christmas!
[QUOTE=
Not to worry. A few seconds with a dictionary will set you right.
[/QUOTE]
Mmm, that suggestion is pretty insulting, as is the inference that I am a sleepwalking turkey.
Your analogy is nonsense. I cannot help that fact. There is no need, however, for you to resort to the suggestion that I require to consult a dictionary. You are letting your ego come in the way of sensible argument. Very poor stuff and I will not continue to interact with someone incapable of minding their manners.
"Insert impressive literary quote here for effect"
Rufus T Firefly
Julius Henry
OED
QED
QVC
changilass
29-May-07, 20:41
Sorry to say Jabberwock but I have to agree with scorrie in that your above post is very insulting, surely you can carry your point without resulting in insults. Maybe an apology should be forthcoming before you argue any further.
Changi
Not wearing mods hat, just voicing an opinion as a member
j4bberw0ck
29-May-07, 22:01
Mmm, that suggestion is pretty insulting, as is the inference that I am a sleepwalking turkey.
Not at all. At no time did I suggest or infer that you're a sleepwalking turkey. I'm sure you've heard the expression "sleepwalking into something" before; I didn't make it up. Neither did I link the terms "turkey" and "sleepwalking".... you did that. No insult expressed, implied or intended.
Mmm Your analogy is nonsense. <snip> Very poor stuff and I will not continue to interact with someone incapable of minding their manners.
My analogy is fine. I suppose I might choose to be offended by your cavalier dismissal of it, your refusal to discuss it and your sarcastic reference to "insert impressive literary quote here", but I decline to rise to your bait.
Sorry to say Jabberwock but I have to agree with scorrie in that your above post is very insulting, surely you can carry your point without resulting in insults. Maybe an apology should be forthcoming before you argue any further.
Changilass, you know, I'm sure, that I've apologised freely in the past where it's been appropriate. I disagree that the post was "very insulting" and have no intention of apologising for some "thought crime" about sleepwalking turkeys imagined by scorrie; I accept that suggesting that he / she consult a dictionary for the definition of "analogy" might be seen as condescending and possibly even as insulting by someone very sensitive - in which case I offer an apology for offence caused.
changilass
29-May-07, 22:13
Jabber, it was the dictionary reference that I was refering to, glad to see you are big enough to apologise where appropriate :D , and thank you for doing it.
Changi (without a hat lol)
j4bberw0ck
29-May-07, 22:34
Actually, re-reading the post history, I can see how scorrie got to "sleepwalking turkey" as well.
Well, scorrie, I didn't mean to describe you in terms that could be interpreted as your being a sleepwalking turkey and I'm sorry that by my, ah, enthusiastic use of simile, I gave you reason to think that I did. I do think you're in the position of a turkey voting for Christmas, but that's the essence of our disagreement. I do think you're sleepwalking into a situation that could be extremely dangerous by allowing the State to extend its powers.
But you're not a sleepwalking turkey.
I hope this sets the record straight.
I'm entirely with jabber thingy on this one.If you give the state absolute power they will grab it with both hands.An the squack, golach that you have nothing to fear, is a terribly ill thought out proposition, when the powers that be have no restutition (at all) then a persons defence is non existant.An it makes no difference what it is.Would you picture freely giving that lever to some of the jobs'worths in IC?:mad:
But while you all sit up in the far north safe and sound, some of the population have to actually frequent the areas which are prime targets for the terrorist.
You do enjoy looking down your nose at people don't you?
There are all sorts of people on this forum who live in all sorts of places.
There will even be some who grew up with the threat of terrorism and stopped to wonder why, who found that it can usually be traced back to some form of oppression.
Is a Muslim youth who finds he is being stopped by the police and having to tell them where he has been and where he is going every night more likely to become a terrorist when he grows up? I think he is.
fred,
I was not looking down my nose at anyone. I am no better or worse than anyone else.
I was merely pointing out that SOME views may have been made by folk living well away from any trouble spots just as some views have been made by people who have had no experience of terrorism or terrorists.
It is not meant to belittle their viewpoints.
I can read folks profiles and I fully recognise that quite a few members are spread all over the world.
And how dare you stereotype Muslim youths like that. Not all Muslims are likely to become crazed bombers nor will they ever subscribe to any from of violence.
Many Muslims accept that because their religion has been hijacked by extremists they are going to be looked at in a different light. Just as years ago many Irish people had to endure a similar scrutiny. But the Irish youths I knew did not join the IRA.
fred,
I was not looking down my nose at anyone. I am no better or worse than anyone else.
I was merely pointing out that SOME views may have been made by folk living well away from any trouble spots just as some views have been made by people who have had no experience of terrorism or terrorists.
It is not meant to belittle their viewpoints.
SOME? You said ALL.
"But while you all sit up in the far north safe and sound,".
And how dare you stereotype Muslim youths like that.
I wasn't, I was stereotyping police officers. I mean they don't exactly have a reputation for being the least racist organisation in the land now do they? If your father is a drug dealer with a few senior detectives on his payroll you can easily get away with murdering a black kid now can't you?
Like I said any section of the community which feels oppressed is more likely to turn to terrorism, Muslim, Irish, women, whatever. When the law is seen to protect the oppressor it is seen as justification to go outside the law.
Blazing Sporrans
30-May-07, 17:13
If your father is a drug dealer with a few senior detectives on his payroll you can easily get away with murdering a black kid now can't you?
And how exactly did we reach this scenario from the original post? fred, you are an established master at throwing in these little gems that have little or no relevance to the topic under discussion. What's worse is that it's presented as if it's the norm for Police officers everywhere.....
Anyway, to get back to the original topic, here we are fretting over proposed new legislation where the government haven't even decided what the wording is going to be. Did the link posted by jabber not include the quote
"Home Office officials admitted, however, that the final wording of the new power to stop and question in the rest of the UK might have to include a requirement for reasonable suspicion"?
As I stated earlier, I would anticipate that the proposed legislation must be accompanied by some other circumstantial or factual evidence inferring criminality and that would appear to be validated by the inclusion of "reasonable suspicion" in the wording of the legislation. As far as I am aware, pretty much the same requirement appears in anti-drugs stop/search legislation. There are no grounds for random searches and they have to be justified by the officer concerned being able to cite his grounds for reasonable suspicion, if required. Where people have been charged with obstructing searches under this legislation, they have been successfully contested in court owing to the fact that Police have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate to the court that their grounds for 'suspicion' were legitimate and anything other than a fishing expedition.
It does not nullify my argument merely to say
"If the police stop you and ask you to identify yourself and account for your movements and give a reason, and you refuse to answer, that's an offence in itself under the proposals. Fine up to £5,000."
because that counter-argument is, in itself, based upon supposition of what the proposed new laws will say (crystal balls anyone?). Let's face it, this is a long way off the statute books and the legislation at the end of parliamentary proceedings may (and surely will) result in a vastly diluted version than that proposed just now.
And I do retain my faith in the "independent judiciary"? The very fact that the outgoing PM bitches about them says it all really....
And how exactly did we reach this scenario from the original post? fred, you are an established master at throwing in these little gems that have little or no relevance to the topic under discussion. What's worse is that it's presented as if it's the norm for Police officers everywhere.....
I think Madpict will know that I'm refering to an actual case and know which case I had in mind.
The point I am making is can the police be trusted with too much power?
We had identity cards during and after WWII, they had to be withdrawn because the police were abusing the system.
Blazing Sporrans
31-May-07, 08:45
We had identity cards during and after WWII, they had to be withdrawn because the police were abusing the system.
A slightly skewed version of history but you're referring to Willcock -v- Muckle, where PC Muckle, a Metropolitan Police Officer, required Clarence Willcock to produce his ID documents at a Police Station within 48 hours and Willcock refused (in 1950). He was convicted and then appealed against that conviction. Willcock lost his appeal, however the Lord Chief Justice made critical comments against the ongoing requirements for British citizens to identify themselves in such a manner. This is supposed to have directly influenced Churchill to abolish ID documents in 1952. However PC Muckle was not abusing the system as you suggest fred, he was making the same requirement of Harold Willcock as he had of every other citizen - it was Harold Willcock's own declared position that he felt such requirements should no longer be being made during peacetime. He might have lost his personal battle but he was instrumental in winning that particular war - that's the power of democracy for you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there's definitely a spin-doctors job with your name on it somewhere... ;)
A slightly skewed version of history but you're referring to Willcock -v- Muckle, where PC Muckle, a Metropolitan Police Officer, required Clarence Willcock to produce his ID documents at a Police Station within 48 hours and Willcock refused (in 1950). He was convicted and then appealed against that conviction. Willcock lost his appeal, however the Lord Chief Justice made critical comments against the ongoing requirements for British citizens to identify themselves in such a manner. This is supposed to have directly influenced Churchill to abolish ID documents in 1952. However PC Muckle was not abusing the system as you suggest fred, he was making the same requirement of Harold Willcock as he had of every other citizen - it was Harold Willcock's own declared position that he felt such requirements should no longer be being made during peacetime. He might have lost his personal battle but he was instrumental in winning that particular war - that's the power of democracy for you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there's definitely a spin-doctors job with your name on it somewhere... ;)
No, what I said was correct, unless you are claiming that Willcock was the only person asked to produce an identity card.
The fact is that the police were making people produce identity cards as a matter of routine, because they could they did even when there was no need whatsoever. Here are Lord Goldsmith's words:
"To demand a national registration identity card from all and sundry ... is wholly unreasonable and tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs."
He was concerned about "all and sundry" not one person as you falsely claimed, the system was suffering widespread abuse.
Blazing Sporrans
31-May-07, 10:58
I might be biased, however after re-reading my post, I still think it's obvious that I was referring to a stated case where the statutory requirement to be able to produce ID papers was challenged. As often happens in these, the legal principle is established through an individual case, however this case led to what is now widely believed to be the death-knell for ID papers because the then Lord Chief Justice Baron Goddard (a wee bit before Lord Goldsmith's time methinks - Goldsmith being Attorney General in any event - the present Lord Chief Justice is Lord Phillips) stated
"it is obvious that the police now, as a matter of routine, demand the production of national registration indemnity cards whenever they stop or interrogate a motorist for whatever cause. Of course, if they are looking for a stolen car or have reason to believe that a particular motorist is engaged in committing a crime, that is one thing, but to demand a national registration identity card from all and sundry, for instance, from a lady who may leave her car outside a shop longer than she should, or some trivial matter of that sort, is wholly unreasonable. This Act was passed for security purposes, and not for the purposes for which, apparently, it is now sought to be used. To use Acts of Parliament, passed for particular purposes during war, in times when the war is past, except that technically a state of war exists, tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs. Further, in this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public and such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them ... They ought not to use a Security Act, which was passed for a particular purpose, as they have done in this case. For these reasons, although the court dismisses the appeal, it gives no costs against the appellant."
So although the case was lost, the principle was firmly established that the Police should not be requiring ID papers to be produced by "all and sundry".
I don't recall claiming, falsely or otherwise, that Baron Goddard was concerned only with Willcock - if you care to look again, I clearly stated
"the Lord Chief Justice made critical comments against the ongoing requirements for British citizens to identify themselves in such a manner..." (emphasis on the 'British citizens' part).
If you're going to become involved arguing over minuteae, then at least go to the trouble of getting it right ;)
P.S. Harold Willcock was the last ever prosecution for failure to produce ID papers under that legislation.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.