The Love Police on being stop searched under Section 44

[Nix]

To be honest, they lost me when they said the S44 was demeed unlawful by the ECHR.

"Parliament... has... the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. Parliament is not bound by its predecessor. "

What's more, police can search you under S44, so "human soverignty" is bs.

And wtf was he own about the Crown and city of London?

Well, that'll be because you don't understand how the EU and its member states integrate.

European Courts can supercede and/or overrule member-state's sovereign rulings. This is rare and carefully considered. It is effectively a check against any member-state abusing its citizens' human-rights or becoming too totalitarian.

Just to repeat before the bandwagon begins: European Courts only will only over-rule sovereignity after careful deliberation and in very special cases. It is not an everyday occurrence and only exists because the UK has agreed to subject itself to a small loss in sovereignty to become part of a confederal Europe.

The ECHR did recently declare that S44 was illegal as it breached human-rights; exactly what those pesky 'lefties' have been trying to explain for some time. Give them a break, they're only looking out for you. :/

 

[Sankari]

That kid with the Fatah scarf should be strangled with it.

 

[meghatronic]

Well, that'll be because you don't understand how the EU and its member states integrate.

European Courts can supercede and/or overrule member-state's sovereign rulings. This is rare and carefully considered. It is effectively a check against any member-state abusing its citizens' human-rights or becoming too totalitarian.

Just to repeat before the bandwagon begins: European Courts only will only over-rule sovereignity after careful deliberation and in very special cases. It is not an everyday occurrence and only exists because the UK has agreed to subject itself to a small loss in sovereignty to become part of a confederal Europe.

The ECHR did recently declare that S44 was unlawful as it breached human-rights; exactly what those pesky 'lefties' have been trying to explain for some time. Give them a break, they're only looking out for you. :/

Sorry - I wasn't clear. My point was Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act 1972. Parliament is, rightly so, absolute (excluding treaties, ish).

With respect to them (actually that should be with NO respect...) they are not looking out for me. They're doing it for attention and egotism and NOTHING else. Looking out for me would be quietly loggbying local MPs as per the process. They are leftie liberal hippies and annoying. Seeing people like that reminds me why I'm not a police officer.

 

[Nix]

Sorry - I wasn't clear. My point was Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act 1972. Parliament is, rightly so, absolute (excluding treaties, ish).

With respect to them (actually that should be with NO respect...) they are not looking out for me. They're doing it for attention and egotism and NOTHING else. Looking out for me would be quietly loggbying local MPs as per the process. They are leftie liberal hippies and annoying. Seeing people like that reminds me why I'm not a police officer.

I'm a 'lefty liberal', do hold such discontent for me too? Your irrational hate for anyone else who differs from you on the political compass is nothing short of tragic and it is, like others in this thread; completely blinkering you. Ignore the messenger and let's look at the message.

How do you know they're just doing it for egoism? Did it not occur to you that they're trying to bring issues to other's attention and thereby help them? Lobbying MPs in one route. Raising consciousness is another. By your logic, all media is effectively redundant.

The EC Act 1972 won't be repealed though as the UK have far too much to gain from being in Europe. You as a citizen too, also have much to gain: freedom of movement, labour, protection of your human-rights. Indeed, we could step outside this and look at the supranational scale: again, the UK benefits due to the inherent Keynesian free-market economy that the agreement creates.

 

[meghatronic]

I'm a 'lefty liberal', do hold such discontent for me too? Your irrational hate for anyone else who differs from you on the political compass is nothing short of tragic and it is, like others in this thread; completely blinkering you. Ignore the messenger and let's look at the message.

How do you know they're just doing it for egoism? Did it not occur to you that they're trying to bring issues to other's attention and thereby help them? Lobbying MPs in one route. Raising consciousness is another. By your logic, all media is effectively redundant.

The EC Act 1972 won't be repealed though as the UK have far too much to gain from being in Europe. You as a citizen too, also have much to gain: freedom of movement, labour, protection of your human-rights. Indeed, we could step outside this and look at the supranational scale: again, the UK benefits due to the inherent Keynesian free-market economy that the agreement creates.

You missed the last word - you're not annoying! I hold no discontent for you whatsoever. However both of these feelings (you and them) are snap judgements.

It's the smirks and 'all knowing' looks I dislike. At the end of the day, they could've just refused to give their names under S44, searched (if S44(3) is envoked) and then just walked away. But no, they just stay there for minutes ranting and ranting.

I didn't say it would be repealed, I was just saying refering to EU Courts isn't an absolute. I'm pretty sure the UK could negoiate a veto or compromise on certain parts of EU 'law' too. Also, economic are arguments about EU are largely mute due to the EEA possiblity (e.g. Norway).

 

[G-MAN2004]

Their 'Everything is OK' videos are hilarious.

 

[PapaLazaru]

I want to punch the people making the video. They offend me. Am I wrong?

 

[Viper²]

"lolPolice", "hurhurhur I know the law", etc. So boring.

 

[Nix]

It's the smirks and 'all knowing' looks I dislike. At the end of the day, they could've just refused to give their names under S44, searched (if S44(3) is envoked) and then just walked away. But no, they just stay there for minutes ranting and ranting.

I don't like the smirks and smug glances either but that doesn't mean I'm jumping the gun and assuming all liberals must be this way. Just as I don't assume that because the BNP are hate-filled idiots, that all those who lean to the right must be the same; it's irrational in the extreme but exactly what many people seem to be doing in this thread and indeed this forum on a regular basis. Now, that is irritating.

I would've refused to give my details out of principle, too. I have never agreed with S44 either (it's very bad legislation; as recently proven by the ECHR) but that point is moot if you're subject to the crown. However, if you're a man of principles you'll understand why it's important to do so. I understand that the police are only doing their job, but equally if I am not breaking any law or abusing any right and the police are aware of this, I simply wish for the police to respect my privacy which is inherent in my birth-rite as a British citizen. I appreciate that this makes life difficult for the police and I emphasise, but I'm afraid that on these occassions, my principles come first and I will 'fight' to defend them because - without having to spell-out the obvious - they are important to me.

I didn't say it would be repealed, I was just saying refering to EU Courts isn't an absolute. I'm pretty sure the UK could negoiate a veto or compromise on certain parts of EU 'law' too. Also, economic are arguments about EU are largely mute due to the EEA possiblity (e.g. Norway).

Exactly. The loss of sovereignty only exists because we as a sovereign nation-state choose for it to be so. But, due to this contemporary dynamic, for all intents and purposes; Europe can trump our own legislation but when it does so it does it carefully and thoughtfully. We as a sovereign nation-state recognise that we do not always get it right and it's good to have that extra buffer there.

 

[meghatronic]

I would've refused to give me details out of principle, too. I have never agreed with S44 either (it's very bad legislation; as recently proven by the ECHR) but that point is moot if you're subject to the crown. However, if you're a man of principles you'll understand why it's important to do so. I understand that the police are only doing their job, but equally if I am not breaking any law or abusing any right and the police are aware of this, I simply wish for the police to respect my privacy which is inherent in my birth-rite as a British citizen. I appreciate that this makes life difficult for the police and I emphasise, but I'm afraid that on these occassions, my principles come first and I will 'fight' to defend them because - without having to spell-out the obvious - they are important to me.

I would refuse to give my details, not "as I don't have to" or to "rebel", but as I see no need for them.

One thing that is strikingly obvious about the whole situation is the police need more education. I appreciate they can't (and why should they) learn all the laws - the laws of stopping and arrest should be refreshed monthly.

Fight the power! But as a Brit. Which means politely and through the system. Not being a tool like in the vid. We're not American.

We as a sovereign nation-state recognise that we do not always get it right and it's good to have that extra buffer there.

Aside: which is why Labour messing with the Lords concerns me greatly.

 

[snowdog]

Yeah, but the police aren't annoying?

Police annoy me so much and are utterly useless.

I can agree with you to a certain point that they can be annoying ( when they say they won't come if someone nicked something of ya but in the meantime, they send 7 squad cars so 14 officers to a routine moped trap, or when they are setting up their mobile speed camera's on a completely straight and flat bit of road nowhere near any housing, pedestrians, or even junctions ) however, saying they are ''utterly useless'' is taking it a bit far isn't it, without any form of authority, it'd be survival of the fittest, the strongest and biggest gangs would rule the streets ?

 

[meghatronic]

I can agree with you to a certain point that they can be annoying ( when they say they won't come if someone nicked something of ya but in the meantime, they send 7 squad cars so 14 officers to a routine moped trap, or when they are setting up their mobile speed camera's on a completely straight and flat bit of road nowhere near any housing, pedestrians, or even junctions ) however, saying they are ''utterly useless'' is taking it a bit far isn't it, without any form of authority, it'd be survival of the fittest, the strongest and biggest gangs would rule the streets ?

You can't blame the police - much like blaming soldiers - you must blame the government (targets).

 

[snowdog]

You can't blame the police - much like blaming soldiers - you must blame the government (targets).

I'm not exactly sure how the hierarchy works here, but I know there are a few diluted liars in the police, first claiming to the public in papers that they only place well visible speed traps and don't hide their camera's, then things like these pop up:

http://www.flitsservice.nl/repo_s/42/4260/N349_28012010-01.jpg
http://www.flitsservice.nl/repo_s/41/4188/DSCF0063.JPG
http://www.flitsservice.nl/repo_s/41/4187/foto2.jpg
http://www.flitsservice.nl/repo_s/42/4269/Diversen_januari_2010_025.JPG
http://www.flitsservice.nl/repo_s/42/4268/N343_09022010-03.jpg

Edit:

Hmmm, hotlink protected I think, the links only work if you copy the url into the address bar rather than clicking on them.

 

[HAz]

If they all got stabbed in the face at the end i would probably be happy!
you can tell none of theses people work

 

[Ziggy]

Fight the power! But as a Brit. Which means politely and through the system. Not being a tool like in the vid. We're not American.

I like that.

 

[Side5wipe]

You can't blame the police - much like blaming soldiers - you must blame the government (targets).

+1 its all targets at the end of the day. If they meet there targets it looks like they are doing a good job. But some officers might be a bit to keen and common sense goes out the window.

 

[AdladUK]

That guy is really annoying, but why is it police have a stupid smug attitude about themselves? Has anyone noticed that? You can even tell it in that video

 

[stockhausen]

Hilarious, absolutely hilarious ​

Eat your heart out Borat, this is the real world. I would love to know how much of what the Love Police asserted was utter BS, the Met Police certainly seemed bamboozled.

 

[godinman]

While i agree with the message I want punch that man with shredder's gauntlet.

Yes, this.

 

[drunkenmaster]

To be honest, they lost me when they said the S44 was demeed unlawful by the ECHR.

"Parliament... has... the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. Parliament is not bound by its predecessor. "

What's more, police can search you under S44, so "human soverignty" is bs.



And wtf was he own about the Crown and city of London?

The bit I assume you highlighted in bold that you quoted only says where they can search, the next section gives terms for reasoning to give them authorisation, and it says

(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.

Searches under the section you bolded are ONLY authorised when they think it will stop a terrorist act, not, because they just want to stop someone.

They SHOULD have the power to stop anyone if they think they are being suspicious or involved in terrorism.

However cops shouldn't and can't, as in its illegal to just use it as a blanket reason to stop and search anyone they choose. As in that video, the part I could bear to watch he said he wanted to search him under act 44, when asked what gives him the reasoning under act 44, he went "well, ummm, I dunno, I just want to search you".

Thats just not acceptable, literally, by the letter of the law that cop HAS TO have sufficient grounds to think someone is a terrorist, he clearly did not think he was a terrorist but simply wanted to search him so said he thought he was.