Well, good example he gave, a guy assaulted a woman and he was convicted because he spoke to the police
Police powers when being stopped (on foot or in a car). Answers from cops?
- Thread starter izoneiz
- Start date
Well, good example he gave, a guy assaulted a woman and he was convicted because he spoke to the police
Excellent. And how was dinner with your police friends?
Keep digging
I don't see what your problem is Housey.
All i said was that police are rude. Then you reply with "Get over yourself" "times are hard". Then all I asked is why rudeness is acceptable if times are hard and you carry on with more BS?
Then I ask how dinner was and even more BS?
All i said was that police are rude. Then you reply with "Get over yourself" "times are hard". Then all I asked is why rudeness is acceptable if times are hard and you carry on with more BS?
Then I ask how dinner was and even more BS?
Last edited:
Well, good example he gave, a guy assaulted a woman and he was convicted because he spoke to the police
Pretty impressive that you managed to watch the whole 48 min video in 12 minutes.
That's a really interesting watch actually. The first half especially, you can tell why he does so well in Law.
That's a really interesting watch actually. The first half especially, you can tell why he does so well in Law.
Yeah I remember watching it ages ago and thought it was something more people should see, unfortunately the UK's laws are somewhat backwards compared to the 5th amendment, here inferments can be made about you if you don't speak to the police during the interview and you can be imprisoned for simply not talking to the police in some circumstances, ie ripa act. Clearly this puts innocent people at great risk.
I think that has a lot more to do with this being the Met than any laws which have been passed: the Met have long been known for pushing the law as far as it will go. I'm reminded of Robert Mark's comment along the lines of that he looked forward to the day when the Met caught more criminals than it employed.
M
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
, unfortunately the UK's laws are somewhat backwards compared to the 5th amendment, here inferments can be made about you if you don't speak to the police during the interview and you can be imprisoned for simply not talking to the police in some circumstances, ie ripa act. Clearly this puts innocent people at great risk.
That isn't the case.
A refusal to answer questions can indeed draw an inference but it is certainly not carte blance.
To explain, let's break down the caution.
You do not have to say anything
Self explanatory. You don't.
but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on in court
A suspect refuses to answer questions during interview and is subsequently charged to court. If evidence is put to them at court and they then give a version of events then the court may draw an inference as the suspect has had their opportunity to say this at any interview prior to charge and they may not believe them as a result. That is the inference.
Bear in mind though that a guilty verdict cannot be passed on the refusal to answer questions alone. There must be evidence to go with that and it must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
anything you do say may be given in evidence
Self explanatory.
Last edited:
Sweeping generalisation there.... There is not ONE single place in Scotland, for example, where police walk about the streets with MP5's save for airports. Maybe its different in London but I doubt it.
Armed cops do NOT walk about like a beat cop as a general rule. They are a specialist unit called to assist in potentially life threatning situations.
As said, airports are a different matter
Really ?? Knife crime in Glasgow, for example, is the highest in Europe.
Cops put their lives at risk every day (which, granted is their choice) but you dont feel they need body armour as standard ??
Scottish cops received body armour after the death of Lewis Fulton, a cop who was stabbed to death on duty in the 90's
There is also such a thing as not being close enough to a situation....
Of course it's a generalisation. If we are to take anything meaningful from the public's interaction with police we must look at it generally rather than specific instances. We need to look at the situation in the round and doing so necessitates generalisations. You do it yourself in your very next sentence. To answer your sub-point, police do protect high-value targets with weaponry in London.
This is entirely irrelevant to my point, which was that their appearance as a paramilitary force is growing, that the number of officers authorised to carry firearms is growing and that this is having a growing negative effect on the police's relations with the public.
Yes, you have to look at the UK as a whole rather than specific problem areas. Chelsea is most probably the Aston Martin ownership capital of Europe, but that does not mean most people in the UK own an Aston Martin.
In 2009 it would appear that 12 officers died. They died of:
- Being swept away in a flood
- Falling off a motorbike
- Heart attack having just reported for duty
- Car accident
- Heart attack whilst setting up cones
- Car accident on his way home
- Head injury whilst chasing a suspect
- Shot in the head
- Brain haemorrhage
- car accident on his way to work
- car accident on his way home
- car accident on her way to work
Are you somehow implying that objectivity is not a virtue?
Last edited:
Irrelevant ?? It was YOU that said -
which insinuates that they "walk around" carying guns as if its the norm when its far from it ergo my point is not irrelevant unless, of course, your's is also irrelevant.
Taking my quote out of context and having a thinly veiled dig is, well, boring TBH.
I never said having objectivity was wrong but you are making statements and, quite rightly, giving your opinions but when some other people, who are better placed to give a view (e.g. Von Smallhausen et al), explain that some of your points are not wholly accurate, you choose to dig your heels in and not only refuse to change your views (which you are perfectly entitled to do) but continue spouting, IMO, nonsense.
Does this come over a bit strong ?? Maybe, but I found your last comment somewhat insulting and juvenile...
If your going to list death to relate to your argument, please also relate crime figures as well.
The number of gun / knife related crime has risen as the access to weapons of this type has increased, their fore so has the chance of the police coming into contact with said devices.
Forgot this bit -
My point was this - you say knife crime is so low that the average cop shouldnt have to worry about it day-to-day. My point about Scotland was that in some areas this is not the case. Should this mean that the cops in this area are to be without body armour because "on average" knife crime is low ??
Perhaps you should ask actual beat cops if they would like to hand back their body armour....
My point was this - you say knife crime is so low that the average cop shouldnt have to worry about it day-to-day. My point about Scotland was that in some areas this is not the case. Should this mean that the cops in this area are to be without body armour because "on average" knife crime is low ??
Perhaps you should ask actual beat cops if they would like to hand back their body armour....
That could very well be due to a lack of guns on the street, most other european countries criminals would probably have guns rather than knives...
I think here your use of quote marks sets up your argument on a contextomy basis. My argument, of course, was that there is a continued degradation of the relationship between the police and the public and that the shifting face of the police, towards a more militaryesque force, is to blame. You will need to justify why drawing a distinction between police stationary with weapons and police walking around with their weapons is important if you seek to rely upon it.
I'm sorry if you inferred such from my post, but can confirm that no implication existed during its drafting.
Firstly, I assume that you know what my career is to allow you to make the statement that Von Smallhausen is better placed to comment? Whilst I'm well aware of Von's day job that doesn't necessarily make him well placed to talk about the relationship between the police and the public as (whilst I completely respect and appreciate his opinion) he necessarily has a strong bias towards the police.
Secondly, you are entitled to think my points nonsensical, but I am the only one in this thread to have provided objective statistics.
To clarify what has become a somewhat muddled argument, might points are simply:
1. The state is subservient to its citizens and not the other way around
2. Questioning police actions is a necessary part of monitoring and improving the police's service proposition
3. The amount of police wearing body armour, as well as those carrying weaponry, has increased over the last 15 years.
4. The public's relationship with the police has degraded over the past 15 years
5. Three and four are not unrelated
6. Crime has fallen markedly in the last 15 years and, as such the need for the actions under point three, which is causing point 4, should be reconsidered.
Last edited:
Surely that's grounds as to why such terrible and easily abused laws should not be passed... That laws should be clear, defined, proportionate and evidence based.
There is a difference. The police who are stationary and are armed are protecting high profile targets. The way you say "walking around with MP5's" insinuates that there are police everywhere walking along streets heavily armed when this is simply not the case...[/quote]
1. Dont disagree
2. Dont disagree
3. While this is true, the nature of policing has changed in the past 15 years. They did not issue body armour for the fun of it or to waste public money, they issued it as there was (and still is) a need for it. You quote police deaths last year as if this proves that body armour would not have helped when you leave out any facts or figures relating to the amount of cops that have been assaulted whilst on duty. I am not just talking about knife assaults because, by its very nature, the supplied body armour also protects the cop from other weapons e.g. hit by a metal bar, punched to the body.
Weaponary - I will include all weaponary except for the baton which cops have always had so has not increased. CS/PAVA was introduced for officer safety and to reduce injury to the officer e.g. its much easier and safer to deal with someone that has a weapon if you have CS/PAVA than trying to tackle them with just a baton.
Armed Police - I think I have made my point at the start of my post re:more cops with guns
4. Neither agree or disagree
5. Although not unrelated it will not be exclusive of other factors.
6. Crime may have fallen over the last 15 years but new threats are now here. Yeah, sure, we had the threat of terrorism before (IRA etc) but the UK is now a prime target for other terrorist threats (7/7, Glasgow Airport etc). See Point 3 again.
Police forces are NOT going to remove body armour from their officers now it is mainstream. It not only protects their employees from harm but also protects the force from criticism and lawsuits for failing to protect their staff properly.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Then perhaps you might join as a full time constable or special to get a better insight as to why it is required ? Have you considered how many injuries have been prevented as a result of wearing them ?
Prevention is better than cure and certainly better than being carried by six.
On that basis, how many AFOs have been shot lately ? Given your logic, shall we withdraw high grade body armour from issue to them ?
I say again that the vast majority of our police force remains unarmed unlike almost every country in the world. Hardly paramilitary or heading that way I would argue.