What, not committing crime?!
MILLIONAIRE Tory Cabinet minister refers to police as " plebs " - Police fabricate evidence
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
What, not committing crime?!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Well the Police's ability to stop and search anyone on a whim means even by not committing crime you can't guarantee you won't encounter and be temporarily detained by police.
Paying a bribe.
If the police stopped and searched me and planted large quantities of Class A on me, then I'd be livid. If I were a Class A dealer and they stopped me under false-pretences but only because they knew I were a dealer, then I'd accept that being a valid move in the game.
Personally, I've been stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act because I had "a bag". But quite a few commuters in London have, so I just huffed and puffed and went on my way.
I didn't mean that in my original post, I meant not committing crime! Besides, I'm pretty sure that there some officers in this country who take bribes, even in our modern age.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I think it was fairly obvious his way was 'not commiting crime' given that by its very nature 'paying a bribe' involves dealing with the police, rather than avoiding dealing with police
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Police can't search on a whim and you know that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
They could when the law was first brought in (hence riots in London in the 80s). After that they changed it so the officer had to have "reasonable suspicion" but in practical terms that still means they can stop anyone they want, all they have to say is "you look a bit dodgy" or "we're investigating a crime in this area". They certainly don't have to have specific information about you personally.
I've been stopped and searched twice. The first time I was on my lunch break when I was stopped because the officers were looking for the culprit responsible for some burglaries in the area, that to them was reason enough despite the fact I was clearly dressed in work clothes, was carrying nothing (I'd expect a robber to have a bag of tool at least) and it was the middle of the day.
The second time I was stopped I was told the police were 'looking for a man fitting my description' (I'm a tall white man). This time it was all rather rushed and wan't even searched that thoroughly which i thought was odd until 5 minutes later I saw the same officers stopping a short, black man. At that point I realised I was simply searched to make up the numbers (i.e on that occasion they could claim they stopped 1 white man and 1 white black man so the the stats looked better).
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
In practical terms, they can't stop and search anyone they want.
Shhhh... Don't let practicalities get in the way of a good ol' bashing thread.... Silly VS
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
OK so run me through the protocol (which of course will have to be robust to maintain your view) they have to run through.
I know what the law says, but you can't seriously argue the term 'reasonable suspicion' isn't vague and massively open to interpretation.
It's the same as searching your car, technically they can't do that without reasonable cause but a quick "I think I smell weed" and that gets around it. The person being searched cannot disprove the officer could or couldn't smell weed and would likely get nowhere trying to challenge it further. The net result is the officer can just say what the rules tell him and he can then, in practical terms, search whomever he or she wants.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
I know what the law says as well and it doesn't say you can search who you like and when you like.
Reasonable suspicion is open to abuse but there is a complaints procedure to address that. Cases have been lost due to illegal searches which hardly indicates the police state your views suggest.
Reasonable suspicion is open to abuse but there is a complaints procedure to address that. Cases have been lost due to illegal searches which hardly indicates the police state your views suggest.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I never said it did. I was quite clear to say they could 'practically' search anyone they wanted.
Afterall, wasn't that the very point of it? To search people randomly on the off chance you'd catch the odd knife carrier?
In fact I can distinctly remember Tony Blair defending 'random stop and searches' for that very reason. And before the the Tories got in, they wanted to change the law so they did have to be accountable for them, if the procedure was so watertight why did David Cameron campaign on it?
David Cameron: Conservative government will end stop and search
I'd be interested to see a case where someone has successfully challenged a stop and search decision. I don't mean something happened during the search, I mean a case whereby someone has proved a police officer had no right to search them in the first place.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
There are case law examples out there. Go look.
The point being, which you have completely ignored, is that their statements are taken as being truthful and without prejudice for good reason.
If you disgree I can to a certain extent understand, it clearly has been abused in the past, but the alternative is far far worse and would have an impact in law enforcement beyond regular policing as well..
If you were speeding, you are complaining about a triviality to be honest and that's exactly how the judge would view it. Rightly or wrongly to you. If you were not speeding, and have been stitched up by the police for reasons unknown then you have my sympathies but I find these instances to be quite rare. Perhaps you should have considered representation or consultation if it was as significant as that.
Irrespective, accurate or not, it wasn't the institution that did this to you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Nice cop out (pardon the pun).
So your position is more miscarriages of justice would occur if equal weighting was given to police testimonies as to everyone else's?
And the point you keep missing is the details, judgement, outcome and weighting placed on the police statement is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making which is that police officers should lie in court.
I would be making the the same point had I won my case.
P.S. Did you see Bald-Eagle22's post on the previous page? Same thing happened to him as well, again proving this kind of thing isn't as isolated as the general public like to believe.
Last edited:
Well disagree all you like, the fact remains that political parties are under constant attack.
This is politics, people and groups who are political have agendas and act them out.
If it is indefensible then politics may not be for you.
It more than likely will, I'm not concerned about them. I'm concerned about the generalisation of 'The Police did it'.
People hate political parties of all persuations, I think this is getting a touch conflatory.
More that the Rule of Law would become untenable and unenforceable.
Or that it would become optional, not binding.
You are making the point that Police Officers should lie?
No one is in doubt that miscarriage of justice takes place, just that the alternative isn't viable.
It is quite an interesting development in the matter.
If it turns out that the 'member of the public' who witnessed the incident, emailed their MP and apparently disclosed information to the press, was a Constable - then if proven, he/she needs to be sacked. No ifs, no buts about it.
The CCTV only proves that there wasn't anyone beyond the small gate. What was to the left of the image at the main gate clearly hasn't been released.
With no sound, it doesn't prove what was being said at the time.
The video backs up both of their stories, that after the alleged incident the Officer opened the small gate and Mitchell passed through it.
It is also very interesting that Hogan-Howe has mentioned he cannot disclose certain things at the moment - it is subject to a Criminal enquiry so I suppose that is fair.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if both the Officers and Mitchell's accounts are both true to a large degree. The Police Officers contend that he swore at them. Mitchell contends that he didn't call them plebs - tellingly he wouldn't say what he said. I suspect what he did say was far worse. Time will tell I suppose.
If it turns out that the 'member of the public' who witnessed the incident, emailed their MP and apparently disclosed information to the press, was a Constable - then if proven, he/she needs to be sacked. No ifs, no buts about it.
The CCTV only proves that there wasn't anyone beyond the small gate. What was to the left of the image at the main gate clearly hasn't been released.
With no sound, it doesn't prove what was being said at the time.
The video backs up both of their stories, that after the alleged incident the Officer opened the small gate and Mitchell passed through it.
It is also very interesting that Hogan-Howe has mentioned he cannot disclose certain things at the moment - it is subject to a Criminal enquiry so I suppose that is fair.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if both the Officers and Mitchell's accounts are both true to a large degree. The Police Officers contend that he swore at them. Mitchell contends that he didn't call them plebs - tellingly he wouldn't say what he said. I suspect what he did say was far worse. Time will tell I suppose.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Maybe in 1950 that would have be true. Today we have CCTV, finger printing, DNA, speed guns (when used properly of course
) etc etc etc.There is simply no reason to rely on police officer's testimony's anymore and I don't see why they should be given anymore weight than any other eye witness.
Typo, should have read "shouldn't"