Just a few rotten eggs?

zenf said:
I think some of you are a bit quick to attack hurf and defend the police when we don't really know what's happened yet. [..]
Click to expand...

People are assessing probabilities based on relevant experience of hurfdurf and of the police. Hurfdurf has a proven and sustained track record of being a less reliable and more biased source than the Daily Mail.
 
FunkyCowie said:
My POV on this and other situations is that if you put yourself into a situation where the police think you are up to something then its your own fault. If you find yourself taken in by the police and you are completely innocent you will have proof of that innocence so by remaining calm and helpful it'll work out.
Click to expand...

That's overly optimistic. It is far from certain that every innocent person will always have proof of that innocence, nor is it certain that they will have an opportunity to demonstrate that proof even if they do have it.

I've been stopped and questioned by the police on a number of occasions when I was younger. I was a young man out late at night in a less than lovely part of town, so I hit their profiling triggers. On one occasion I was carrying a portable TV and a video recorder (back when they were fairly expensive items), in the streets at about 1 in the morning. That wasn't the wisest thing to do, but when I was 20 I wasn't the wisest person in the world.

Was it a problem? No. They asked questions in a civilised manner, I gave answers in a civilised manner and that was that. I don't mind some level of inconvenience from the police being on the streets and being suspicious - it's a reasonable trade-off for the benefits of having police.

Could I have proven my innocence if they'd been arsey about it? No.
 
Tummy said:
It is indeed.
Click to expand...

Isn't it both true and unavoidable?

There aren't a large enough number of suitable legal representatives waiting 24/7 in every police station, are there? So in many cases it won't be possible to see one until they've either finished representing someone else at that police station or they've travelled to the police station from wherever they were when they were called. In either case, it will take some time.
 
Angilion said:
Isn't it both true and unavoidable?

There aren't a large enough number of suitable legal representatives waiting 24/7 in every police station, are there? So in many cases it won't be possible to see one until they've either finished representing someone else at that police station or they've travelled to the police station from wherever they were when they were called. In either case, it will take some time.
Click to expand...

My issue is not with this, I understand that from contact with a legal representative there will obviously be a time frame for them arriving.

My issue is the Police using this to their advantage and pushing people (in this situation myself) to not have legal representation, using the time excuse 'you'll be here for double the time' or 'well if you've got nothing to hide you don't need legal representation', I have issue with people in authority abusing that power. S'all :(.
 
Tummy said:
My issue is not with this, I understand that from contact with a legal representative there will obviously be a time frame for them arriving.

My issue is the Police using this to their advantage and pushing people (in this situation myself) to not have legal representation, using the time excuse 'you'll be here for double the time' or 'well if you've got nothing to hide you don't need legal representation', I have issue with people in authority abusing that power. S'all :(.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with that. If anyone ever says anything along the lines of "if you've got nothing to hide then <insert anything here>" then they are your enemy, they are extremely hostile towards you and they will lie to you without hesitation and for any reason. Time to say nothing, nothing at all regardless of how reasonable any question may seem, and wait for legal representation.
 
FunkyCowie said:
If you find yourself taken in by the police and you are completely innocent you will have proof of that innocence so by remaining calm and helpful it'll work out.
Click to expand...

Really?

Not all accused that end up in court are guilty yet they have ended up there due to the police charging them with a crime they have not done.


This is also the reason I think anonymity in the media should be extended to accused persons and not just victims. IF they are found guilty then their details can be printed, if they are not found guilty then their anonymity should remain.

The public are too dumb to not associate you with the alleged crime when found Not Guilty and so it can follow you for the rest of your life.
 
groen said:
I thought this was normal operating procedure. I am just surprised they didn't drug her.

Thats how it works, they arrest you for a little to no reason, when the "victim" becomes outraged at the treatment, they then use the victims behaviour as justification for searching them and adding them to the "identity database machine". As if you are outspoken and criticize the behaviour of the police while they are trying to extort money from you, sorry arrest you, then you are likely on drugs and/or a criminal who does not want to be identified. Its a beautiful paradox realy. Its like being arrested for resisting arrest, what comes first? the arrest or the resisting?

Best thing to do is just not speak to police and if you are arrested just offer to pay the fine right on the spot. They will then tell you that you have to post it. Ask them if they accept visa, cause realy its just a revenue generation scheme at this point. Well for victimless crimes and crimes where the state claims to be the victim. Its not a bribe if you post the money afterwards after being forced to sign a penalty notice.
Click to expand...

Amazing
 
Ultimately she was searched by a female officer, although male officers were present they did not carry out the search; why they were present we don't fully know but I have speculated on why this may have been, and furthermore, the fact she was left naked is more than likely a result of her clothing being seized at the time for suspected offences etc, underwear may have been on which some would still class as 'naked'; she may not have been wearing any to begin with.. or she may have taken them off in protest - I've seen that happen also.
 
Wow, this has run the par for a normal OcUK police thread. Initiated by hurfdurf on some story that we don't seem to have both sides for but there does seem to be a problem. That problem is then often blown up to be evidence of wholescale corruption, then everyone slates hurfdurf, certain people then jump in to defend the police with logic and references, the usual names come into hate the police no matter what, and we need now is for the thread to magically disappear like they normally do ...
 
Von Smallhausen said:
The medical practitioner side of it us for intimate searches, which is body orifices. If drugs are suspected to be hidden then a search under the MoD Act can be done which can be removal of clothing. If on search you see, and it has happened, a bag hanging out the back exit then police officers cannot remove it and it then becomes an intimate search which must be done by a medical practitioner and for which permission must be sought higher up the ladder.

If officers have performed an intimate search then big no and they must be answerable for it. If the strip search did not involve intimate search then it is allowed however there must be reasonable grounds in the first place. A drugs search can be done without arrest however the suspect can be detained under the MoD Act for the purpose of it.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the answer.
 
hurfdurf, if a detained person asks if they will be in custody longer if they want legal counsel ? That does happen very often.

Personally, I don't care nor influence any such decision. If the dp wants representation then no problem and never has been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom