This is why people are losing respect for the police...

[Minusorange]

And they had suspicion. You're not arrested on ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, are you?

You're usually arrested AFTER a crime has been committed, there's some evidence, in that there is a crime

 

[dowie]

You are right, post more in all caps your brain dead recollection of who I am, it’s a really good look for you.

You may not like it but this is comedy gold!

I DO BUTTSECKS FOR MONEY AND FIGHT LIKE CAVEMAN

 

[StriderX]

And they had suspicion. You're not arrested on ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, are you?

It would help if the force in question didn't brutalise it's reputation by ignoring abuses of power for decades, without trust the police are on thin ice in every situation they aren't completely transparent.

 

[Dis86]

You're usually arrested AFTER a crime has been committed, there's some evidence, in that there is a crime

Not really, otherwise things like "going equipped" wouldn't exist, would they? Prevention is the number one way of reducing crimes from occurring...

 

[Dis86]

It would help if the force in question didn't brutalise it's reputation by ignoring abuses of power for decades, without trust the police are on thin ice in every situation they aren't completely transparent.

Ironic considering people here are ranting about innocent until proven guilty, yet they're willing to tar all police officers with the same brush in this instance...

 

[StriderX]

Not really, otherwise things like "going equipped" wouldn't exist, would they? Prevention is the number one way of reducing crimes from occurring...

We could prevent a lot of crimes with mandatory curfew and summary execution couldn't we?

 

[Dis86]

We could prevent a lot of crimes with mandatory curfew and summary execution couldn't we?

Which is precisely why some offenders are tagged. You know, to prevent further crimes.

We could prevent crimes with summary execution. Or we could not be pants on head retarded like your train of thought there and perhaps arrest and detain people for short periods whilst further investigation takes place or the threat passes?

 

[Minusorange]

Not really, otherwise things like "going equipped" wouldn't exist, would they? Prevention is the number one way of reducing crimes from occurring...

We police proportionately and in the context of the event. This is a once in a generation moment and that has been a key consideration.

So the line of the law moves arbitrarily depending on the event now, they're literally saying if it wasn't a once in a generation moment (which is a lie because Charles only has a few decades left) that these people wouldn't have been arrested, the only crime they committed was deciding to protest on this day

Going equipped ? Yeah they were equipped to protest, apparently now a crime

 

[Chris Wilson]

An arrest "on suspicion of" is commonplace, an acquaintance of mine was arrested "on suspicion" of murder. In fact I was personally interviewed for a character assessment. The charges were dropped. In this instance the pre emptive arrests undoubtedly saved needless aggravation and potential fisticuffs in the eyes of the world media. We need that benevolent dictator, like tomorrow

 

[StriderX]

Not sure that's shocking as they've always put the elites on a pedestal for which no embarrassment can be tolerated whilst the poor have essentially been abandoned.

 

[Minusorange]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655166638818308097

Perhaps the Met could have arrested actual criminals littering the place, maybe if they arrested them when they first showed up with their test they could have been arrested on suspicion of littering

An arrest "on suspicion of" is commonplace, an acquaintance of mine was arrested "on suspicion" of murder. In fact I was personally interviewed for a character assessment. The charges were dropped. In this instance the pre emptive arrests undoubtedly saved needless aggravation and potential fisticuffs in the eyes of the world media. We need that benevolent dictator, like tomorrow

But there was evidence, a murder and he was somehow linked, these people are arrested simply for being there to protest, perhaps the murderer should have been arrested before he murdered then your friend wouldn't have to go through with that ordeal

 

[Chris Wilson]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655166638818308097

Perhaps the Met could have arrested actual criminals littering the place, maybe if they arrested them when they first showed up with their test they could have been arrested on suspicion of littering


But there was evidence, a murder and he was somehow linked, these people are arrested simply for being there to protest, perhaps the murderer should have been arrested before he murdered then your friend wouldn't have to go through with that ordeal

There was no murder, only a suspicion of one, the death in the case I mentioned was not in the end found to be murder.

In the case of the protestors the rozzers felt that they were not going to play ball as they had seemingly agreed to do, and have a peaceful protest, so arrested them "on suspicion" of whatever.

 

[Dis86]

So the line of the law moves arbitrarily depending on the event now, they're literally saying if it wasn't a once in a generation moment (which is a lie because Charles only has a few decades left) that these people wouldn't have been arrested, the only crime they committed was deciding to protest on this day

Going equipped ? Yeah they were equipped to protest, apparently now a crime

The line does move, yes. You're unlikely to be arrested carrying a carrier bag even if you intend to steal say...sweets. go with a balaclava, gloves and a crowbar to steal jewels and you will.

Public order offences have been a crime for quite some time.

 

[Caracus2k]

You're usually arrested AFTER a crime has been committed, there's some evidence, in that there is a crime

Ignorance of the law isn't defence and it may he best for you to review what the law actually says before commenting on it.

(1)A constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is about to commit an offence;

(b)anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;

(c)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;

(d)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

(2)If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

(3)If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;

(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

Arrests to prevent a 'Breach of the peace' (a common law power not covered directly by an act of Parliament) operate in a similar fashion.

Breach of the peace​

This is committed when an individual causes harm, or appears likely to cause harm, to a person, or in that person’s presence, to his/her property, or puts that person in fear of such harm being done through an assault, affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.

The basic principle is that a police officer may take reasonable action including arrest to stop a breach of the peace which is occurring, or to prevent one which the police officer reasonably anticipates will occur imminently. Reasonable action may also be taken where a breach of the peace has been committed and it is reasonably believed a recurrence of the breach is threatened.

There are of course numerous other 'preparatory' offences enacted to try and allow arrests/ prosecutions before a more substantive offence can occur...


'Going equipped, 'offensive weapons', 'pointed bladed articles' etc

 

[Minusorange]

Protesting isn't an offence, that's the issue

They haven't been charged with an offence either, so what were they actually arrested for ? If they were "equipped" to commit an offence, then they should have been charged for the conspiracy to commit the offence no ?

 

[Richie]

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

The point is the police were arresting people for going armed with placards and using the lame reason of preventing a breach of the peace. They can use that any time they like, who is to say if there would or wouldn't be one, its open season for the police. We are moving closer to a police state and some here seem to celebrate it.

 

[Dis86]

The point is the police were arresting people for going armed with placards and using the lame reason of preventing a breach of the peace. They can use that any time they like, who is to say if there would or wouldn't be one, its open season for the police. We are moving closer to a police state and some here seem to celebrate it.

No they weren't. Don't make things up. It's already been mentioned multiple times why they were arrested.

 

[Sythe79]

It's pretty obvious they sent out the untouchable militia to target and round up the undesirables for the day. If you're cool with that, then fine, I guess, but don't pretend it was anything other than what it was.

 

[Minusorange]

No they weren't. Don't make things up. It's already been mentioned multiple times why they were arrested.

Why were they not charged if they were found "equipped" commit their crime ?