Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
I guess in future you'll be happy with police stopping you for pre speeding, because you were right on the edge of the legal speed limit and they had suspicion you were going to go over it
Last edited:
This is why people are losing respect for the police...
- Thread starter RossGReds
- Start date
I think you are confused.
You cannot avoid being arrested for being 'drunk and disorderly' by pouring any remaining alcohol away because you are already, by virtue of being considered both drunk and disorderly, at the point where the offence is 'complete'
Some towns/ cities have zones where you are not allowed to consume or have an open container with alcohol in it .
This is covered by a specific law!
So can you be specific about what act/ section etc the police could use to do as you propose or are just another person talking from a place of ignorance?
Last edited:
1.3 The use of the power must be fully justified and officers exercising the power should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means. Absence of justification for exercising the power of arrest may lead to challenges should the case proceed to court. It could also lead to civil claims against police for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment. When the power of arrest is exercised, it is essential that it is exercised in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner which is compatible with the Right to Liberty under Article 5. See Note 1B.
I guess in future you'll be happy with police stopping you for pre speeding, because you were right on the edge of the legal speed limit and they had suspicion you were going to go over it
Do you understand why a known burglar found carrying lock picks might be arrested? Do you not understand context?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
What is the context ? A known protestor found with protesting materials is arrested for wanting to protest ?
The objective is preventing a breach of the peace and/ or an unlawful act by suspected protestors.
Confiscating (unlawfully - you still haven't explained what powers police would have to 'confiscate' such items) items that they may have on them when they are part of an organised protest group is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve the aforementioned objective to the same degree that arresting them does
Yes because burglary is illegal, and lock picks are only used for one purpose, whereas protesting isn't supposed to be and rape alarms and cable ties have other uses.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
As you enjoy quoting the law, it's not illegal to protest, being part of a protest group is not illegal
as do knives, spray paint, crow bars and bricks
What's your point?
Locksmiths use lock picks in their work btw
It's the context that matters isn't it...
Last edited:
Its the doing illegal stuff that's illegal.
Saying you are 'protesting' does remove the consequences for being suspected of breaking the law
Sigh, the police can confiscate anything they like, take names and then do any investigation they like. If as you say there was so much potential evidence, what they are not supposed to do is just bang people up for the day because they feel like it, or have been ordered to. It's right there at the start of the act on powers of arrest.
I'm sorry if that's not oppressive enough for you, hey there used to be arrestable and non-arrestable crimes too, just be thankful they got rid of that lefty nonsense.
Nope lock picks can be used legitimately but as with a crowbar a known burglar carrying one is dodgy.
And again, no one has claimed that protesting is illegal, plenty of protestors were indeed present and not arrested so why pretend that that's the issue here?
No one claimed it was, you seem to have gotten confused over why they were arrested, again.
Where have they done that? Who was locked up simply because the police felt like it?
Lots of people like to claim that the law stops 'protesting' or is stopping their 'free speech' as if they think the act of 'protesting' should grant someone immunity to large swathes of the law!
Please put up or shut up. You gave a previous example (alcohol/ street drinking) and I gave you the specific act and section that allows police to (lawfully) take and dispose of alcohol. So can you do the same for your claims that police can 'confiscate anything the like'?
There was a grand total of 52 arrests for a public event attended by tens of thousands of people... hardly police locking people up "because they feel like it"
the old S.25 of PACE gave general arrest conditions for those 'non arrestable' offences that were very similar to todays 'necessity' criteria that apply to *all* offences.
So far from the previous situation being 'lefty nonsense' the change in the law placed an additional consideration on police before deciding to arrest for those previous 'arrestable offences' because beforehand the police didn't need to consider the 'necessity' to arrest someone for an 'arrestable offence'... they could simply just justify their arrest on the basis of reasonable suspicion and nothing else.
Again you clearly don't understand the law
Last edited:
For someone who doesn't think the police can take anything they like as evidence, might not to call out who does and doesn't know the law you've been googling enough I'm sure you can find something on your own 
The alcohol example was just that, an example of low level proportional policing that happens every day to prevent possible criminality that respects the big bit of text I highlighted for you, so kindly
The alcohol example was just that, an example of low level proportional policing that happens every day to prevent possible criminality that respects the big bit of text I highlighted for you, so kindly
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
Except they hadn't done anything illegal at that point, so what is your point ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
To quote you, "context matters" I was referring his point that being part of a protest group was an excuse for their excessive force, the act of protesting with others puts you in a protest group, none of this is illegal yet it's "cause" for suspicion of criminal activity ?