That there were suspected of doing something illegal obviously...
This is why people are losing respect for the police...
- Thread starter RossGReds
- Start date
The police can only take/retain items lawfully certain situations.
Many of those circumstances follow on from a person being arrested. You claimed the police didn't need to arrest to seize things as evidence in general.
I asked you to provide the act/section etc that would allow that in these circumstances and you have failed to do so....
and a bad one because I could point to the law that made police actions of seizure and disposal of property in thoose specific circumstances legal without arrest...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
The key is intent as in having the locking device, with no other reason but for locking yourself, as with the burglar perhaps he is now a lock smith so has a legit reason for having the lock picks, just like these protestors had these "devices" (it's never actually described what the **** they actually were) had them according to them for securing their placards in transit and in protest, neither is illegal and there is no proven or obvious intent for anything otherwiseThat there were suspected of doing something illegal obviously...
Public Order Act 2023
www.legislation.gov.uk
The police can seize anything as evidence yes, no they don't have to arrest you to do so, they may need to get a warrant without an arrest to make a search of property, and they might search your property with one take items and then not arrest you and an arrest might mean they can search your property without a warrant. Again carry on googling, just maybe read more of each section than the bits you want to cherry-pick
No, it was a perfect example of how to use pace and police effectively without HAVING to arrest people.
We all get it, you will turn a blind eye and make excuses as long the police abuse people you don't like, just get off your high horse. Someone might have a rape alarm nearby and you might fall off.
Soldato
After more than 150 posts and getting nowhere, perhaps you guys just need to agree to disagree?
You're so invested and entrenched in your POV, that no one dares to give any ground in case it's seen as backing down... And we can't have that...
You're so invested and entrenched in your POV, that no one dares to give any ground in case it's seen as backing down... And we can't have that...
Not true. The police can only (legally) seize things when they have a power to do so (like in your bad example where there was a specific power to seize and dispose of alcohol)
you may note you just said 'property'. Police dont get court warrants to search people in the street and to retain any items they find, they use other powers for that.
Yes but they have still used specific parts of the law to get the search warrant and to seize and retain any property they find.... for example under sections 8,19 and 20 of PACE 1984
Yes again under the law, typically either sections 32 or 18 of of PACE 1984 depending on whether the person was in/ just leaving the address when arrested or not.
I dont need to 'google' because unlike you i actually have a reasonably good idea of the law, in England and Wales, around police searches, seizure and retention of property.
It was an example where the law provided a specific power of seizure and disposal outside of an arrest. Something you have now repeatedly failed to do in relation to your claim (simply because no such power exists and you were talking nonsence)
I have literally been outlining the legal ways in which police can carry out their job around arrest/ search/ seizure of items etc.
It was you that had suggested the police could act outside of the law and seize items where there was no legal power to do so!
High horse? I get it .... your have been caught out talking nonsence, your attempt and providing an 'example' spectacularly backfired and all you have been able to do since is repeat the same stupid, refuted talking points in an obvious attempt to refuse to either be quiet and skulk away or accept you were in fact wrong!
Last edited:
Soldato
Ex police officers seeking media attention are some of the worst people to rely upon for accurate information about policing... expecially the ones that themselves left policing under a cloud
Northumbria Police Chief Sue Sim has retired following a misconduct probe
Mrs Sim has retired after 30 years of service weeks after Police and Crime Commissioner Vera Baird launched a probe into misconduct claimswww.chroniclelive.co.uk
And I have seen plenty of protests where people had placards and they never needed heavy duty straps to secure the boards to the poles ir for the poles to be held on to!
See any 'straps' needed here
Or here?
Yes yes you are clearly a fan of a police state.
I would say the whole of the police are under a cloud as is this government when yet more freedoms are taken from us and some of you celebrate it.
I've not seen any evidence of these "straps" yet. You have photos of them? If they are just ratchet straps then they are next to useless for locking on to anything considering they are so easily cut with just some scissors. Chains or metal cables are what you need to cause a problem. If I were to lock my motorbike to a lamp post with a strap the thief would still be laughing an hour later after he stole it in 5 seconds. That's why I use a chain.
Show me the law that says the police are legally allowed to be under a cloud oh wait you can't, you must be wrong
Soldato
delete
Last edited:
Soldato
I'm not sure about the thread title "losing respect for the police" but there's certainly a few "losing respect for some forum users" going on....
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
I think an issue is not having all the facts, mainly around just what the supposed "locking devices" actually were, if they were chains and padlocks then fair enough, the police are probably correct in arresting them even though for things like that where the only harm is inconvience to people and no actual harm, they should be arrested while committing the crime, not because they "might", but if they were cable ties or parcel tape or fabric straps or anything reasonable to secure placards, then questions seriously need to be asked about this over reaching response to something innocent
I guess the journalist was going to commit the crime of recording policing abuse
Even though they were searched and nothing was found
Last edited:
I was saying this in the JSO thread. I think the establishment allowed them to protest, and then on cue on the evening of the Coronation the police suddenly became proactive in arresting protesters, even before they actually protested!
We'll have to wait and see what they do when the next JSO protesters are sat in the road again.
We'll have to wait and see what they do when the next JSO protesters are sat in the road again.
No, again context matters here. They weren't arrested for being members of a protest group and many other people did indeed protest without being arrested.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
You didn't read what I said or didn't understand, no I'm not going to explain because it doesn't matter as it wasn't a conversation with you
LOL wat? You literally quoted me. I'm not sure you have anything to explain here, you just seem a bit confused re: the arrests.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
The quote you quoted wasn't addressed to you, so as I say, it doesn't matter, I cba explaining to you when you aren't relevant
You literally quoted me and addressed your reply to me, that's what I replied to. Now you're so confused you can't even explain what vague point you were trying to make.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,484
Stop it
If you don't understand it, it matters not as you weren't relevant to the discussion I was having with another poster, they literally used being part of a protest group as some justification for being heavy handed with the law, when being part of a protest is not illegal, if they weren't part of a protest group, they most likely would not have been stopped and arrested for something else, so being part of the protest group is a cause for the arrest if not being the result of the arrest
If you don't understand this, that is your problem, I'm not going to waste my time on this with you anymore goodbye