Police State Starts officially Jan1st 2006
Discussion
A law the Stasi would have loved
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act is the most pernicious piece of
legislation yet introduced by this government
Henry Porter
Sunday November 6, 2005
The Observer
Before too many tears are shed over David Blunkett's departure, we should
not forget that, as Home Secretary, he was the author of a vast extension to
police powers, some of which have yet to come into force. After 1 January,
there will be almost no offence where the police cannot make an arrest and
insist on taking DNA and photographs.
That is the legacy of the man who slunk from office after a second scandal.
I feel a little sympathy for the faults that made him commit those mistakes,
but none for the disdain for individual rights displayed in the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act, a piece of legislation that will profoundly
alter the relationship between the police and the public.
The attack on liberty from Blunkett and Mr Blair has been so broad that it
has been difficult to keep track of the measures being pushed through
parliament. The proposals come thick and fast. They are widely drafted and
often disguised in a bill which appears to address one or other of the
public's major fears about terrorism and organised or violent crime.
As any Home Office lawyer could have predicted, the measures in the act that
gained most attention were the establishment of a Serious Organised Crime
Agency and the proposal that demonstrations should not be allowed within one
kilometre of parliament. For the British people to be denied access to their
own parliament seemed odious enough, but beneath the surface of this act
lurks a greater change which has nothing to do with either organised crime
or security.
The new arrest procedures contained in the bill were slipped through
parliament with barely a whisper. Tony Edwards, a solicitor with London firm
TV Edwards, regards it as the most serious extension of police powers in
decades. Few who know what these powers mean disagree.
Under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a balance was struck
between police powers and the individual's rights. There was a clear
distinction between non-arrestable offences, arrestable offences and serious
arrestable offences. Everyone knew where they stood and the public was
protected from officious or malevolently motivated police constables.
From 1 January, there will be no such distinction. Every offence will be
arrestable. That means motoring infringements, dropping litter, swearing and
behaving loudly in a demonstration will very likely end in arrest.
There are specific tests of necessity a police officer must satisfy, yet at
the end of the list come two paragraphs which give the officer complete
freedom. The first stipulates that an arrest may be carried out to allow the
prompt and 'effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the
person in question'. The second says that an arrest may take place 'to
prevent any prosecution of the offence from being hindered by the
disappearance of the person in question'.
If the officer feels he cannot satisfy the first requirement, he will
certainly take refuge in the second. Arrest is a certainty, however minor
the offence.
Now comes the sinister part. For all but a truly minor crime, the officer is
empowered, using force, if necessary, to take a sample of the suspect's DNA
from his mouth, to photograph and fingerprint him and, finally, to take
impressions of his footwear. Remember, at this stage, the suspect is just
that - a suspect. He has not been found guilty by a court and, under British
law, is therefore presumed innocent. And yet he has been forced to submit to
a humiliating process as though he were about to enter prison.
This goes against the tradition of Britain's regard for liberty and the
sense that the public is largely well-meaning and well-behaved. As important
is the effect it will have on the police who, according to the white paper
last year, requested this simplification with the unbelievable claim that
officers found it difficult to make distinctions between non-arrestable and
arrestable offences.
Most solicitors who deal with the police on a daily basis are convinced that
these new powers criminalise the public. Because every offence becomes
arrestable, it is unlikely that someone held by the police will be able to
make a case for an unlawful arrest. The sentence in the act which allows
'prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the
person in question' is a catch-all which means the police officer may say
that he was reasonably investigating someone's behaviour. East Germany's
Stasi would have been content to operate under such a provision.
So, respect for the public and law-abiding citizens who make trifling
mistakes is replaced by suspicion and contempt - unsurprisingly, the twin
characteristics which have informed Blair and Blunkett's attack on liberty.
Arresting someone, photographing and forcibly taking samples from them
places an individual in an entirely different relationship with the state
from the one most of us have known.
Naturally, there will be a vast increase in the number of DNA samples taken
from suspects. The current rate of new samples runs at between 8,000 and
10,000 a week. Liberty, the human-rights organisation, already reports that
one-third of DNA samples are taken from Afro-Caribbean males.
For a lawyer, the Prime Minister has astonishingly little regard for the
immutable principles of British justice. Blunkett has been his Dr
Strangelove in this campaign, and one of their main strategies was to
introduce controls and harsher penalties by stealth. It is hardly any wonder
that the prison population is heading towards 80,000 (it was 60,000 when
Labour came to power) while the crime rate is actually going down.
Bills such as those covering anti-terror measures, violent crime and the
introduction of identity cards all seek to extend control over the general
population and lock up more people.
Asbos are a good example of how a loosely drafted law can become a potent
but also unjust weapon. Because the penalty for breaking an Asbo is five
years, people are being jailed for longer periods than laid down for the
original crime they may have committed. Often, no crime is involved. An
order may simply specify that a couple should stop rowing, as we saw last
week, or that a man may not sit in the front passenger seat of a car, an
order imposed by Birmingham magistrates court. Even if no crime has been
committed, breaching the Asbo can lead to imprisonment.
One little-remarked-upon measure in the Serious Organised Crime and Police
Act allows accountable public bodies to seek Asbos against individuals,
while in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, a variant allows police to issue
a dispersal order (with no court involved) to people who are not doing
anything wrong but who might at some future date, in a police officer's
opinion, be involved in illegal activity. If they break it, they risk
imprisonment. Imagine how that could be used to stifle the right to
demonstrate.
Blair is, without doubt, the most authoritarian leader we have had in the
last century. In assuming powers beyond those taken by any other peacetime
Prime Minister, he is attacking rights which have stood for hundreds of
years. We can only hope that last week's rebellion on the anti-terrorism
bill is a sign of things to come. MP's of all hues now have a grave
responsibility. They are the stewards of our democracy and they should damn
well start behaving like it.
Regards
John Hein
Editor
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act is the most pernicious piece of
legislation yet introduced by this government
Henry Porter
Sunday November 6, 2005
The Observer
Before too many tears are shed over David Blunkett's departure, we should
not forget that, as Home Secretary, he was the author of a vast extension to
police powers, some of which have yet to come into force. After 1 January,
there will be almost no offence where the police cannot make an arrest and
insist on taking DNA and photographs.
That is the legacy of the man who slunk from office after a second scandal.
I feel a little sympathy for the faults that made him commit those mistakes,
but none for the disdain for individual rights displayed in the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act, a piece of legislation that will profoundly
alter the relationship between the police and the public.
The attack on liberty from Blunkett and Mr Blair has been so broad that it
has been difficult to keep track of the measures being pushed through
parliament. The proposals come thick and fast. They are widely drafted and
often disguised in a bill which appears to address one or other of the
public's major fears about terrorism and organised or violent crime.
As any Home Office lawyer could have predicted, the measures in the act that
gained most attention were the establishment of a Serious Organised Crime
Agency and the proposal that demonstrations should not be allowed within one
kilometre of parliament. For the British people to be denied access to their
own parliament seemed odious enough, but beneath the surface of this act
lurks a greater change which has nothing to do with either organised crime
or security.
The new arrest procedures contained in the bill were slipped through
parliament with barely a whisper. Tony Edwards, a solicitor with London firm
TV Edwards, regards it as the most serious extension of police powers in
decades. Few who know what these powers mean disagree.
Under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a balance was struck
between police powers and the individual's rights. There was a clear
distinction between non-arrestable offences, arrestable offences and serious
arrestable offences. Everyone knew where they stood and the public was
protected from officious or malevolently motivated police constables.
From 1 January, there will be no such distinction. Every offence will be
arrestable. That means motoring infringements, dropping litter, swearing and
behaving loudly in a demonstration will very likely end in arrest.
There are specific tests of necessity a police officer must satisfy, yet at
the end of the list come two paragraphs which give the officer complete
freedom. The first stipulates that an arrest may be carried out to allow the
prompt and 'effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the
person in question'. The second says that an arrest may take place 'to
prevent any prosecution of the offence from being hindered by the
disappearance of the person in question'.
If the officer feels he cannot satisfy the first requirement, he will
certainly take refuge in the second. Arrest is a certainty, however minor
the offence.
Now comes the sinister part. For all but a truly minor crime, the officer is
empowered, using force, if necessary, to take a sample of the suspect's DNA
from his mouth, to photograph and fingerprint him and, finally, to take
impressions of his footwear. Remember, at this stage, the suspect is just
that - a suspect. He has not been found guilty by a court and, under British
law, is therefore presumed innocent. And yet he has been forced to submit to
a humiliating process as though he were about to enter prison.
This goes against the tradition of Britain's regard for liberty and the
sense that the public is largely well-meaning and well-behaved. As important
is the effect it will have on the police who, according to the white paper
last year, requested this simplification with the unbelievable claim that
officers found it difficult to make distinctions between non-arrestable and
arrestable offences.
Most solicitors who deal with the police on a daily basis are convinced that
these new powers criminalise the public. Because every offence becomes
arrestable, it is unlikely that someone held by the police will be able to
make a case for an unlawful arrest. The sentence in the act which allows
'prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the
person in question' is a catch-all which means the police officer may say
that he was reasonably investigating someone's behaviour. East Germany's
Stasi would have been content to operate under such a provision.
So, respect for the public and law-abiding citizens who make trifling
mistakes is replaced by suspicion and contempt - unsurprisingly, the twin
characteristics which have informed Blair and Blunkett's attack on liberty.
Arresting someone, photographing and forcibly taking samples from them
places an individual in an entirely different relationship with the state
from the one most of us have known.
Naturally, there will be a vast increase in the number of DNA samples taken
from suspects. The current rate of new samples runs at between 8,000 and
10,000 a week. Liberty, the human-rights organisation, already reports that
one-third of DNA samples are taken from Afro-Caribbean males.
For a lawyer, the Prime Minister has astonishingly little regard for the
immutable principles of British justice. Blunkett has been his Dr
Strangelove in this campaign, and one of their main strategies was to
introduce controls and harsher penalties by stealth. It is hardly any wonder
that the prison population is heading towards 80,000 (it was 60,000 when
Labour came to power) while the crime rate is actually going down.
Bills such as those covering anti-terror measures, violent crime and the
introduction of identity cards all seek to extend control over the general
population and lock up more people.
Asbos are a good example of how a loosely drafted law can become a potent
but also unjust weapon. Because the penalty for breaking an Asbo is five
years, people are being jailed for longer periods than laid down for the
original crime they may have committed. Often, no crime is involved. An
order may simply specify that a couple should stop rowing, as we saw last
week, or that a man may not sit in the front passenger seat of a car, an
order imposed by Birmingham magistrates court. Even if no crime has been
committed, breaching the Asbo can lead to imprisonment.
One little-remarked-upon measure in the Serious Organised Crime and Police
Act allows accountable public bodies to seek Asbos against individuals,
while in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, a variant allows police to issue
a dispersal order (with no court involved) to people who are not doing
anything wrong but who might at some future date, in a police officer's
opinion, be involved in illegal activity. If they break it, they risk
imprisonment. Imagine how that could be used to stifle the right to
demonstrate.
Blair is, without doubt, the most authoritarian leader we have had in the
last century. In assuming powers beyond those taken by any other peacetime
Prime Minister, he is attacking rights which have stood for hundreds of
years. We can only hope that last week's rebellion on the anti-terrorism
bill is a sign of things to come. MP's of all hues now have a grave
responsibility. They are the stewards of our democracy and they should damn
well start behaving like it.
Regards
John Hein
Editor
As with most things, it seems, things have to become totally unacceptable before people sit up and take notice. Perhaps when this starts to bite there will at last be a groundswell of opinion that things have gone too far. Then there could be chaos as the dams burst. Burning speed cameras could well be trivial in comparison.
Peter Ward said:
As with most things, it seems, things have to become totally unacceptable before people sit up and take notice. Perhaps when this starts to bite there will at last be a groundswell of opinion that things have gone too far. Then there could be chaos as the dams burst. Burning speed cameras could well be trivial in comparison.
Let's hope so, because our fundamental liberty is far more important than a bit of short-term chaos.
We've had civil wars before now for intrusions less than this.
We've now got "nice view tax" and the distinct possibility of arrest just fe being outside your own home, the inability to protest to parliament about this and a whoile raft of other, insidious, legislation designed to control and shepherd us.
Time for us to main the barricades and get rid of the lawyers who are killing this country
We've now got "nice view tax" and the distinct possibility of arrest just fe being outside your own home, the inability to protest to parliament about this and a whoile raft of other, insidious, legislation designed to control and shepherd us.
Time for us to main the barricades and get rid of the lawyers who are killing this country
Well.... they're right. Though perhaps it's not a Police State, more like a Centralised State with the Police used as a controlling arm, along with the armies of Blairite paymen.
Though this isn't a criticism of the Police - our BiB - it's the Politicised service.
There will be plenty of Senior Coppers willing to jump on the gravy train to curry favour, doubtless. Like that idiot Hayman, who was our CC here before, and is a *twat* - a view also shared by the local Coppers.
I am amazed that Senior Police are allowed to tout so openly politically, and that they can be used by Bliar and BigEars in such a way.
I wonder what would have happened if one of our BiB posted here that they opposed this ; the "Service" seems to try to shut them up for far less (or, in fact, AFAICS nothing !). Pathetic.
These morons don't realise that the input here of *real* *working* coppers does far more for the "Police Force" than the prattlings of ACPO idiots and the PR department.
Though this isn't a criticism of the Police - our BiB - it's the Politicised service.
There will be plenty of Senior Coppers willing to jump on the gravy train to curry favour, doubtless. Like that idiot Hayman, who was our CC here before, and is a *twat* - a view also shared by the local Coppers.
I am amazed that Senior Police are allowed to tout so openly politically, and that they can be used by Bliar and BigEars in such a way.
I wonder what would have happened if one of our BiB posted here that they opposed this ; the "Service" seems to try to shut them up for far less (or, in fact, AFAICS nothing !). Pathetic.
These morons don't realise that the input here of *real* *working* coppers does far more for the "Police Force" than the prattlings of ACPO idiots and the PR department.
Right or wrong, this is a change to the law and needed to passed in front of parliament. Our duly elected representatives then would have been able to pass or reject this legislation. So, who do we have to blame? Yep, us - we elected this lot and we have only ourselves to blame....
It could have been stopped but wasnt. Or is this a case that it isnt as bad as stated in the obviously opinionated article? I dont know, but two sides and due process - in the end we elected the people into power and now they are doing this.....
It could have been stopped but wasnt. Or is this a case that it isnt as bad as stated in the obviously opinionated article? I dont know, but two sides and due process - in the end we elected the people into power and now they are doing this.....
Hang on.... I think this is being blown out of all proportion. This bill does little more than confirm powers, many of which have been in existence for years. Sectioon 25 PACE has always allowed arrest where the Officer believes details are false or an offender refuses details/runs of etc....
As for fingerprints and DNA, Police have always taken FP, Photo and DNA after charge/caution etc... We can now take them on arrest, FOR AN ARRESTABLE OFFENCE and before a person is charged. Personally I don't have a problem with it. IMHO every person should give FP and DNA in order to get a National Insurance Number. Every single week in this country offenders are being brought to book for serious offences, e.g. murders, sexual offences which took place years ago, due to their FPs/DNA being taken when they get arrested for drink-drive offence or a "minor matter."
If we'd had these powers years ago there would be a great many people who would not have been the victims of some horrific crimes.
As for fingerprints and DNA, Police have always taken FP, Photo and DNA after charge/caution etc... We can now take them on arrest, FOR AN ARRESTABLE OFFENCE and before a person is charged. Personally I don't have a problem with it. IMHO every person should give FP and DNA in order to get a National Insurance Number. Every single week in this country offenders are being brought to book for serious offences, e.g. murders, sexual offences which took place years ago, due to their FPs/DNA being taken when they get arrested for drink-drive offence or a "minor matter."
If we'd had these powers years ago there would be a great many people who would not have been the victims of some horrific crimes.
xxplod said:
Hang on.... I think this is being blown out of all proportion. This bill does little more than confirm powers, many of which have been in existence for years. Sectioon 25 PACE has always allowed arrest where the Officer believes details are false or an offender refuses details/runs of etc....
As for fingerprints and DNA, Police have always taken FP, Photo and DNA after charge/caution etc... We can now take them on arrest, FOR AN ARRESTABLE OFFENCE and before a person is charged. Personally I don't have a problem with it. IMHO every person should give FP and DNA in order to get a National Insurance Number. Every single week in this country offenders are being brought to book for serious offences, e.g. murders, sexual offences which took place years ago, due to their FPs/DNA being taken when they get arrested for drink-drive offence or a "minor matter."
If we'd had these powers years ago there would be a great many people who would not have been the victims of some horrific crimes.
DNA isn't a panacea. It basically can only EXCLUDE a suspect. The data isn't actually good enough to convict without some fast work by the Prosecution. It should be used very carefully and not in a shotgun fashion. It is also very easy to transfer or corrupt DNA evidence which means it needs to be used much more carefully than it is at present.
www.portia.org/chapter07/DNA.html
www.scandals.org/articles/pk021019.html
>> Edited by telecat on Friday 11th November 11:37
>> Edited by telecat on Friday 11th November 11:48
The introduction of legislation like this alienates law abiding citizens which in effect lessens the ability of the police to tackle crime. 10 years ago I would have gone out of my way to help the police, however I feel now that its in my interest to keep contact with the police down to a minimum if at all possible..... the police and public used to be on the same side, now the police are more like nightclub bouncers than public servants. This kind of legislation makes this feeling worse. Politicians and senior police officers are taking away the beat officers most valuble resource!
xxplod said:But isn't this bill in effect making ANYTHING an arrestable offence? Is make the highly controversial "suss" law look pretty tame.
We can now take them on arrest, FOR AN ARRESTABLE OFFENCE and before a person is charged. Personally I don't have a problem with it
Yes Blair had a face like thunder when someone, rightly, called "Police State". Remember also the recent initiatives to "rationalise" the Police forces the better to bring them under proper state control.
Am I the only one who thinks that the whole 90 days/28 days issue was something, in typical True Labour style, trumped up to deflect scrutiny from the real aims of this bill?
off_again said:
Right or wrong, this is a change to the law and needed to passed in front of parliament. Our duly elected representatives then would have been able to pass or reject this legislation. So, who do we have to blame? Yep, us - we elected this lot and we have only ourselves to blame....
It could have been stopped but wasnt. Or is this a case that it isnt as bad as stated in the obviously opinionated article? I dont know, but two sides and due process - in the end we elected the people into power and now they are doing this.....
This bill was rushed through in the last couple of days of the last parliament. (i.e. just before the election) It may be that practicalities prevented the normal degree of scrutiny. At the same time the ill concieved 'Road Safety Bill' ran out of time and has been started again at the beginning of the process.
victormeldrew said:
We can now take them on arrest, FOR AN ARRESTABLE OFFENCE and before a person is charged. Personally I don't have a problem with it
Yes Blair had a face like thunder when someone, rightly, called "Police State". Remember also the recent initiatives to "rationalise" the Police forces the better to bring them under proper state control.
Am I the only one who thinks that the whole 90 days/28 days issue was something, in typical True Labour style, trumped up to deflect scrutiny from the real aims of this bill?
Did anyone else spot the wonderful irony of the news this morning of the English couple taken into custody in Iraq? They landed their yacht on disputed territory in a country we're at war with, and then were kept locked up for 13 days without being told what for while being questioned. Isn't that the whole point of the new UK terror legislation?
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 11th November 12:57
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13460698,00.html
sky said:
Probe Into Terror Vote
Updated: 07:34, Friday November 11, 2005
The Prime Minister could face a Commons inquiry into claims of Government "politicisation" of police chiefs over new anti-terror laws.
Tories are unhappy that chief constables lobbied and wrote to their MPs, urging them to support powers to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge.
Despite endorsement from the police, the proposal was rejected by MPs in Tony Blair's first Commons defeat on Wednesday.
Senior members of the Conservative Party have tabled a Parliamentary motion condemning ministers for "embroiling" the police in politics.
They are suggesting there may have been a link between the police support for the Government and worries over job cuts in forces across the country.
Peter Lilley, one of those behind the motion, said: "Every chief constable knows their job is up for re-selection in the next year or so. That puts great pressure on them."
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis added his voice to those expressing concern, saying: "I think the position of the chief constables looks a little political."
The Home Affairs Select Committee is to investigate chief constables' arguments for extending detention without trial.
telecat said:
Hang on.... I think this is being blown out of all proportion. This bill does little more than confirm powers, many of which have been in existence for years. Sectioon 25 PACE has always allowed arrest where the Officer believes details are false or an offender refuses details/runs of etc....
As for fingerprints and DNA, Police have always taken FP, Photo and DNA after charge/caution etc... We can now take them on arrest, FOR AN ARRESTABLE OFFENCE and before a person is charged. Personally I don't have a problem with it. IMHO every person should give FP and DNA in order to get a National Insurance Number. Every single week in this country offenders are being brought to book for serious offences, e.g. murders, sexual offences which took place years ago, due to their FPs/DNA being taken when they get arrested for drink-drive offence or a "minor matter."
If we'd had these powers years ago there would be a great many people who would not have been the victims of some horrific crimes.
DNA isn't a panacea. It basically can only EXCLUDE a suspect. The data isn't actually good enough to convict without some fast work by the Prosecution. It should be used very carefully and not in a shotgun fashion. It is also very easy to transfer or corrupt DNA evidence which means it needs to be used much more carefully than it is at present.
www.portia.org/chapter07/DNA.html
www.scandals.org/articles/pk021019.html
>> Edited by telecat on Friday 11th November 11:37
>> Edited by telecat on Friday 11th November 11:48
Absolutely - look at the mess the DVLA database is in. I know you don't actually transfer DNA or fingerprints, but if EVERYONE was on the database, you can see some opportunist criminals hacking in and swapping their data with someone else's...cue innocent people going to jail because "computer says guilty"!
safespeed said:
Right or wrong, this is a change to the law and needed to passed in front of parliament. Our duly elected representatives then would have been able to pass or reject this legislation. So, who do we have to blame? Yep, us - we elected this lot and we have only ourselves to blame....
It could have been stopped but wasnt. Or is this a case that it isnt as bad as stated in the obviously opinionated article? I dont know, but two sides and due process - in the end we elected the people into power and now they are doing this.....
This bill was rushed through in the last couple of days of the last parliament. (i.e. just before the election) It may be that practicalities prevented the normal degree of scrutiny. At the same time the ill concieved 'Road Safety Bill' ran out of time and has been started again at the beginning of the process.
Absolutely - there are ways and means of getting a bill through parliament. BUT, if it wasnt picked up and questioned by the opposition parties then it is a failing of the political process isnt it? Surely there must have been someone in the Libs or Cons who saw this and disagreed? Or maybe they didnt..... I dont know.
What is for sure though - we elected this piss-poor shower of politicians - regardless of party. If it was labour who introduced the bill and the Libs and Cons didnt stop it - who can we blame? Labour has a much reduced majority and the due political process is plainly not working in our favour.
Sensationalist journalistic rubbish, designed to scare the crap out of you, without encouraging you to think it through.
Right, so there was no problem with officious or malevolently motivated police constables before. No PH'ers have ever been on here complaining of that then. No one's had problems before, is that right. You are saying it was all perfect in the past, but not anymore because of this bill. Well written that. Extremely misleading, but well written enough to fool you unless you know better.
Really, it will will it. The author has such intimate knowledge of police procedures that he can state that even dropping litter will very likely end in arrest. Or other things. Right then, you had all better be really worried, 'cos this faceless wonder has said that it will happen. Somehow he knows it will. The good thing is you don't have to think about it, he's done all that for you. You just need to be worried. Let's face it, you've all had so much trouble in the past haven't you. You've all been so close to the line, that the only thing that saved you from these corrupt constables was the last bit of legislation. Most folk on here will probalby never have been in too much bother, but now you think you are all gonna end up banged up, just 'cos some person says it.
Bloody hell, this guys clever. Now he KNOWS that arrest is a certainty, however minor the offence. He must psychic. Somehow he knows that the copper will CERTAINLY take refuge in the second...arrest is a CERTAINTY... And lets face it, it really is asking it too much isn't it. The Old Bill stop someone and believe that the person is going to leg it, and how disgraceful, they are gonna arrest him. As we all know, all constables are crooked, so they are gonna use it against you when you drop litter, or speed. Yeah, it's happened so many times to you hasn't it. No, I thought not.
Brilliant, I've been waiting for this, hope it's not too sinister....
EH! Is that IT! I take it few PH'ers have ever been arrested then. I've got news for you guys, the above has been going on for ages. I must admit to being really worried when I read that they could take impressions of my footwear. That really scared the sh.t out of me. DNA, fingerprints, hair samples, clothes analysis, it's already there. Thing is, it's usually (but not always) been used for the more 'serious' offences. No one seemed to be too bothered about that, so is it only worrying YOU now that it might affect YOU directly. Well you should be worried, 'cos this guy has told you to be.
What an UNBELIEVABLE claim. Those involved make the claim, and say they found it difficult to make distinctions, but this guy somehow knows that that is ridiculous. Then, just to suggest to you that there might be something underhand, he uses the word unbelievable. Very clever.
No evidence offered to support this, but you say so it's true, so we all get worried.
So he is suggesting that for a case of unlawful arrest, the offence should not be classified as arrestable. This is so misleading it's frightening, you decide whether or not he's done it on purpose to deliberately mislead and worry ya. Not only is this incorrect, you need to question everyone that uses the word 'unlikely' to justify his scaremongering. It either will or it wont. Check and state the facts, or stop misleading folk.
Most folk know just enough about the Stasi to be worried, without knowing why. Very clever. Very very clever.
It always has done, this hasn't changed it, but lets ignore that if we can scare people, right.
Naturally....because you say so. No evidence or empirical data to support it, but hey, don't let that get in the way of your worrying 'facts'.
And. Whats your point. I presume you are suggesting that this means it's unfair. right then, publish the data. If you've got it. Which you probably haven't. We need to be honest (even if it's not PC). A 'percentage' in and of itself is not unfair. Even if it does not reflect populations. A third of samples MAY mean they are being targeted. It MAY mean they are crooks. Without evidence, it's easy to twist it into a worrying trend.
Now I'm confused. All we hear nowadays is how the crime rate is going up, yet another failing by Bliar. Yet when that doesn't support the argument, we start saying that the crime rate is going down. No one seems to notice, 'cos they are so scared by this unsunstantiated drivel intended to scare folk witless.
When you make a statement like this, it helps to substantiate it with extracts, or examples, or witness statements, etc. Otherwise it could be taken as you hoping to make a lot of money from a good story, but not having to do any work in supporting it whatsoever.
Yep, and round our way we get get disruptive behaviour, and some old folk are genuinely living in fear (terror is probably not too strong a word) and shops are closing 'cos of the shop lifting, and groups of brain dead mindles young dickheads are scaring the sh't out of women on a daily basis. Some of these tw@ts get Asbos. But your examples suggest that Asbos are wrong. I would suggest that a minute percentage of PH'ers have been involved with Asbos (if any), but somehow you've managed to make it sound as if they've been introduced as an attack on the everyday citizen. Well done.
Amazingly you've identified something that could be a genuine concern. This needs a bit more discussion of exactly how, when , where, who and why. not surprisingly these have been left out. Just enough comments to get folk worried, but no extracts or data. Again.
Yes, and journalism carries responsibility as well. You want to try it.
What gets to me is that I have been in trouble in the past, yet I seem less worried by the Old Bill than some who have never been in trouble. XXplod and others don't worry me, 'cos when I've done something 'wrong', I knew what the risks were. I took a chance, the BiB got me, they were generally normal, I did the crime then the time. Nowadays when I come across the Old Bill, they are generally A-okay. The BiB that write on here say we should trust them, but then this journalist comes on and without any evidence, tries to get everyone worried that they are living in a Stalinist State. And folk seem to be buying it. Without any evidence whatsoever.
Seems to be the norm nowadays. Try and scare the crap out of everyone. You may ruin a few lives, or cause sleepless nights, but if the sensationalist writing sells more papers, then thats okay.
99.9% of folk live within the law, but oooh, look out, the bad men are coming to get us.
yeah right.
matchless said:
Under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a balance was struck
between police powers and the individual's rights. There was a clear
distinction between non-arrestable offences, arrestable offences and serious
arrestable offences. Everyone knew where they stood and the public was
protected from officious or malevolently motivated police constables.
Right, so there was no problem with officious or malevolently motivated police constables before. No PH'ers have ever been on here complaining of that then. No one's had problems before, is that right. You are saying it was all perfect in the past, but not anymore because of this bill. Well written that. Extremely misleading, but well written enough to fool you unless you know better.
matchless said:
From 1 January, there will be no such distinction. Every offence will be
arrestable. That means motoring infringements, dropping litter, swearing and
behaving loudly in a demonstration will very likely end in arrest.
Really, it will will it. The author has such intimate knowledge of police procedures that he can state that even dropping litter will very likely end in arrest. Or other things. Right then, you had all better be really worried, 'cos this faceless wonder has said that it will happen. Somehow he knows it will. The good thing is you don't have to think about it, he's done all that for you. You just need to be worried. Let's face it, you've all had so much trouble in the past haven't you. You've all been so close to the line, that the only thing that saved you from these corrupt constables was the last bit of legislation. Most folk on here will probalby never have been in too much bother, but now you think you are all gonna end up banged up, just 'cos some person says it.
matchless said:
There are specific tests of necessity a police officer must satisfy, yet at
the end of the list come two paragraphs which give the officer complete
freedom. The first stipulates that an arrest may be carried out to allow the
prompt and 'effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the
person in question'. The second says that an arrest may take place 'to
prevent any prosecution of the offence from being hindered by the
disappearance of the person in question'.
If the officer feels he cannot satisfy the first requirement, he will
certainly take refuge in the second. Arrest is a certainty, however minor
the offence.
Bloody hell, this guys clever. Now he KNOWS that arrest is a certainty, however minor the offence. He must psychic. Somehow he knows that the copper will CERTAINLY take refuge in the second...arrest is a CERTAINTY... And lets face it, it really is asking it too much isn't it. The Old Bill stop someone and believe that the person is going to leg it, and how disgraceful, they are gonna arrest him. As we all know, all constables are crooked, so they are gonna use it against you when you drop litter, or speed. Yeah, it's happened so many times to you hasn't it. No, I thought not.
matchless said:
Now comes the sinister part.
Brilliant, I've been waiting for this, hope it's not too sinister....
matchless said:
For all but a truly minor crime, the officer is
empowered, using force, if necessary, to take a sample of the suspect's DNA
from his mouth, to photograph and fingerprint him and, finally, to take
impressions of his footwear. Remember, at this stage, the suspect is just
that - a suspect. He has not been found guilty by a court and, under British
law, is therefore presumed innocent. And yet he has been forced to submit to
a humiliating process as though he were about to enter prison.
EH! Is that IT! I take it few PH'ers have ever been arrested then. I've got news for you guys, the above has been going on for ages. I must admit to being really worried when I read that they could take impressions of my footwear. That really scared the sh.t out of me. DNA, fingerprints, hair samples, clothes analysis, it's already there. Thing is, it's usually (but not always) been used for the more 'serious' offences. No one seemed to be too bothered about that, so is it only worrying YOU now that it might affect YOU directly. Well you should be worried, 'cos this guy has told you to be.
matchless said:
...the police who, according to the white paper
last year, requested this simplification with the unbelievable claim that
officers found it difficult to make distinctions between non-arrestable and
arrestable offences.
What an UNBELIEVABLE claim. Those involved make the claim, and say they found it difficult to make distinctions, but this guy somehow knows that that is ridiculous. Then, just to suggest to you that there might be something underhand, he uses the word unbelievable. Very clever.
matchless said:
Most solicitors who deal with the police on a daily basis are convinced that these new powers criminalise the public.
No evidence offered to support this, but you say so it's true, so we all get worried.
matchless said:
Because every offence becomes arrestable, it is unlikely that someone held by the police will be able to make a case for an unlawful arrest.
So he is suggesting that for a case of unlawful arrest, the offence should not be classified as arrestable. This is so misleading it's frightening, you decide whether or not he's done it on purpose to deliberately mislead and worry ya. Not only is this incorrect, you need to question everyone that uses the word 'unlikely' to justify his scaremongering. It either will or it wont. Check and state the facts, or stop misleading folk.
matchless said:
The sentence in the act which allows
'prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the
person in question' is a catch-all which means the police officer may say
that he was reasonably investigating someone's behaviour. East Germany's
Stasi would have been content to operate under such a provision.
Most folk know just enough about the Stasi to be worried, without knowing why. Very clever. Very very clever.
matchless said:
Arresting someone, photographing and forcibly taking samples from them
places an individual in an entirely different relationship with the state from the one most of us have known.
It always has done, this hasn't changed it, but lets ignore that if we can scare people, right.
matchless said:
Naturally, there will be a vast increase in the number of DNA samples taken from suspects.
Naturally....because you say so. No evidence or empirical data to support it, but hey, don't let that get in the way of your worrying 'facts'.
matchless said:
The current rate of new samples runs at between 8,000 and 10,000 a week. Liberty, the human-rights organisation, already reports that one-third of DNA samples are taken from Afro-Caribbean males.
And. Whats your point. I presume you are suggesting that this means it's unfair. right then, publish the data. If you've got it. Which you probably haven't. We need to be honest (even if it's not PC). A 'percentage' in and of itself is not unfair. Even if it does not reflect populations. A third of samples MAY mean they are being targeted. It MAY mean they are crooks. Without evidence, it's easy to twist it into a worrying trend.
matchless said:
....while the crime rate is actually going down.
Now I'm confused. All we hear nowadays is how the crime rate is going up, yet another failing by Bliar. Yet when that doesn't support the argument, we start saying that the crime rate is going down. No one seems to notice, 'cos they are so scared by this unsunstantiated drivel intended to scare folk witless.
matchless said:
Bills such as those covering anti-terror measures, violent crime and the introduction of identity cards all seek to extend control over the general population and lock up more people.
When you make a statement like this, it helps to substantiate it with extracts, or examples, or witness statements, etc. Otherwise it could be taken as you hoping to make a lot of money from a good story, but not having to do any work in supporting it whatsoever.
matchless said:
Asbos are a good example of how a loosely drafted law can become a potent but also unjust weapon. Because the penalty for breaking an Asbo is five years, people are being jailed for longer periods than laid down for then original crime they may have committed. Often, no crime is involved. An
order may simply specify that a couple should stop rowing, as we saw last week, or that a man may not sit in the front passenger seat of a car, an order imposed by Birmingham magistrates court. Even if no crime has been committed, breaching the Asbo can lead to imprisonment.
Yep, and round our way we get get disruptive behaviour, and some old folk are genuinely living in fear (terror is probably not too strong a word) and shops are closing 'cos of the shop lifting, and groups of brain dead mindles young dickheads are scaring the sh't out of women on a daily basis. Some of these tw@ts get Asbos. But your examples suggest that Asbos are wrong. I would suggest that a minute percentage of PH'ers have been involved with Asbos (if any), but somehow you've managed to make it sound as if they've been introduced as an attack on the everyday citizen. Well done.
matchless said:
...a variant allows police to issue
a dispersal order (with no court involved) to people who are not doing
anything wrong but who might at some future date, in a police officer's
opinion, be involved in illegal activity. If they break it, they risk
imprisonment. Imagine how that could be used to stifle the right to
demonstrate..
Amazingly you've identified something that could be a genuine concern. This needs a bit more discussion of exactly how, when , where, who and why. not surprisingly these have been left out. Just enough comments to get folk worried, but no extracts or data. Again.
matchless said:
...
Blair is, without doubt, the most authoritarian leader we have had in the
last century. In assuming powers beyond those taken by any other peacetime
Prime Minister, he is attacking rights which have stood for hundreds of
years. We can only hope that last week's rebellion on the anti-terrorism
bill is a sign of things to come. MP's of all hues now have a grave
responsibility. They are the stewards of our democracy and they should damn
well start behaving like it.
Yes, and journalism carries responsibility as well. You want to try it.
What gets to me is that I have been in trouble in the past, yet I seem less worried by the Old Bill than some who have never been in trouble. XXplod and others don't worry me, 'cos when I've done something 'wrong', I knew what the risks were. I took a chance, the BiB got me, they were generally normal, I did the crime then the time. Nowadays when I come across the Old Bill, they are generally A-okay. The BiB that write on here say we should trust them, but then this journalist comes on and without any evidence, tries to get everyone worried that they are living in a Stalinist State. And folk seem to be buying it. Without any evidence whatsoever.
Seems to be the norm nowadays. Try and scare the crap out of everyone. You may ruin a few lives, or cause sleepless nights, but if the sensationalist writing sells more papers, then thats okay.
99.9% of folk live within the law, but oooh, look out, the bad men are coming to get us.
yeah right.
telecat said:
DNA isn't a panacea. It basically can only EXCLUDE a suspect. The data isn't actually good enough to convict without some fast work by the Prosecution. It should be used very carefully and not in a shotgun fashion. It is also very easy to transfer or corrupt DNA evidence which means it needs to be used much more carefully than it is at present.
>> Edited by telecat on Friday 11th November 11:48
DNA is abused royally.
The problem is the statistics quoted in court and the media are blatant misdirection.
The probability is not the "chance of a match" but the most likely event that could cause a match.
So saying there is only one in a hundred billion chance of a false match is drivel because there are other much more likely events that could cause a match ; experimental error, sample contamination, or dishonest coppers (even if there is only one bent cop in the whole UK !)
(The Police do understand this. When the Scottish cops requested DNA samples from their recruits, there was a row because they said it would be too easy for people to plant evidence etc......)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff