Did anyone else hear this.....
Discussion
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" 
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Just means that you won't have to be taken into arrest. I suspect like street bail this is all about trying to make the process quicker and less disruptive to 'normal' people. Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
oh, that's ok then.
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Just means that you won't have to be taken into arrest. I suspect like street bail this is all about trying to make the process quicker and less disruptive to 'normal' people. Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
This is all designed to acheive Mr Blair's wish of a complete fingerprint and dna database.Why aren't people arrested if the evidence is there for this?"Suspicion" is a wishy washy word.What rights do I have if I'm "suspected"? at least once I'm arrested I have the power to keep schtum if I want to.
RichBurley said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
oh, that's ok then.
If your suspected of a crime then the police have a power to arrest you... You HAVE to be suspected of a crime either way. Its up to you whether you'd rather be taken down to a station, placed in a cell etc or that they speak to you about the matter at your home etc. There is no change as to the individuals who will have there prints taken. Just the location its done in.
mr_annie_vxr said:
RichBurley said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
oh, that's ok then.
If your suspected of a crime then the police have a power to arrest you... You HAVE to be suspected of a crime either way. Its up to you whether you'd rather be taken down to a station, placed in a cell etc or that they speak to you about the matter at your home etc. There is no change as to the individuals who will have there prints taken. Just the location its done in.
Does it make things easier for Joe Public? Does it make it easier for BiB to take more finger prints? What is the Government's real motive behind this?
esselte said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Just means that you won't have to be taken into arrest. I suspect like street bail this is all about trying to make the process quicker and less disruptive to 'normal' people. Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
This is all designed to acheive Mr Blair's wish of a complete fingerprint and dna database.Why aren't people arrested if the evidence is there for this?"Suspicion" is a wishy washy word.What rights do I have if I'm "suspected"? at least once I'm arrested I have the power to keep schtum if I want to.
You always have the rights to remain silent. People are often no arrested if its joe average who is suspected of a crime but you'd rather not drag him 10 miles to a police station but work round there daily life so you can investigate it with minimum disruption. Example. Your neighbour alledges you gave him a smack over a parking dispute. We have to investigate that via interview etc. As it stands we would want to take DNA etc from you to confirm your identity and because those arrested for criminal offences have this done as a matter of course. We could arrest you take you to the nick. Hang around for an interview room etc etc. Or we could do the whole thing at your house and minimise the disruption because as a decent person you either did it and already know you shouldn't have or you didnt do it so you need minimum disruption.
mr_annie_vxr said:
RichBurley said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
oh, that's ok then.
If your suspected of a crime then the police have a power to arrest you... You HAVE to be suspected of a crime either way. Its up to you whether you'd rather be taken down to a station, placed in a cell etc or that they speak to you about the matter at your home etc. There is no change as to the individuals who will have there prints taken. Just the location its done in.
You're not arrested at a police staion you can be arrested on the street.If this makes no difference then why are the governmnet looking to allow us to be fingerprinted without being arrested?It's all an erosion isn't it?Once upon a time didn't you have to be charged with an offence before you were fingerprinted?ie 3 steps..suspected,arrested and finally charged.Now it's going to be cut to the first one,suspected.How long before even that step is removed and we are fingerprinted as a matter of course?
RichBurley said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
RichBurley said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
oh, that's ok then.
If your suspected of a crime then the police have a power to arrest you... You HAVE to be suspected of a crime either way. Its up to you whether you'd rather be taken down to a station, placed in a cell etc or that they speak to you about the matter at your home etc. There is no change as to the individuals who will have there prints taken. Just the location its done in.
Does it make things easier for Joe Public? Does it make it easier for BiB to take more finger prints? What is the Government's real motive behind this?
The same number of prints would be taken as before, it actually is harder for us as most forces have computers that scan prints and would have to use ink again. The governments motive is normaly about trying to keep police out and about and doing things by appointment which is why street bail was introduced. Its not really going to make a huge difference in practical terms.
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Just means that you won't have to be taken into arrest. I suspect like street bail this is all about trying to make the process quicker and less disruptive to 'normal' people. Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
This is all designed to acheive Mr Blair's wish of a complete fingerprint and dna database.Why aren't people arrested if the evidence is there for this?"Suspicion" is a wishy washy word.What rights do I have if I'm "suspected"? at least once I'm arrested I have the power to keep schtum if I want to.
You always have the rights to remain silent. People are often no arrested if its joe average who is suspected of a crime but you'd rather not drag him 10 miles to a police station but work round there daily life so you can investigate it with minimum disruption. Example. Your neighbour alledges you gave him a smack over a parking dispute. We have to investigate that via interview etc. As it stands we would want to take DNA etc from you to confirm your identity and because those arrested for criminal offences have this done as a matter of course. We could arrest you take you to the nick. Hang around for an interview room etc etc. Or we could do the whole thing at your house and minimise the disruption because as a decent person you either did it and already know you shouldn't have or you didnt do it so you need minimum disruption.
Did you read my first post?The issue I have with this is that we are going to be fingerprinted without being arrested,it's not the place that this will be done in but the fact it is to be done at all....
esselte said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
RichBurley said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
oh, that's ok then.
If your suspected of a crime then the police have a power to arrest you... You HAVE to be suspected of a crime either way. Its up to you whether you'd rather be taken down to a station, placed in a cell etc or that they speak to you about the matter at your home etc. There is no change as to the individuals who will have there prints taken. Just the location its done in.
You're not arrested at a police staion you can be arrested on the street.If this makes no difference then why are the governmnet looking to allow us to be fingerprinted without being arrested?It's all an erosion isn't it?Once upon a time didn't you have to be charged with an offence before you were fingerprinted?ie 3 steps..suspected,arrested and finally charged.Now it's going to be cut to the first one,suspected.How long before even that step is removed and we are fingerprinted as a matter of course?
Hey as I have said if your suspected then in most if not all cases you would be arrested. The key element is suspected. If your not suspcected then you would not be arrested. The SAME people that would have had the above done will still have it done. No more no less. IF they said everyone then i would agree. With regards the prints/charge etc. There were some notable id issues when dealing with people and a number of criminals were caught for historic matters on prints dna taken in most cases in relation to very minor offences or driving matters. Benefit far outweighs the cost in my experience.
esselte said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
esselte said:
I'm sure I heard on the radio this morning (it was actually in an article about "retail jails" )that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......
)that the Police are now going to be allowed to fingerprint anyone they suspect of committing a crime without having to go through the arrest part of this.Mr Blair is going to get his database one way or another......Just means that you won't have to be taken into arrest. I suspect like street bail this is all about trying to make the process quicker and less disruptive to 'normal' people. Again if your not suspected of a crime they won't have the power.
This is all designed to acheive Mr Blair's wish of a complete fingerprint and dna database.Why aren't people arrested if the evidence is there for this?"Suspicion" is a wishy washy word.What rights do I have if I'm "suspected"? at least once I'm arrested I have the power to keep schtum if I want to.
You always have the rights to remain silent. People are often no arrested if its joe average who is suspected of a crime but you'd rather not drag him 10 miles to a police station but work round there daily life so you can investigate it with minimum disruption. Example. Your neighbour alledges you gave him a smack over a parking dispute. We have to investigate that via interview etc. As it stands we would want to take DNA etc from you to confirm your identity and because those arrested for criminal offences have this done as a matter of course. We could arrest you take you to the nick. Hang around for an interview room etc etc. Or we could do the whole thing at your house and minimise the disruption because as a decent person you either did it and already know you shouldn't have or you didnt do it so you need minimum disruption.
Did you read my first post?The issue I have with this is that we are going to be fingerprinted without being arrested,it's not the place that this will be done in but the fact it is to be done at all....
As I said. The officers will just arrest you and take you to the police station. How is that better for you? If your not suspected of an offence then neither will happen. It just gives the investogating officer an option when dealing with the 'normal' public to not massively disrupt their lives in the course of an investigation.
Edited by mr_annie_vxr on Thursday 15th March 10:45
But if you're suspected, then why WOULDN'T you be arrested? If there's insufficient evidence to arrest, then the entitlement to take finger prints is not a given right. All this will facilitiate is peoples' print samples being taken from people who are suspected, but not worthy of arrest. If it's not worthy of arrest, then this kind of actions shouldn't be taken.
RichBurley said:
But if you're suspected, then why WOULDN'T you be arrested? If there's insufficient evidence to arrest, then the entitlement to take finger prints is not a given right. All this will facilitiate is peoples' print samples being taken from people who are suspected, but not worthy of arrest. If it's not worthy of arrest, then this kind of actions shouldn't be taken.
This is my point....
Don't forget this is also connected with a proposal to have satellite nicks in Tesco's and shopping centre to avoid the 10 mile trail back to/from the real nick.
Proposed that people when arrested can be held up to 4 hours in cells, presumably community service would be stacking tins of beans for a few shifts.
Proposed that people when arrested can be held up to 4 hours in cells, presumably community service would be stacking tins of beans for a few shifts.
I think I did explain why you would not be arrested. I will again. If a normal member of public is suspected of a crime then it would give an investigating officer the option to not have to cause them as much disruption as arresting them and taking them to a police station would. Every day normal people commit crimes that require investigation and as a result it disrupts there daily lives and can be very impactive. This would allow the option to minimise it.
Im not against this legislation as I don't see any extra people above those who would already be subject to having prints taken having them taken.
Im not against this legislation as I don't see any extra people above those who would already be subject to having prints taken having them taken.
Flat in Fifth said:
Don't forget this is also connected with a proposal to have satellite nicks in Tesco's and shopping centre to avoid the 10 mile trail back to/from the real nick.
Proposed that people when arrested can be held up to 4 hours in cells, presumably community service would be stacking tins of beans for a few shifts.
Proposed that people when arrested can be held up to 4 hours in cells, presumably community service would be stacking tins of beans for a few shifts.
I've no real argument with the satellite nicks (except..who's going to man them?)I do have a problem with "fingerprinting while being suspicious" it just seems like another small part of liberty is being removed.....Will these "suspicious" fingerprints be kept forever like the "arrested" ones?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff