More work for our BiB
Discussion
The Daily Mail -- 12th August 2004 said:
Blunkett: Every offence arrestable
Radical proposals to make every criminal offence arrestable are set to be published by Home Secretary David Blunkett.
The measure, set out in a consultation document, would be a major departure from the traditional patchwork of arrestable and non-arrestable offences in England and Wales.
"There is a reasonably complicated set-up at the moment regarding whether an offence is arrestable or not, which is not immediately clear to the public," said a Home Office source.
"This document looks at whether we can simplify that situation and whether we should look at making all offences arrestable."
He added: "It does not mean police could make an arrest willy-nilly. It will still have to be reasonably serious for an offence to be made."
At present, officers can generally arrest a member of the public if they suspect them of committing an offence which carries a punishment of at least five years' imprisonment, although the situation is made more complex by a number of exemptions for lesser offences which have been introduced in recent years.
The source said: "Why not just say that if you are committing an offence you can be arrested for it?"
The consultation paper will also propose significant reform of the search warrants system, in a bid to make them less restricted.
At present, warrants are linked to specific addresses and expire after a certain amount of time.
"The paper will be looking at whether it ought to apply to a person rather than to an address and whether the court which grants the warrant should be able to set an appropriate time limit, whether that should be longer or shorter than it is at the moment," said the source.
streaky said:
The Daily Mail -- 12th August 2004 said:
Blunkett: Every offence arrestable
Radical proposals to make every criminal offence arrestable are set to be published by Home Secretary David Blunkett.
The measure, set out in a consultation document, would be a major departure from the traditional patchwork of arrestable and non-arrestable offences in England and Wales.
"There is a reasonably complicated set-up at the moment regarding whether an offence is arrestable or not, which is not immediately clear to the public," said a Home Office source.
"This document looks at whether we can simplify that situation and whether we should look at making all offences arrestable."
He added: "It does not mean police could make an arrest willy-nilly. It will still have to be reasonably serious for an offence to be made."
At present, officers can generally arrest a member of the public if they suspect them of committing an offence which carries a punishment of at least five years' imprisonment, although the situation is made more complex by a number of exemptions for lesser offences which have been introduced in recent years.
The source said: "Why not just say that if you are committing an offence you can be arrested for it?"
The consultation paper will also propose significant reform of the search warrants system, in a bid to make them less restricted.
At present, warrants are linked to specific addresses and expire after a certain amount of time.
"The paper will be looking at whether it ought to apply to a person rather than to an address and whether the court which grants the warrant should be able to set an appropriate time limit, whether that should be longer or shorter than it is at the moment," said the source.
Blunkett was recently described by a Sunday paper writer as "a dangerous Stalinist".Is he out to prove it?
We read many reports on the coming police state. What do the BiB think of this latest development?
>> Edited by Tafia on Thursday 12th August 10:41
plotloss said:
Does this not ultimately mean that there will be LESS coppers on the beat because they will be all tied up in the station filling in paperwork pertaining to an arrest?
More blatant headline grabbing by the numpties in charge
The example given in the news was being arrested for littering, FFS the BiB don't have enough resources to deal with their job at the moment
I've always said that Blunkett was a classic case of "The blind leading the blind" !
Still, as you rarely see a BiB these days, I don't think there's much to worry about on that score. Unless, of course, Blind Pugh extends this ruling to the Copper's Assistants we now see roaming the streets.
David
Still, as you rarely see a BiB these days, I don't think there's much to worry about on that score. Unless, of course, Blind Pugh extends this ruling to the Copper's Assistants we now see roaming the streets.
David
plotloss said:
Can you not see how silly you are being David?
I reckon the intent here, i.e. to untie coppers hands when dealing with those issues that they are currently unable to arrest for......and the crim knows it, is in the right direction.
No doubt labour will screw up the implementation requiring a gazillion more office workers to process the mountains of extra paperwork.
No doubt labour will screw up the implementation requiring a gazillion more office workers to process the mountains of extra paperwork.
Piccy Mate said:Ah, THAT was mentioned today. It's proposed to give the CSOs more power (see quote from DT below - and read it all ... especially the bit about fingerprinting "at the roadside" - I wonder where that's going ... NOT!).
I've always said that Blunkett was a classic case of "The blind leading the blind" !
Still, as you rarely see a BiB these days, I don't think there's much to worry about on that score. Unless, of course, Blind Pugh extends this ruling to the Copper's Assistants we now see roaming the streets.
David
Soon Little Hitlers will be patrolling the streets and the few, true BiB left will be guarding T B'liar and Blunderkit from the proles (aka Middle Englanders) who will be rising in their millions in protest (oh, look, there's another flying pig!). Well, we can but hope! - Streaky
The Daily Telegraph said:
Civilian police aides may get greater powers By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
Police voiced concern yesterday over Home Office plans to extend the powers of civilian patrol officers.
They will be allowed to search suspects, deal with beggars, direct traffic, enforce bylaws and tackle under-age drinking.
The move was denounced by Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, as "policing on the cheap". Police began recruiting CSOs - community support officers - two years ago and the Government wants to expand their ranks from 4,000 to more than 25,000 over the next few years.
They are paid less than police officers and have a shorter training programme. They wear uniforms but do not have a constable's power of arrest, although they can detain a suspect for up to 30 minutes. It was envisaged that the CSOs would have only limited functions, giving police more time for "frontline" duties. But they are increasingly being drawn into what many would consider to be routine police work.
Rod Dalley, the vice chairman of the Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers in England and Wales, said yesterday: "We will be examining closely any proposals that extend the powers given to CSOs as no evaluation of their role has taken place."
Denis O'Connor, the Chief Constable of Surrey and a spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said the assistance of CSOs and the so-called "wider police family" was welcome. But he added: "We would sound a note of caution at any major extension of powers for CSOs before a Home Office evaluation is complete."
Mr Oaten said: "If CSOs are unable to deal with serious offenders that is because they were never meant to do so. Searching suspects and arresting them is the job of the police, not support staff with minimal training and salaries."
The wider role for CSOs was proposed in a consultation paper that also foreshadowed new arrest powers for the police. To simplify the existing system, every offence - including misdemeanours such as dropping litter - will be arrestable.
Police, however, will be told to use the power only if it is considered absolutely necessary. In the majority of cases, officers will hand out fixed penalty notices for minor offences.
A Home Office spokesman said of the arrests proposal: "It does not mean police could make an arrest willy-nilly. It will still have to be reasonably serious for an arrest to be made."
The paper also proposes that police officers should have new powers to fingerprint suspects at the roadside and take DNA samples and footwear impressions.
The system for issuing search warrants may also be reformed. Instead of being issued against specific addresses they would apply to an individual, allowing the suspect rather than his home to be targeted. A further change would allow police to test a suspect for drug use at the point of arrest rather than after they are charged.
streaky said:
Blunkett: Every offence arrestable
Radical proposals to make every criminal offence arrestable are set to be published by Home Secretary David Blunkett.
The measure, set out in a consultation document, would be a major departure from the traditional patchwork of arrestable and non-arrestable offences in England and Wales.
"There is a reasonably complicated set-up at the moment regarding whether an offence is arrestable or not, which is not immediately clear to the public," said a Home Office source.
"This document looks at whether we can simplify that situation and whether we should look at making all offences arrestable."
He added: "It does not mean police could make an arrest willy-nilly. It will still have to be reasonably serious for an offence to be made."
At present, officers can generally arrest a member of the public if they suspect them of committing an offence which carries a punishment of at least five years' imprisonment, although the situation is made more complex by a number of exemptions for lesser offences which have been introduced in recent years.
The source said: "Why not just say that if you are committing an offence you can be arrested for it?"
The consultation paper will also propose significant reform of the search warrants system, in a bid to make them less restricted.
At present, warrants are linked to specific addresses and expire after a certain amount of time.
"The paper will be looking at whether it ought to apply to a person rather than to an address and whether the court which grants the warrant should be able to set an appropriate time limit, whether that should be longer or shorter than it is at the moment," said the source.
Piece in the Mirror here on Police State UK.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14184435&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=routledge--sign-up-or-stump-up-name_page.html
article said:
To simplify the existing system, every offence - including misdemeanours such as dropping litter - will be arrestable.
But...
"It will still have to be reasonably serious for an arrest to be made."
Excuse me sir but you dropped that piece of paper in an extremely serious way!
It's all bollocks...the story should really have been from 1984, because that's when PACE came in.
We already have these powers under Section 25 of PACE; ie: If someone commits an offence which isn't arrestable, they are summonsed to court. However, if the Bib believes that the person is giving a false name or address he can arrest that person and take him to a police station until the read details are found.
It's just spin by the Labour government to counter what Michael Howard is saying.
IMO and i'm not overly political..I believe we will be better off with the Conservative party at the next General Election.
Street
Back to my Daily Telegraph now...
We already have these powers under Section 25 of PACE; ie: If someone commits an offence which isn't arrestable, they are summonsed to court. However, if the Bib believes that the person is giving a false name or address he can arrest that person and take him to a police station until the read details are found.
It's just spin by the Labour government to counter what Michael Howard is saying.
IMO and i'm not overly political..I believe we will be better off with the Conservative party at the next General Election.
Street
Back to my Daily Telegraph now...
Streetcop said:
It's all bollocks...the story should really have been from 1984, because that's when PACE came in.
We already have these powers under Section 25 of PACE; ie: If someone commits an offence which isn't arrestable, they are summonsed to court. However, if the Bib believes that the person is giving a false name or address he can arrest that person and take him to a police station until the read details are found.
It's just spin by the Labour government to counter what Michael Howard is saying.
IMO and i'm not overly political..I believe we will be better off with the Conservative party at the next General Election.
Street
Back to my Daily Telegraph now...
The Conservative seemed to lose their way several years ago, and I wish they would get their act together, but so far they do not seem to have recovered much ground in terms of clear policies that might inspire the electorate.
I'd certainly like to be rid of the present government, as they appear to have their priorities wrong in a big way, and it seems to be getting worse.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff