New "anti-knife" powers for Brit. police

[Tez3]

What an asinine statement. OF COURSE WE THINK WE'RE RIGHT! Just as YOU think you're right and THEY think they're right. Right or wrong is more often than not just a matter of perspective. But when you post a question or make some statement on a world wide format and get differing ideals that you don't agree with, your own bigotry rears its ugly head.

United Statesians (won't speak for Canada or Mexico) believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all the civil liberties that go with that. We believe that for ALL mankind. I personally don't believe in trying to force those ideals onto others. If you believe that searching someone without probable cause is the way to go about solving your problems, go for it. But don't cry when we Americans think that you're wrong.

No what I think is wrong is that you believe what was written in the article is true. We don't search people without probable cause. There has to be a reason for the search written down on the forms we fill in when searching a person, a copy of this form is then given to the person we've searched and they can read for themselves what our probable cause is.
Tha's my beef, that you think you are right from reading the wrong information.

 

[Tez3]

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/n..._procedures/pdf/stopandsearch_intermanual.pdf

Enjoy!

 

[Archangel M]

So how has that all been workin for ya so far??? Violence been on the decline?

 

[Archangel M]

No what I think is wrong is that you believe what was written in the article is true. We don't search people without probable cause. There has to be a reason for the search written down on the forms we fill in when searching a person, a copy of this form is then given to the person we've searched and they can read for themselves what our probable cause is.
Tha's my beef, that you think you are right from reading the wrong information.

Really?

(5) A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons or articles of that kind.

 

[dart68]

"Under the Metropolitan Police's plans announced this month, officers can search people without reasonable suspicion under Section 60 of the Public Order Act. "

Tez3...can you find a copy of what this refers to?

 

[Tez3]

Really?

Funnily enough yes we do have to write down the reason for stopping someone, on my last I wrote "because I didn't like his shoes" I then proceeeded to emulate the American police I'd seen in a recent video and beat the guy up.

If you are going to copy bits out of a document copy all of it.

The recording of stops​

1.2​

​

​

PACE code A states that a record must be
given to the individual stopped.The recording
requirements for stops are slightly different to
those for searches. In the case of a stop, the police
must record:
> the date, time and place of the encounter;
> if the person is in a vehicle, its registration
number;
> the reason why the officer questioned that​

person;

This is your probable/reasonable cause part.

1.16 ​

​

​

For a search to be authorised under section
60 of this Act, the authorising officer (at the rank
of inspector or above) must have reason to
believe that incidents involving serious violence
may take place in their police area and that it is
necessary to authorise a search to prevent them.
These powers should not be used to avoid using
the normal powers or dealing with routine crime
problems. Authorisations must be made on the
basis that exercising the power is a proportionate
and necessary response to achieve the purpose​

for which Parliament provided the power.

 

[Tez3]

"Under the Metropolitan Police's plans announced this month, officers can search people without reasonable suspicion under Section 60 of the Public Order Act. "

Tez3...can you find a copy of what this refers to?

As I said before section 60 of the Public Order Act has been law for the past 14 years so I have no idea why the reporter should think that the law is a new one, the Met has been stop and searching all that time.
The law refers to the fact that a police officer can search anyone in the vicinity of where his senior officer has reason to believe an act of violence may or has taken place, intelligence would be given to the senior officer and he will act on it. The senior officer has to take responsibilty for having reasonable cause, there is an oversight committee for the police in the UK which investigates and complaints btw.
This is an example of why a senior police officer will give permission for a stop and search operation and you will see the point of it when you see the crowds involved in the violence and the difficulty of finding who is carrying weapons and who is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijvBtZXTw6E&feature=related

 

[Archangel M]

Say what you will...at the heart of it a person can be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion simply because he/she is in an area that an officer believes may be dangerous. It says so in the statute. No suspicion an individual person is armed...period. Hey its your country and Im shure the cops in the US would love to be able to toss a crowd of people to see whos armed. We just cant do it w/o reasonable suspicion an INDIVIDUAL person is armed. We could "terry frisk" a group of people if we had some articulable reason for detaining them. But absent more than them just being there we cant do a complete search. If we did whatever we found would be suppressed.

 

[Tez3]

Say what you will...at the heart of it a person can be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion simply because he/she is in an area that an officer believes may be dangerous. It says so in the statute. No suspicion an individual person is armed...period. Hey its your country and Im shure the cops in the US would love to be able to toss a crowd of people to see whos armed. We just cant do it w/o reasonable suspicion an INDIVIDUAL person is armed.

I see you didn't watch the video then where the police were the ones being beaten up ? So much for 'tossing' a crowd ( you do know btw what tossing means in England and why we call someone a tosser as an insult?) we don't have the benefit of being armed or of getting away with beating people up so hey ho we just have to do the best we can in our own little way.

 

[Archangel M]

Gettin free with the insults eh? We are comparing written statutes not police actions (justified or not) last I thought.

 

[Tez3]

Gettin free with the insults eh? We are comparing written statutes not police actions (justified or not) last I thought.

Hardly an insult to point out that what you mean by a word isn't what we mean by it.

 

[Ahriman]

:semi-off:

Just adding a little "bonus" meaning to perception of right and wrong.
We idiots revolted in 1848 and 1956 against foreign rule and tyranny, both riots were destroyed ruthlessly by our favourite Russians, even as in the first case we revolted against Austria. Now the second one is the important here, where Soviet forces entered Hungary without ahem, proper invitation. We Hungarians used quite much of guerilla tactics, those of us fallen were "heroes", dead enemies were "sadistic Russkie bastards". Now Hungarians serve their times in Iraq, being there without ahem, proper invitation. And guess what, who become heroes in my nation's eyes? I'll help a bit, in this case NOT those who defend their lands. They're always terrorists, even when not all of them are suicide bombers.
So even as don't really agree in some (in fact quite many) things with Americans, I DO understand why they think they're always right. Humans, be them American, English, Hungarian or Iranian (or anything) don't really like admitting that they aren't always on the "good side". And even doing so is a very bad idea... our prime minister admitted that they lied and screwed things up and it'd be time to do something, and what's the result? Riots, "Gyurcsány must die", "f....ng communists" etc. :frown:

:semi-off:
: on:
I read through the article you posted, Tez3. I'm still dizzy a bit, reading and interpreting in English after a day of hard work is... hard. It does have weak spots and potential areas where the laws can be misused by the police. Actually there are far less of both problems than in Hungary, so even as I understand why Americans frown on these, I'd still envy you if I'd know it for sure that police only does what's allowed.
But from the "summary findings" it seems that the UK's population doesn't really support the idea.
Enough of me.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ladies and gentlemen, it might be an idea for a few calming breaths to be drawn and for those participating to actually absorb both what is being said and what is being referrenced.

Hotness and asperity are fine arguing around the table with real, 3-D people that you know and get along with. The same does not apply here in Interweb-land and it is all too easy to not say what you think you are in the manner in which you would wish it.

As it stands, here we have someone whose job it is to enact the legislation. Don't you think she might know what she's talking about?

When we touch on American law in our numerous discussion here, I am always careful to note that I'm adding my opinion and that what I think from 'outside' should be considered in that light. When LEO's add their opinions into such discussions then that's a whole different thing - it's Expert Testimony (to steal the phrase) and carries due weight. So it'd be polite to proffer Tez the same courtesy. You don't have to agree, just give her credit for knowing what she's on about.

I could understand her getting a little annoyed under the circumstances and I'm sure that if all contributors take a moment to 'wear each others shoes' we can return to intelligent debate.

Otherwise ... well you know the consequences of too much friction ...

 

[Tez3]

:semi-off:

Just adding a little "bonus" meaning to perception of right and wrong.
We idiots revolted in 1848 and 1956 against foreign rule and tyranny, both riots were destroyed ruthlessly by our favourite Russians, even as in the first case we revolted against Austria. Now the second one is the important here, where Soviet forces entered Hungary without ahem, proper invitation. We Hungarians used quite much of guerilla tactics, those of us fallen were "heroes", dead enemies were "sadistic Russkie bastards". Now Hungarians serve their times in Iraq, being there without ahem, proper invitation. And guess what, who become heroes in my nation's eyes? I'll help a bit, in this case NOT those who defend their lands. They're always terrorists, even when not all of them are suicide bombers.
So even as don't really agree in some (in fact quite many) things with Americans, I DO understand why they think they're always right. Humans, be them American, English, Hungarian or Iranian (or anything) don't really like admitting that they aren't always on the "good side". And even doing so is a very bad idea... our prime minister admitted that they lied and screwed things up and it'd be time to do something, and what's the result? Riots, "Gyurcsány must die", "f....ng communists" etc. :frown:

:semi-off:
: on:
I read through the article you posted, Tez3. I'm still dizzy a bit, reading and interpreting in English after a day of hard work is... hard. It does have weak spots and potential areas where the laws can be misused by the police. Actually there are far less of both problems than in Hungary, so even as I understand why Americans frown on these, I'd still envy you if I'd know it for sure that police only does what's allowed.
But from the "summary findings" it seems that the UK's population doesn't really support the idea.
Enough of me.

I sypmathise with you translating into English! As you can see American English is different from British English.

Whipped up by the media there is a lot of support for having anti knife laws here.
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/campaigns/080527knives.shtml
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article1213430.ece

And the politician recently voted in as Londons mayor on these policies.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1805_save_our_streets_boris.shtml

 

[Tez3]

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Pheeeew have things changed here fast.

I am very concious of civil liberties to a degree. What I see see as New Labour's move towads the Big Brother state bothers me a great deal.

So do new laws. A lot of the new alleged counter terrorism powers trouble me a great deal. Having managed pretty well at dealing with Irish Repuclican terrorism over the years, I find it very difficult to accept that the threat we now face from AQ and the like is any greater.

I do think however that the search powers detailed in this thread are not unreasonable. I have seen mass violence and its not good. Football violence used to be rife over here and these powers would have certainly been of great use then. A senior officer has to give his go ahead before the individual officer can excercise his (or her) discretion. Its a useful power to protect the public. This is coming however from someone who would likely get a right ****** on if searched.

I dont think anyone has any business carrying knives. The problem is of course that only the law abiding will care and stop carrying them. Certain times/locations then these powers are definately worth having.

I dont agree with all of what Tez has said regarding what the British public want, although I do some of it. I am concerned that she seems to be getting an unfair amount of incoming.

 

[Ahriman]

"I dont think anyone has any business carrying knives."
I took out 2 guys out of "business" for a little time with knives and a bit more unarmed but we're talking knives here. Nothing serious, but that was because I was in control of those given situations, NOT because the attackers and absolutely not because the police. In both cases I got home about 2-3 hours after the incidents and didn't see a single officer.

If you have an omnipresent police with competent officers then I agree with you. If only one of these is missing, I don't. I accept and understand your views, I just don't agree.
What I do agree with is that these laws are potentionally very useful. In the most recent riots here a lot of officers were badly injured as they didn't have enough rights (and honestly because their superiors screwed it up a bit), so something like these would've been very useful. But a law is good only as long as it's not misused... and these can be misused, but I say it again, to a lesser extent than Hungarian equivalents.

 

[Tez3]

It would be a truly boring place if we all agreed with each other wouldn't it, those of us who love debating would have to take the dog for a walk instead!
However, it's good to argue from facts not news articles that are spin and slanted politically.
Whether you agree or not about legislation to stop knife carrying, the facts of this thread is that there is no new law at this point in time. The Act quoted is 14 years old not a new move by the Met. All the Met are doing is bringing in is mechanical means to search for weapons.
Please argue by all means about the rights and wrongs of whether there should be stop and search, whether it works and whether we should ban knives but please do us the courtesy of not stating that we have a new law when we don't. The present law isn't specifically for anti knife use, it's also for anti terrorism and general violence such as breaks out around football matches.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Ahriman, I understand what you are saying.

The problem I see with carrying knives, is that the people who tend to feel the need to carry them, are the people who feel unable to fight without them. Unfortunately for them, they are usually correct and end up getting their knives taken off them, and stuck in themselves instead. Happened right outside my door last year.

 

[Tez3]

Ahriman, I understand what you are saying.

The problem I see with carrying knives, is that the people who tend to feel the need to carry them, are the people who feel unable to fight without them. Unfortunately for them, they are usually correct and end up getting their knives taken off them, and stuck in themselves instead. Happened right outside my door last year.

My instructor when doing knife defences always makes you stab yourself with your knife! (He says that way only your fingerprints are on the knife not his) He also grips you so when he says drop the knife, your hand is seized and you can't so he puts the pressure on harder, ouch!