The UK Gestapo

[Zedicus]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=4692

UK EXPANDS POLICE POWERS
Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

Police in the United Kingdom have now been authorized to arrest anyone at any time for any reason, according to the UK Telegraph. The new law, which took effect on January 1st, is being criticized for unleashing police powers without any restraint that will threaten the civil rights of all UK citizens.

Before the law changes, police were able to arrest suspects only if the police had reason to believe that the suspects were going to commit a crime punishable by at least five years of jail. Those restrictions have been dropped such that police can now arrest and detain anyone that they think might commit any type of crime. Police will still have to file a report explaining why they thought arresting someone was necessary.

The Home Office argues that an increase of police powers was needed in order to simplify the legal code, fight crime, and prevent terrorism. A civil liberties organization called Liberty has been actively resisting the change and is warning that a dramatic shift towards a police state will occur if measures aren’t taken that prevent abuse.


staff reports - Free-Market News Network

(Emphasis Added)

Man I Feel sorry for the few friends I still have over there

 

[Jeff White]

Before the law changes, police were able to arrest suspects only if the police had reason to believe that the suspects were going to commit a crime punishable by at least five years of jail.

So there are no midemeanors or lower grade felonies in the UK?

Jeff

 

[Zedicus]

Not that I know of...

 

[Old Dog]

Future crime? Wasn't this a Tom Cruise movie?

Huh? British police can arrest someone they think might commit a crime? I smell something bogus here.
This "news report" is so poorly worded I have trouble believing that it's actually legitimate ... Show me the law.

police were able to arrest suspects only if the police had reason to believe that the suspects were going to commit a crime punishable by at least five years of jail. Those restrictions have been dropped such that police can now arrest and detain anyone that they think might commit any type of crime.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ryder]

More discretion can be a good thing. I suspect your source may be biased. I read an article on this last week which didn't make it sound so Orwellian.

 

[Sindawe]

More discretion can be a good thing. I suspect your source may be biased. I read an article on this last week which didn't make it sound so Orwellian.

Would you care for another glass of Kool-Aid Herr Ryder?

I suspect you and I both read the same article Ryder. That which I read was very subtle in its use of good-facts and true-speech so as to not unduly alarm the masses. But then, I AM a cynic by nature.

CYNIC, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

Source: http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/

 

[LAK]

I have not read the Telegraph article yet, but offhand, the Telegraph, like the Guardian, is among the more conservative papers in the U.K. and a very long way from the tabloids.

Regardless of whether it is 100% accurate or 97%, none of this should be a surprize. This is where Comrade Blair's government and their cronies have been steering things, and look for it to migrate over here as long as we have cronies of the same political lineage in Washington DC at the helm.
------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedtstates.org

 

[mzmtg]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/29/narrest29.xml

 

[odysseus]

Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, said: "It is vital that the police are equipped with the powers they need to enable them to do their jobs properly and effectively. The powers need to be updated to reflect modern policing priorities and the changing nature of criminal activity.

Have we heard something like this being said over on our end of the pond lately? Hmmm...

Socialism at work. AKA "We know what's better for you than you do." and "Your right for privacy and liberties don't mean anything in our new modern society". Sometimes I think that those tin-hatted people who claim this is the direction all governments eventually get to, might have some valid points.

 

[The Drew]

So now they can arrest thought criminals...

Maybe the question is, how long before this comes here?

 

[joab]

Police in the United Kingdom have now been authorized to arrest anyone at any time for any reason

Florida recently passed a law giving anyone the right to shoot tourists for merely looking at them wrong or using threatening words.

Anyone have a link to the actual law

 

[Janitor]

But then, I AM a cynic by nature.

Pote-aa-toe ... Pote-ah-toe
Tom-aa-toe ... Tom-ah-toe
Cynic ... Questioner

Not a bad thing to be, imo. Especially when it comes to believing just how far sheeple can go in the attempt to deal with those 'outside the fold'.
-

 

[ceetee]

Florida recently passed a law giving anyone the right to shoot tourists for merely looking at them wrong or using threatening words.

I wish!

(We used to have a slogan around here: "If this is "tourist season", why can't we shoot 'em?")

The law you're referring to is the "Stand Your Ground" law, where you have no absolute legal obligation to attempt to retreat before using force to defend yourself. It's not carte blanche to shoot tourists. No matter how slow they drive in the left lane of I-95.

 

[joab]

It's not carte blanche to shoot tourists. No matter how slow they drive in the left lane of I-95.

That's my point.
The newspapers present the pro defense law in a negative light and everybody sees it as a lie.
The media writes a story about a law, in a country pretty much known IMHO for leniency towards criminals, giving total unrestrained powers of arrest to the police and everybody sees it as proof that the gestapo is alive and well.
Even though nobody has provided a link to the real wording of the law

 

[Ryder]

Maybe I better explain that discretion thing before my German heritage becomes too big of a concern here

I meant that in the way that zero tolerance is bad because it leaves people with no discretion. Now maybe the world has changed more than I was aware but aren't we are talking about English Bobbies? I wasn't aware they scared anybody.

I will try and paraphrase the other article (if anybody cares to correct me be my guest). Prior to the new law officers were forced to arrest everybody they suspected of a serious crime. This filled their court system with too many cases where the suspect got off due to tough standards of evidence. Now, (supposedly) the officers do not have to arrest anybody unless they believe there is enough evidence to get a conviction.

If true then they are trying to empower officers to think for themselves and get away from central control. If that's what they are doing I sure don't have a problem with that. As little faith as I have in people it's more than that which I have for a government.

 

[armoredman]

Airstrip One is sinking under the weight of Marxist hypocrisy. Hitler and Stalin are howling with laughter...the island they could not conquer has conqered itself...

 

[TexasRifleman]

Not a bad thing to be, imo. Especially when it comes to believing just how far sheeple can go in the attempt to deal with those 'outside the fold'.
-

Make no mistake, sheeple don't deal with anything at all that's what makes them sheeple. This is perpetrated by much more devious types. The sheeple won't even know it's happening.

 

[BozemanMT]

The Home Office argues that an increase of police powers was needed in order to simplify the legal code,

that makes it pretty simple
EVERYTHING is a crime.

Arrest them all, let someone else sort it out.

Sad, real sad.

 

[carlrodd]

i'll find a link for this in a minute but....my fiancee is from liverpool...rough city. i was listening to the radio there over christmas, and some government official in charge of whatever office goes after dead beat dads is pushing hard for tracking devices to be put into/onto these support skippers....bad, frightening idea, obviously. not to mention that many of their larger city centers are covered completely with cctv. it's scary, but go and visit sometime, and see the devastation wrought by the MASSIVE upswing in crime there and you might feel differently. don't forget as well, england is a small country, with no 'states' to fight against encroachments from the government. who knows what the answer is.

 

[dolanp]

Don't police pretty much have this discretion in the US?? I'd feel sorry for ourselves first.

 

[TheEgg]

Don't police pretty much have this discretion in the US?? I'd feel sorry for ourselves first.

This article makes it sound like the police can arrest anyone that they think MIGHT be going to commit a crime sometime in the future.

While the police in this country can arrest people for conspiracy (future crimes), they still have to have evidence that will get a judge to approve. The article implies that any such restraints are now removed from the UK police. I don't know if the article is true or not.

 

[TF_FH]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=79521

British police will be able to arrest anyone for any criminal offence, including minor misdemeanours such as dropping litter, under new laws which come into force with the new year.

Until now police have had the power to arrest only those suspected of committing an offence carrying a sentence of at least five years in prison.

The new law requires only that the police have reasonable grounds for believing that a person's arrest is necessary. This can include a suspect's refusal to give their name and address.

The changes are part of the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005, which removes the distinction between "arrestable" and "non-arrestable" offences.


Offences that have until now been non-arrestable include impersonating a police officer, not stopping a vehicle when ordered to do so and making or selling an offensive weapon.

Police will in future be allowed to photograph suspects on the street where they have been arrested or issued with a fixed penalty notice, rather than back at a police station.

"The introduction of a single rationalised power of arrest simplifies arrest powers," said Home Office minister Hazel Blears.

"These tough new powers make a significant contribution to creating a modern, efficient police service equipping frontline officers with the tools they need to fight modern crime effectively and keep our neighbourhoods safe."

Im going to try to find some more on this "Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005"

EDIT:
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050015.htm
I still need to find the area in it... but ya know, here it is


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/50015--k.htm#110

24 Arrest without warrant: constables

(1) A constable may arrest without a warrant-

(a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;
(b) anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
(c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;
(d) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

.

24A Arrest without warrant: other persons

(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant-

(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

EDIT: Copied and pasted the wrong areas... sorry about that
Hope everyone finds this useful to the post

 

[joab]

(a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;
(c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;

Loitering with intent, we have that one here

(d) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

We also have that here I believe it's called probable cause and citizen's arrest

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I don't see the sky falling
With a warrent people can be arrested on suspicion of committing crimes or conspiracy to commit crimes, no mention of what it takes to get the warrent.

Without a warrant people can be arrested for being seemingly in the process of committing a crime.
Cops in America operate under the same guidelines
Or would it be better if the good people ignored a crime in progress

 

[CAnnoneer]

"freedom died
under a round of applause"

 

[Standing Wolf]

Would someone please explain to me again why we squandered so many American lives saving England from the Germans?