The UK Gestapo
- Thread starter Zedicus
- Start date
- Status
CAnnoneer
Member
Standing Wolf said:
I'd say Churchill's England was worth fighting for. In contrast, I have severe doubts about Blair's.
beerslurpy
member
This sounds no worse than what we already have in the US.
Police can arrest you if:
-they have a warrant for your arrest
-they have probable cause that a crime is being committed in their prescence
-they catch you in the act of committing a crime
-if they beleive you committed a serious crime, in lieu of leaving and getting a warrant
Police have the discretion to arrest even during traffic stops. There was a supreme court case about this recently in 2004 or 2005. Avoiding punishment/lawsuits for abusing this discretion is another thing entirely.
I think the last bit goes too far, but the bits from the list are all pretty reasonable. They create a low burden on society, a low burden on individual liberty and any abuses are easy to correct, unless those abuses spring from bad laws that make too many people criminals.
Most of the current problems with policing in the US spring from the wide searching powers that derive from the war on drugs and the sea of strict liability laws that have arisen during the 20th century. If the police cant search you on flimsy pretenses and cant convict you for unnknowingly breaking the law, it is very difficult for them to abuse their crimefighting powers.
Ending the war on drugs and making the 4th amendment really mean something again would be a huge step in the right direction for this country and for liberty in general.
Police can arrest you if:
-they have a warrant for your arrest
-they have probable cause that a crime is being committed in their prescence
-they catch you in the act of committing a crime
-if they beleive you committed a serious crime, in lieu of leaving and getting a warrant
Police have the discretion to arrest even during traffic stops. There was a supreme court case about this recently in 2004 or 2005. Avoiding punishment/lawsuits for abusing this discretion is another thing entirely.
I think the last bit goes too far, but the bits from the list are all pretty reasonable. They create a low burden on society, a low burden on individual liberty and any abuses are easy to correct, unless those abuses spring from bad laws that make too many people criminals.
Most of the current problems with policing in the US spring from the wide searching powers that derive from the war on drugs and the sea of strict liability laws that have arisen during the 20th century. If the police cant search you on flimsy pretenses and cant convict you for unnknowingly breaking the law, it is very difficult for them to abuse their crimefighting powers.
Ending the war on drugs and making the 4th amendment really mean something again would be a huge step in the right direction for this country and for liberty in general.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
What effects this will have depends upon the legal definition in Britain of 'reasonable grounds.'
If I see a young man with a shaven head is that reasonable grounds to arrest him? After all, he's obviously a racist skinhead and is about to commit a hate crime of some degree.
How about real short hair? He's obviously a skinhead attempting to disguise himself. He's up to no good. Surely all right thinking people will agree that he's guilty of mopery and dopery at the very least.
If I see a young man with a shaven head is that reasonable grounds to arrest him? After all, he's obviously a racist skinhead and is about to commit a hate crime of some degree.
How about real short hair? He's obviously a skinhead attempting to disguise himself. He's up to no good. Surely all right thinking people will agree that he's guilty of mopery and dopery at the very least.
Standing Wolf said:
because FDR thought it was in the USA's wider interest that Great Britain should not lose the war and the Germans should not dominate the European continent.
Perhaps you'd have preferred to have been talking to the Nazi Party rather than the Soviets for the past sixty years. I get the impression several people around these boards feel America fought on the wrong side.
The remarkable sight of the cops leaving the Beltway Sniper's car in the middle of the road while they went off to get a warrant to search it wouldn't have happened here, even before this.
I think people/ the original article have misunderstood the law.
It is not allowing the police to arrest anyone, for any reason, on the grounds that you might commit a crime in the future.
Remained of the post deleted because some of what I said was incorrect, and Agricola has explained the whole thing better than I did/could have.
Btw,
The Guardian (aka "Grauniad", on account of their tendency to make spelling errors) is very leftwing (except perhaps in the eyes of some of the posters on the politics section of Guardian Talkforum, but they're pretty much the UK equivalent of the DU).
The Telegraph is conservative (and Conservative - hence often referred to as the "Torygraph" or "Thatchergraph"), with a somewhat libertarian tendency (depending on how well they can condemn the government on such grounds).
It is not allowing the police to arrest anyone, for any reason, on the grounds that you might commit a crime in the future.
Remained of the post deleted because some of what I said was incorrect, and Agricola has explained the whole thing better than I did/could have.
Btw,
LAK said:
The Guardian (aka "Grauniad", on account of their tendency to make spelling errors) is very leftwing (except perhaps in the eyes of some of the posters on the politics section of Guardian Talkforum, but they're pretty much the UK equivalent of the DU).
The Telegraph is conservative (and Conservative - hence often referred to as the "Torygraph" or "Thatchergraph"), with a somewhat libertarian tendency (depending on how well they can condemn the government on such grounds).
Last edited:
joab said:
However joab, all offences over there are now arrestable offences. ANYTHING you do wrong, no matter how minor can now get you cuffed and thrown into the police car.
EDIT: Spelling, Punctuation
I mean, say you accidentally drop something on the ground and don't notice. Now you are littering, and they can arrest you. Its just way too much power to give to police.
agricola
Member
Its a typical misstatement by a Press seeking to make an issue out of nothing, and its been taken up by the usual idiots here to make their usual, utterly wrong, points.
An explanation:
Before this legislation came in - legislation which had been through Parliament for at least a year prior to it coming in (so you think the Press might have noticed, especially as its been mentioned repeatedly by various politicians) - the situation was that there were several "powers of arrest" based on the Police and Criminal Act 1984.
Section 24 said that, basically, any offence where the sentence was five years or more, or where there was no maximum sentence (eg life sentence), or where the sentence was fixed by law (eg murder) was an arrestable offence.
Section 25 said that you could be arrested for ANY offence (including littering) if one of the following conditions applied:
These conditions are as follows:
(1) They cannot establish your name or they think you have given a false one, OR
(2) They cannot establish an address suitable for the service of a summons or they think you have given a false one, OR
(3) They have reasonable grounds to believe arrest is necessary to prevent you from doing any of the following:
(i) causing physical injury to yourself or any other person, OR
(ii) suffering physical injury; OR
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property; OR
(iv) committing an offence against public decency, OR
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
Section 26 contained a list of offences which had their own power of arrest contained within the legislation, like begging, indecent exposure etc.
This was the state of play since the end of the common law / sus powers which had been sort of unchanged since the inception of the Police in the 1820s.
What SOCAP has done is removed section 24 and almost all of section 26 and instead unified all the powers of arrest under an expanded section 25, adding two powers allowing arrest in order to effectively investigate an offence and if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the perp would not attend court if dealt with there and then.
So in short you still need an offence, or suspicion of an offence, to have taken place or be suspected of imminently taken place. You have to have one of the section 25 grounds or believe an arrest is necessary to effectively investigate the offence or have reasonable grounds to suspect that the perp wont attend Court if dealt with by way of ticket or summons. YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED ON PSYCHIC GROUNDS AS THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS.
The bulk of the legislation hasnt changed since PACE came in as long ago as 1984; and the parts that have changed have been announced and debated well in advance. Sloppy, scaremongering journalism is unacceptable normally but even more so in this case - reading the Torygraph and its kin you would think that HMG dropped this on people as they woke up on January 1st...
An explanation:
Before this legislation came in - legislation which had been through Parliament for at least a year prior to it coming in (so you think the Press might have noticed, especially as its been mentioned repeatedly by various politicians) - the situation was that there were several "powers of arrest" based on the Police and Criminal Act 1984.
Section 24 said that, basically, any offence where the sentence was five years or more, or where there was no maximum sentence (eg life sentence), or where the sentence was fixed by law (eg murder) was an arrestable offence.
Section 25 said that you could be arrested for ANY offence (including littering) if one of the following conditions applied:
These conditions are as follows:
(1) They cannot establish your name or they think you have given a false one, OR
(2) They cannot establish an address suitable for the service of a summons or they think you have given a false one, OR
(3) They have reasonable grounds to believe arrest is necessary to prevent you from doing any of the following:
(i) causing physical injury to yourself or any other person, OR
(ii) suffering physical injury; OR
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property; OR
(iv) committing an offence against public decency, OR
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
Section 26 contained a list of offences which had their own power of arrest contained within the legislation, like begging, indecent exposure etc.
This was the state of play since the end of the common law / sus powers which had been sort of unchanged since the inception of the Police in the 1820s.
What SOCAP has done is removed section 24 and almost all of section 26 and instead unified all the powers of arrest under an expanded section 25, adding two powers allowing arrest in order to effectively investigate an offence and if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the perp would not attend court if dealt with there and then.
So in short you still need an offence, or suspicion of an offence, to have taken place or be suspected of imminently taken place. You have to have one of the section 25 grounds or believe an arrest is necessary to effectively investigate the offence or have reasonable grounds to suspect that the perp wont attend Court if dealt with by way of ticket or summons. YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED ON PSYCHIC GROUNDS AS THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS.
The bulk of the legislation hasnt changed since PACE came in as long ago as 1984; and the parts that have changed have been announced and debated well in advance. Sloppy, scaremongering journalism is unacceptable normally but even more so in this case - reading the Torygraph and its kin you would think that HMG dropped this on people as they woke up on January 1st...
joab
Member
I must have missed that section of the law. Could you point it out?
TrekkieFromHell said;
I hate to bust up a good UK bashing thread, but it's been that way here in the US for a lot longer then I've been a peace officer. Posting bond at the side of the road or signing a promise to appear on a citation is simply a courtesy in most states. And it's totally up to the officer's discretion. If I wanted to I could take almost everyone I gave a citation to the county jail and make them post bond or issue a notice to appear there.
Jeff
I hate to bust up a good UK bashing thread, but it's been that way here in the US for a lot longer then I've been a peace officer. Posting bond at the side of the road or signing a promise to appear on a citation is simply a courtesy in most states. And it's totally up to the officer's discretion. If I wanted to I could take almost everyone I gave a citation to the county jail and make them post bond or issue a notice to appear there.
Jeff
joab said:
Well Agricola seems to have summed it up nicely by finding that area for his post
Granted they have to meet one of those conditions but its pretty easy to make some ???? up if they happen to not like your attitude or something.agricola said:
Duncaninfrance
Member
Some of you should put your mind in drive before your tongues are in motion in my opinion.
I am English and very proud of it. Comments such as those made by Standing Wolf are offensive to me and I would think, many Americans. The truth is that it is because the people of this country stood up to people like the Germans in 1914 ( not 1917 ) and were bled dry and again in 1939 ( not 1941 ) and were bombed out, as well as the Japs, the Koreans, the Arabs, the Argentinians, AND Sadam and many other non democratic countries that the Free people of the world can say they are Free.
Law and order is just that - LAW and ORDER and the people who wish to flaunt the law should be punnished. At the moment too many get away with things on a 'technicality' and that is not acceptable to me. If you are not breaking the law then you should not be afraid.
Going through this thread you would think that every policeman would send all day arresting people for having the wrong shoes on or not wearing a hat!
Get real.
The biggest problem in the UK is too many police stopping motorists for minor traffic offences and not enough police cracking down on real crime like drugs, illegal immigration and fraud.
Well thats that off my chest - have a nice day
I am English and very proud of it. Comments such as those made by Standing Wolf are offensive to me and I would think, many Americans. The truth is that it is because the people of this country stood up to people like the Germans in 1914 ( not 1917 ) and were bled dry and again in 1939 ( not 1941 ) and were bombed out, as well as the Japs, the Koreans, the Arabs, the Argentinians, AND Sadam and many other non democratic countries that the Free people of the world can say they are Free.
Law and order is just that - LAW and ORDER and the people who wish to flaunt the law should be punnished. At the moment too many get away with things on a 'technicality' and that is not acceptable to me. If you are not breaking the law then you should not be afraid.
Going through this thread you would think that every policeman would send all day arresting people for having the wrong shoes on or not wearing a hat!
Get real.
The biggest problem in the UK is too many police stopping motorists for minor traffic offences and not enough police cracking down on real crime like drugs, illegal immigration and fraud.
Well thats that off my chest - have a nice day
joab
Member
Well at least you prove that part of your argument.
Doesn't eactly match up with
I guess I just don't understand all the modern day Nazis hunting and conspiracy mongering. It just seems rather DU-ish to me.
joab
Member
Come on Duncan. Shoes are a matter of personal preference, but not wearing a hat is just wrong.
I've heard that of another country recently
Anyway, is it really that bad that someone can be arrested for any crime?
Isn't that the point of making something a crime in the first place?
If you think that people shouldn't be arrested for doing x, isn't the issue that x shouldn't be a crime in the first place?
Isn't that the point of making something a crime in the first place?
If you think that people shouldn't be arrested for doing x, isn't the issue that x shouldn't be a crime in the first place?
joab
Member
iapetus
That's a theory that I can agree with
That's a theory that I can agree with
Last edited:
Cosmoline
Member
The UK hasn't been a free nation for a long time. A nation that enacts UK style gun control cannot be free, by definition. The civilians are considered sheep there.
dasmi
Member
Wait for it...there it is! "...and prevent terrorism."
The Telegraph, and the Guardian are two of the more conservative papers published in the U.K.iapetus said:
I am and have been very familiar with both over a period of more than 30 years. The Guardian in particular has run some very good coverage on gun issues, and in the last few years the Tony Martin case. In fact the Guardian was one of the only papers that fairly covered and ran a continuing number of articles about the Martin case. And the editorial style on that subject was far away ffrom being "leftwing".
A certain so-called "conservative" talkshow host uttered this rubbish on air one day that the Guardian was "leftwing"; IIRC because it ran some articles critical of Comrade Blair's and Comrade Bush's invasion of Iraq.
--------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
joab
Member
Rolled eyes is very appropriate; since what is looked upon as "conservative" as opposed to socialist or marxist seems more dependent these days on supporting perverted political agendas and the stars of the show - as opposed to actual substance of conservative principle put in action.joab said:
It is not mere coincidence that Comrade Bush and Comrade Blair are such close pals these days.
-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Run "Tony Martin" in the Guardian archives. Read the extensive series of articles they ran about his case. Then compare with all the other papers and news transcripts, as well as some of the so-called "conservative" opposition party input on the subject. See how many "conservatives" even opened their mouths once to defend Mr Martin - let alone any of Comrade Blair's party or the Liberal Democrats.Mk VII said:
----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
- Status