Due a police visit - help

Lotus-eater

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

I came to this thread with a pretty open mind about the police, my limited personal experiences with them having been mostly, but not always, positive. I take the view that there is good and bad in any organisation and it is unrealistic to expect things to go right 100% of the time. But thanks to you, Jamie Carter I now have serious reservations about police behaviour.
Shame on you for that.

You came on here with an open mind, but one anonymous persons posts, who posts all one way and you don't agree with, have changed your mind?

And because of this person, who isn't even a police officer, you now have reservations about police behaviour?

That's a little strange :rotfl:

princeofpounds

That case does seem to be very relevant actually. It probably depends whether you agreed to an interview under caution or not. If you did, they had no need to arrest you. I would speak to a solicitor.

http://www.fosters-solicitors.co.uk/news/crime/false-imprisonment-when-the-police-get-it-wrong/160

Jamie_Carter

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

I came to this thread with a pretty open mind about the police, my limited personal experiences with them having been mostly, but not always, positive. I take the view that there is good and bad in any organisation and it is unrealistic to expect things to go right 100% of the time. But thanks to you, Jamie Carter I now have serious reservations about police behaviour.

Do you seriously think that your above post, where you completely ignore the fact that 2 officers were attempting to interview a minor
without a responsible adult being present, does anything to give us confidence in the police? Do you honestly believe that such behaviour should have been allowed to continue unchallenged?

To be blunt, your arrogant, aggressive and heavily biased posts have done the police force a lot more damage than any of the posts from those you accuse of being "police haters".

Your continued assertion that anyone questioned or detained by the police must be guilty and has gotten off on a technicality completely undermines the basis of the British justice system, that one is innocent until proven guilty. If your blinkered and unquestioning opinions are an example of current police attitudes, then you have proved beyond doubt that those of us who do not break the law should be very concerned if we ever find ourselves involved with the police in any way at all.

Shame on you for that.

Give it a rest. I wasn't there, so I don't know the full situation, and don't know how old the minor looked, and even what they were investigating. All I know is your (police hating view).

Do you really think it's a good idea to give children a bad example, by encouraging them to think of the police as the enemy?...remember the riots last year?

ifstar

cathryn107 wrote: »

Sorry but I don't think it's sorted. The OP has an arrest record which will be held permanently on the PNC, along with his DNA, prints and photos. If he has a job which requires an enhanced CRB the arrest will be revealed. If he ever comes into contact with the police in future, volunteers, adopts etc he'll have a 'record'.
.

Wrong, DNA, fingerprints and photo's are only stored and retained if he is charged and convicted. He will also not have a record that would flag up on any checks either and it would not have any outcome on any disclosure checks for any jobs. A PNC record would be created however no details about this incident would be held.

You post is misinformed and could be very worrying if accepted as fact by the OP or others.

Lotus-eater

princeofpounds wrote: »

That case does seem to be very relevant actually. It probably depends whether you agreed to an interview under caution or not. If you did, they had no need to arrest you. I would speak to a solicitor.

http://www.fosters-solicitors.co.uk/news/crime/false-imprisonment-when-the-police-get-it-wrong/160

That is an interesting case and I wonder why the police felt it necessary to arrest the OP in these circumstances.
Was he offered a solicitor and did he turn it down?

I didn't realise an arrest and release without charge, meant it could go on an e-cib.
I would say this is probably something the OP needs to look into.

Jamie_Carter

cathryn107 wrote: »

Sorry but I don't think it's sorted. The OP has an arrest record which will be held permanently on the PNC, along with his DNA, prints and photos. If he has a job which requires an enhanced CRB the arrest will be revealed. If he ever comes into contact with the police in future, volunteers, adopts etc he'll have a 'record'.

I found it interesting that the police made an appointment and then arrested. They were slapped down in the courts over this very issue - the arrest of people who were happy to answer questions voluntarily and by appointment - last year. It was ruled unlawful and the guidelines have been changed.

You may wish to look up the case of Mark Richardson v West Midlands Police and take action accordingly.

Would taking action get your details removed from the PNC? My personal view is that big brother wants a database on all of us, so once you are on there, what chances are there of it being removed?

If not, then there is probably nothing to gain from taking any action.

Jamie_Carter

ifstar wrote: »

Wrong, DNA, fingerprints and photo's are only stored and retained if he is charged and convicted. He will also not have a record that would flag up on any checks either and it would not have any outcome on any disclosure checks for any jobs. A PNC record would be created however no details about this incident would be held.

You post is misinformed and could be very worrying if accepted as fact by the OP or others.

What if you are charged, and then the charges are dropped?

Jamie_Carter

britishboy wrote: »

Hi all

apologies for stirring up a hornets nest by the look of things

Right, well knock on the door at 3.30pm friday, asked them to come in, was told 'no, put your shoes on your under arrest for harrassment' and was carted off to police station 12 miles away. Was interviewed on tape (well, on CD) and held for an hour while the PC spoke to the charges director (i think) to see if they had enough evidence to go on, which they clearly didnt. apparently i had threatened the bully on more than one occasion and 'roughed him up'. I ws totally humiliated. i was described by the so called victim as 5'11, black spikey hair and muscular build, even though i'm 5'7, dark blonde hair and slight athletic build. Yuo couldnt make it up

anyway, i was released some 4 hours after being taken from my home with 'no further action'

Fuming, embarrassed, and pretty p1ssed off to be honest

Thanks everyone for getting back to me though

The thing is, who are you most "p1ssed off" with, the bully who made the allegations in order to try and drop you in it, or the police for investigating the allegation?

Obviously nobody likes to be arrested, interviewed, and generally humiliated. But then people also complain if their allegations aren't taken seriously by the police.

Lotus-eater

ifstar wrote: »

Wrong, DNA, fingerprints and photo's are only stored and retained if he is charged and convicted.

I don't think this is true and a quick search of google shows it is a very grey area, with police pushing the law as far as they can and beyond, to keep what they can.

cathryn107

ifstar wrote: »

Wrong, DNA, fingerprints and photo's are only stored and retained if he is charged and convicted. He will also not have a record that would flag up on any checks either and it would not have any outcome on any disclosure checks for any jobs. A PNC record would be created however no details about this incident would be held.

You post is misinformed and could be very worrying if accepted as fact by the OP or others.

Sorry but you're wrong (unless you're in Scotland). With regard to DNA etc the ECHR ruled against this in 2008 and the Supreme Court in 2011 and we've had the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, the English and Welsh forces have yet to act.

Whilst the OP would pass a standard CRB, arrest details could be revealed on an enhanced disclosure. I personally know one teacher who was wrongly accused of assaulting a pupil, and it's on her enhanced CRB despite the fact she was never charged and the complainant had made multiple false allegations against a wide variety of people.