Good policing or just invasive?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

Not if there's a Section 60 in force they don't.;)

where was the OP violent?;)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/60


so if the officer was acting under section 60. he would have to have reasonable suspicion that the act of violence is about to be commited.


where in the OP's post was the op acting in a manor that would constitute to stopping him under this act? he was not acting violently he minding his own business in his car!.


do you throw out these excuses when stopping people sat in their cars because that to me is abusing this act for its intended purpose.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

BoP will now interrupt for the hard of reading.


A totally innocent member of the public was jumped on by thuggish and brutal police offices for fiddling with his Sat Nav.


It has not reached the Daily Mail

Captain_Flack.

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

where was the OP violent?;) Any person in the area of a 60 can be searched without reason.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/60


so if the officer was acting under section 60. he would have to have reasonable suspicion that the act of violence is about to be commited. No he wouldn't.


where in the OP's post was the op acting in a manor that would constitute to stopping him under this act? he was not acting violently he minding his own business in his car!.
His mere presence is enough.

do you throw out these excuses when stopping people sat in their cars because that to me is abusing this act for its intended purpose.

You must try harder.

My response was to Stoke who claimed you needed a warrant to search.;)

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

You must try harder.

My response was to Stoke who claimed you needed a warrant to search.;)

Any person in the area of a 60 can be searched without reason.
he needs to reasonably believe that any person in his area is causing or going to cause SERIOUS VIOLENCE in order to action a section 60 stop and search. The ACT makes this plain in legislation in its wording.


Sitting in vehicle is does not constitute to belief that the person in the vehicle is about to cause serious violence.


there Is no LAW or ACT to say a officer in uniform can lawfully or legally order a person exit their vehicle either, they can request! but not order.


there is no LAW or ACT that says officers must approach the public with aggressive and intimidating manor either.


I had trouble with a certain officer in my area when I was a young driver, I was stopped and searched regularly (every weekend) by a certain officer, given Hort1's every weekend and every time I produced my documents, after a many many months and keeping my hort1 slips I went to my solicitor who made a complaint to the station sergeant who arranged for me and my solicitor to come into the station for a meeting, I produced all these slips to the sergeant who looked for the officers number which out of 192 producers 187 had his number on needless to say the sergeant wasn't happy he apologized for his officers actions, it was clear harassment. IPCC upheld my complaint and I had no more issues.


after than and advice from my solicitor if im ever stopped walking or driving and I believe have done nothing wrong, is to say nothing, don't give anything to them not even my name, don't even sign or accept anything and consent to nothing.


I don't feel safe when officers have the I can do say act and speak and do what the hell I like towards you attitude, ive kicked police out of my house with attitude such as the one Londontiger experienced, trying to talk down and aggressively to me and I was the one who called the police and trying to assist as a witness to crime. I have respect for officers who have respect towards me.

Joe_Horner

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Any person in the area of a 60 can be searched without reason.
he needs to reasonably believe that any person in his area is causing or going to cause SERIOUS VIOLENCE in order to action a section 60 stop and search. The ACT makes this plain in legislation in its wording.

That's not quite true. That belief is needed before authorisation for searches under S60 can be given. That's something that can only be done by an Inspector or above, and is intended to allow for it to be invoked when, for example, riots are anticipated.

But, once an Inspector has given that authorisation, any police officer on duty in the area covered can stop and search anyone he likes and he doesn't need any suspicion or other grounds to do so.

Like a lot of recent legislation, it's a poorly thought out knee-jerk which has potential for widespread abuse and very weak safeguards. Sadly, that seems to be the way of lawmaking now. Far too many are introduced to pander to public outcry over the latest tabloid headline with little or no regard to the possible long term effects.

Next time something hits the news that "needs a law", people really should be careful what they wish for because the politicians may be only too pleased to oblige.......

bigjl

Well as I seem to remember you have mentioned in other threads that you don't have insurance cover for business use I suspect that is why you were nervous.

So you the Policemans sixth sense obviously got this vibe from you as they drove past.

And what makes you think it is correct to give a Police Officer anything other than proper respect.

A flickering interior light could easily have looked like a torch from a passing vehicle, which would certainly give cause for concern

I await your next winge if your car was to be broken into and your satnav stolen

Why didn't a Police Officer see them robbing my SatNav, blah, blah

bigjl

Building_Surveyor wrote: »

Hahha! What a joke. You've obviously never been stopped by the police who tHemselves can have a attitude problem, desperate to make an arrest over anything.

I am a woman and I have been in a situation where I've been stopped by two rookie officers with a chip on their solider desperate to meet the nights targets of x amount of arrests so pulled me over for absolutely nothing. Yes nothing... Only to ask me where I was driving to or coming from... Non of their business frankly but I complied, only to be sent on my merry way after 15minutes of pointless banter.

Frankly, a bad attitude is not illegal. I could be the rudest person in the world. If I haven't broken the law, sod off!

If you can do it better then sign up.

If you have never worked in the Emergency Services and put your life on the line you have no right to comment.

Do you know what they dealt with on the previous job?

Or the night before

I know what the Police go through on a daily basis, your insight is likely to be from TV

And the Police don't have nightly arrest targets

They more often avoid arresting people to keep officers out and about protecting you and yours.

I wish we were all as perfect as you think you are.

Captain_Flack.

bigjl wrote: »

If you can do it better then sign up.

If you have never worked in the Emergency Services and put your life on the line you have no right to comment. Have you?

Do you know what they dealt with on the previous job? That shouldn't matter.

Or the night before

I know what the Police go through on a daily basis, your insight is likely to be from TV You've done the job have you?

And the Police don't have nightly arrest targets But they do have performance indicators

They more often avoid arresting people to keep officers out and about protecting you and yours. Lazy ones do.

I wish we were all as perfect as you think you are.

You're as bad as the person you quoted.

Captain_Flack.

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Any person in the area of a 60 can be searched without reason.
he needs to reasonably believe that any person in his area is causing or going to cause SERIOUS VIOLENCE in order to action a section 60 stop and search. The ACT makes this plain in legislation in its wording.


Sitting in vehicle is does not constitute to belief that the person in the vehicle is about to cause serious violence.


there Is no LAW or ACT to say a officer in uniform can lawfully or legally order a person exit their vehicle either, they can request! but not order.


there is no LAW or ACT that says officers must approach the public with aggressive and intimidating manor either.


I had trouble with a certain officer in my area when I was a young driver, I was stopped and searched regularly (every weekend) by a certain officer, given Hort1's every weekend and every time I produced my documents, after a many many months and keeping my hort1 slips I went to my solicitor who made a complaint to the station sergeant who arranged for me and my solicitor to come into the station for a meeting, I produced all these slips to the sergeant who looked for the officers number which out of 192 producers 187 had his number on needless to say the sergeant wasn't happy he apologized for his officers actions, it was clear harassment. IPCC upheld my complaint and I had no more issues.


after than and advice from my solicitor if im ever stopped walking or driving and I believe have done nothing wrong, is to say nothing, don't give anything to them not even my name, don't even sign or accept anything and consent to nothing.


I don't feel safe when officers have the I can do say act and speak and do what the hell I like towards you attitude, ive kicked police out of my house with attitude such as the one Londontiger experienced, trying to talk down and aggressively to me and I was the one who called the police and trying to assist as a witness to crime. I have respect for officers who have respect towards me.

Bad advice, I suggest you pay for another solicitor.

Captain_Flack.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's not quite true. That belief is needed before authorisation for searches under S60 can be given. That's something that can only be done by an Inspector or above, and is intended to allow for it to be invoked when, for example, riots are anticipated.

But, once an Inspector has given that authorisation, any police officer on duty in the area covered can stop and search anyone he likes and he doesn't need any suspicion or other grounds to do so.

Like a lot of recent legislation, it's a poorly thought out knee-jerk which has potential for widespread abuse and very weak safeguards. Sadly, that seems to be the way of lawmaking now. Far too many are introduced to pander to public outcry over the latest tabloid headline with little or no regard to the possible long term effects.

Next time something hits the news that "needs a law", people really should be careful what they wish for because the politicians may be only too pleased to oblige.......

Its easy to cut and paste but not understand.