Good policing or just invasive?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

it doesn't matter what the officer has seen in his area prior to stopping you, he must remain impartial and professional at all times.


when an officer approaches you he must be polite and respectfull identify himself and his station of where he is based and why he has stopped you, under what statute act or law he stopped you for, and what he expects to find on you, he must be repsectfull in his undertaking of your stop and search. must be same gender, if your wearing religious clothing or wants you to remove articles of clothing that would expose private intimate parts you must take you to a location away from the public and that is private.


after the search they must give you a receipt (if you decline to give your name and address you can opt to not receive the receipt) or collect one from the station that the officer is based within 12 months.


They can ask for ID to which you can decline.


They can ask you where your going and where you have been you can decline to comment.


if plain clothed officer conducts a stop and search must identify himself from the outset and produce his warrant card, if the officer doesn't have his warrant card he has no legal power to search you or detain you, he could be anybody request or if declined call the police for uniformed officers to attend.

Captain_Flack.

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

it doesn't matter what the officer has seen in his area prior to stopping you, he must remain impartial and professional at all times.


when an officer approaches you he must be polite and respectfull identify himself and his station of where he is based and why he has stopped you, under what statute act or law he stopped you for, and what he expects to find on you, he must be repsectfull in his undertaking of your stop and search. must be same gender, if your wearing religious clothing or wants you to remove articles of clothing that would expose private intimate parts you must take you to a location away from the public and that is private.


after the search they must give you a receipt (if you decline to give your name and address you can opt to not receive the receipt) or collect one from the station that the officer is based within 12 months.


They can ask for ID to which you can decline.


They can ask you where your going and where you have been you can decline to comment.


if plain clothed officer conducts a stop and search must identify himself from the outset and produce his warrant card, if the officer doesn't have his warrant card he has no legal power to search you or detain you, he could be anybody request or if declined call the police for uniformed officers to attend.

Yet more out of date information from your google search.:whistle:

Captain_Flack.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Don't start all that rubbish. Speeding is a major factor in most road deaths, and fines are supposed to be a deterrent to put people off speeding.

You making that up or confusing it with inappropriate speed?

Joe_Horner

Paradigm wrote: »

I got stopped about 6 months ago & the 2 plods came walking up to the cab, I wound the window down & said "morning mate"...his reply was "It's officer to you"

That's attitude!

No, attitude is when you reply "That's 'it's officer to you, Sir'."

goonarmy

Ive seen tsg assualt members of the public for no reason other than smoking. But they are effective.

londonTiger

goonarmy wrote: »

Ive seen tsg assualt members of the public for no reason other than smoking. But they are effective.

the ss and gestapo were very effective at getting results. But there's a line to be drawn and we can't allow authorities to take liberties.

Also on another note, clearly a lot of people have inside knowledge of how police work. Accusations have been made that they might be police and was subsequently denied. It's not in any police officers interest to disclose they work for the police. Additionally I was contacted by a member of a forum a few years ago when I was assaulted and was having trouble getting the police to act. The forum member told me that they worked for the police but didn't want to be identified. Of course I upheld their wishes, I'm only mentioning this because police officers here will never disclose that they are police.

Both for professional AND confidentiality reasons.

Rolandtheroadie

londonTiger wrote: »

the ss and gestapo were very effective at getting results. But there's a line to be drawn and we can't allow authorities to take liberties.

Also on another note, clearly a lot of people have inside knowledge of how police work. Accusations have been made that they might be police and was subsequently denied. It's not in any police officers interest to disclose they work for the police. Additionally I was contacted by a member of a forum a few years ago when I was assaulted and was having trouble getting the police to act. The forum member told me that they worked for the police but didn't want to be identified. Of course I upheld their wishes, I'm only mentioning this because police officers here will never disclose that they are police.

Both for professional AND confidentiality reasons.

Hee Haw to do with it. It's to do with getting the sack.

londonTiger

scotsman4th wrote: »

Hee Haw to do with it. It's to do with getting the sack.

aka professional reasons. I suspect if they identify themselves as police then they'll get a bunch of people grab their nutsack every time they write anything less than whiter than white. Any judgement on a social group they make will get them stick etc.

A forum like this is for people to be honest and frank. It defeats the purpose if they have to watch their every word here.

Rolandtheroadie

londonTiger wrote: »

aka professional reasons. I suspect if they identify themselves as police then they'll get a bunch of people grab their nutsack every time they write anything less than whiter than white. Any judgement on a social group they make will get them stick etc.

A forum like this is for people to be honest and frank. It defeats the purpose if they have to watch their every word here.

Dont think it would be down to what other people say, it would only be down to what they themselves say.
Every post would probably need a disclaimer of some sorts.

Richard53

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Don't start all that rubbish. Speeding is a major factor in most road deaths, and fines are supposed to be a deterrent to put people off speeding.

Incorrect. The latest figures say that exceeding the speed limit is a factor in 7% of all road deaths. That's not 'most', or anywhere near.

Inappropriate speed is a factor in far more accidents, of course. I suppose that you could argue that if you are moving at all, and you cause an accident, then your speed was inappropriate. Your 2 mph pulling out of a junction into the path of another vehicle was 2 mph too much, kind of thing. But we all know what it means. 80 mph on a quiet motorway on a sunny day is perfectly safe. 30 mph in the rain in a crowded rush-hour city street is irresponsible and dangerous. And yet one is illegal, and one isn't.

If we could work out a way of discriminating in the public mind between 'speed which is excessive for the conditions' and 'speed which exceeds an arbitrary number stuck on a pole somewhere', then we might have safer roads and a fairer system.