Have the police lost our trust?

As pointed above-it could have been avoided.
The way I see it she played a F***ing stupid game and got a stupid prize. If you don’t co operate with police then you deserve all you get wether that be handcuffs or arrest.
To many knobs in this country who, armed with a human rights book and a smart phone, with a bit of self entitlement think they can do what they want.
It’s a disciplined organization to uphold the law and police with consent (to do that they need members of public to co operate) It’s better than almost every other country in the world.

Whilst we’re at it I think they should pursue the divvies on motorbikes thinking the roads are theirs. If they fall off and the balaclava doesn’t protect their heads then so be it. They know the risk.

Ps, I do feel for the child who had to witness that, poor sod thinks it’s acceptable behavior from his mother.
 
Facefuzz said:
They can for a stop search. Saves taking innocent people in to custody
Click to expand...
Not quite. I believe Manchester police still have stop and search powers, bit most police forces do not. The met have these rules:

Stop and search: police powers​

A police officer has powers to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying:

  • illegal drugs
  • a weapon
  • stolen property
  • something which could be used to commit a crime, such as a crowbar
You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that:

  • serious violence could take place
  • you’re carrying a weapon or have used one
  • you’re in a specific location or area
 
Facefuzz said:
As pointed above-it could have been avoided.
The way I see it she played a F***ing stupid game and got a stupid prize. If you don’t co operate with police then you deserve all you get wether that be handcuffs or arrest.
To many knobs in this country who, armed with a human rights book and a smart phone, with a bit of self entitlement think they can do what they want.
It’s a disciplined organization to uphold the law and police with consent (to do that they need members of public to co operate) It’s better than almost every other country in the world.

Whilst we’re at it I think they should pursue the divvies on motorbikes thinking the roads are theirs. If they fall off and the balaclava doesn’t protect their heads then so be it. They know the risk.

Ps, I do feel for the child who had to witness that, poor sod thinks it’s acceptable behavior from his mother.
Click to expand...
You can think the mother behaved wrongly and the police behaved wrongly too. They are not mutually exclusive.

In the UK we no longer police by consent I am afraid. The saying comes from Robert Peels initial idea, and I think they are referred to as peelian principles. The principle is essentially that the police are regarded as civilians in a uniform and they are bound by the same laws as you and I but are given their powers by a public consesus to do so. This is essentially true still today, with one or two exceptions.

Where the principle, probably, no longer applies is that it states that we are policed by consent of the public not at the behest of the government. I would imagine that the public concensus doesn't consent o the public order bill nor the way that immigration is handled.

Not everyone has to consent, the overwhelming consesus from the public has to be one of consent. That, probably isn't true anymore.
 
Once, we were in France, we got on a bus and we didn’t pay the fare as the driver just waved us on, 2 stops later 3/4 local police got on and started to check everyone had a ticket, they were big Fuqqers and were not as soft as UK police, they had one young lad up against the side of the bus and forced him to insert his credit/debit card into a machine they had to pay the on the spot fine, tourists on the bus where flapping, looking on the floor for a valid ticket, the bus stopped and we got off before we were accosted, they followed us off and surrounded my brother in law who couldn’t show a valid ticket, 2 behind him with 1 in front, card reader in hand, being threatened to be locked up, after a couple of wrong PIN numbers by my brother in law the police just swore at us and called us scum before heading back to their next victims.
but in the end, all was good, nobody was harmed, no great shakes, we carried on with our day 👍🏻👍🏻
 
zzzzz said:
Yes.
Clips like the one in the OP are very very rare.
I've never met a copper, either when they've been working or not, that I wouldn't trust 100%
People making too much of isolated incidents are just fannies.
Click to expand...

I can’t believe anyone who has ever been to a football match can possibly say that. Certainly not one in the 1980s and/ or as an away fan.
 
FishofContemplation said:
I can’t believe anyone who has ever been to a football match can possibly say that. Certainly not one in the 1980s and/ or as an away fan.
Click to expand...
I've been away many times, mainly in the 'bad old days'. I saw heavy handed policing many times but I never saw anyone get 'fit-up' and never saw anything that made me not trust the police.
Obviously there are 'bent' coppers as there are in wronguns any walks of life but I've never come across one.
So I have no reason at all to not trust the police as a whole.
But then I never have any interaction with them either, ever.
 
Last edited:
Heam44 said:
Police definitely can detain you for the purposes of a stop and search.



Where have you got this information from?
Click to expand...
For your first comment, not according to the government's own website. The law is clear. Section 60 is the stop and search law that requires no suscpicion but does require the permussion of an officer of at least the tank of inspector.

For your second comment when I lived in Manchester stop and search was never out of the news due to racist bias from cops.

I don't know if Manchester police still operate stop and search, I don't live there anymore.

I believe metropolitan forces can enact their own stop and search guidelines. It's one of the differences between regional forces and met forces.

I have no idea how this translates into a legal framework in court though. On appeal through echr any conviction that depended on a no suspicion stop and search is likely to be overturned.
 
dribble said:
So you would just comply, even if they were acting outside the law?
Click to expand...
I'll explain better. I said, "if the cops asked or requested I would just do whatever they wanted anyway, and wouldn't even get to the point of being ordered".

By "whatever", I mean being realistic, to what a policeman might typically want from me in 99.9% of scenarios, and assuming it's safe to do it, by safe I mean I'm not going to increase the risk of getting anyone killed, including myself. I didn't intend that statement to cover every single scenario.

With me being asked, it being a request, I would assume they would just be asking me to stop, or talk to them, provide information, provide my name, address, which way the guy with the balaclava went, more than happy to do any of that, even if the law doesn't require me to. I would certainly do the bare minimum, and likely go even further than that, I couldn't care less to be honest. If it helps them do what they want, then great, they have a tough job, which is high-risk and they get poorly compensated for it. I've got nothing to hide and not committed any crimes to my knowledge so I would comply as much as I reasonably could.

For me, I find working with people in a reasonable way, rather than trying to make their job harder tends to lead to a much better outcome for all. Some people might not want to be reasonable, each to their own.

You're allowed to be reasonable or help out, in scenarios in which the law doesn't require it, if you've not broken a law then you being reasonable or helping out will just make things generally better overall. If someone suspects you've broken a rule or a law, then you're not likely going to be doing anyone or yourself any favours by not being reasonable. It might help a criminal get off a crime in some instances, again, each to their own, but that's generally not going to be a good outcome for the public.
 
Laughing said:
For your first comment, not according to the government's own website. The law is clear. Section 60 is the stop and search law that requires no suscpicion but does require the permussion of an officer of at least the tank of inspector.
Click to expand...

I am 100% correct, in fact if you stop and search someone one of the things you HAVE to tell them is that they are detained for the purposes of a search!

Also a stop and search does not require the permission of an inspector.

Feel free to point me to a government website that states the police do not have the powers to detain someone for a stop and search. Or that a stop and search requires the permission of an Inspector.

You are correct regarding a section 60 I.e that they require the authorisation of an Inspector. However this is a specific type of stop search very rarely used - that apply to certain areas an only for a limited time period (24 hours I think and can be extended for 24 hours by a superintendent). I think they make up around 1% or stop searches.

Laughing said:
For your second comment when I lived in Manchester stop and search was never out of the news due to racist bias from cops.

I don't know if Manchester police still operate stop and search, I don't live there anymore.

I believe metropolitan forces can enact their own stop and search guidelines. It's one of the differences between regional forces and met forces.

I have no idea how this translates into a legal framework in court though. On appeal through echr any conviction that depended on a no suspicion stop and search is likely to be overturned.
Click to expand...
Regards to the above when you said “most police forces do not have stop and search powers”. Where have you got this information from? Because based on the comment that I am replying to it’s not clear where you got this information from or why you have came to this conclusion.
 
I didn't look it up previously beyond the government website.

Searching specifically I found

www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk

Stop and Search - Liberty

What powers do the police have to stop and search you? What are your rights during a stop and search? What does the Public Order Act 2023 have to do with this?
www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk

The original article I referred to is here

www.gov.uk

Police powers to stop and search: your rights

The police can stop and question you at any time - they can search you depending on the situation.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

I believe that forces implement their own stop and search because when I lived in Manchester their process' were out of line with the UK generally. It causes a lot of problems that were reported nationally.

Of course any force can issue guidelines but you would have to assume they are in line with the legal framework in place at the time, though this is an assumption nothing more.

Where are you getting your info from heam? We seem to be referencing conflicting information.
 
Laughing said:
I didn't look it up previously beyond the government website.

Searching specifically I found

www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk

Stop and Search - Liberty

What powers do the police have to stop and search you? What are your rights during a stop and search? What does the Public Order Act 2023 have to do with this?
www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk

The original article I referred to is here

www.gov.uk

Police powers to stop and search: your rights

The police can stop and question you at any time - they can search you depending on the situation.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

I believe that forces implement their own stop and search because when I lived in Manchester their process' were out of line with the UK generally. It causes a lot of problems that were reported nationally.

Of course any force can issue guidelines but you would have to assume they are in line with the legal framework in place at the time, though this is an assumption nothing more.

Where are you getting your info from heam? We seem to be referencing conflicting information.
Click to expand...
If you'd like me to reply more comprehensively I will have to do so later today.

However to provide a couple of quick answers to your questions.

Firstly, my information comes from the police training school and the countless stop searches that I have both witnessed and myself conducted.

Lastly regards to your point about the police not being able to detain someone for a stop search. If you look at the first article you have linked, approximately two thirds of the way down, you will see the following information:

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS IF I’M STOPPED AND SEARCHED?​

The College of Policing have a guide on how police should behave when they stop and search people. It says that the police must search you in accordance with ‘GOWISELY’.

WHAT’S GOWISELY?​

It’s an acronym – each letter of GOWISELY stands for your rights if you’re stopped and searched.

G: Grounds for suspicion. For suspicion-based searches, the police must clearly explain the basis for their reasonable suspicion.

O: Object of the search. The police must clearly explain what they are looking for.

W: Warrant card. The police must show you this if you ask for it, or if they aren’t wearing a uniform.

I: Identity of the police officer or officers. The police officers involved in stopping and searching you must give you their name and shoulder number.

S: Station. The police must tell you which police station they work at.

E: Entitlement to a search record. The police must provide you with a copy of the search record or, if this is not practicable, provide information on how you can get a copy.

L: Legal power used. The police must tell you what legal power they are using to stop and search you.

Y: ‘You are detained for the purposes of a search’. The police must tell you this. ‘Detained’ means you are not free to leave until they tell you.

That's what we have to tell people when we stop and search them. The "Y" of "Go WISELY" is the pertinent point. I have highlighted in bold the last bit.
 
FishofContemplation said:
I can’t believe anyone who has ever been to a football match can possibly say that. Certainly not one in the 1980s and/ or as an away fan.
Click to expand...
Must admit, I’ve been to countless away games since the 90s (was born in the 80s) and never had any bother at all from the police. If they ask me to walk in a particular direction or whatever I usually just comply as I haven’t got the energy to contest it when 9 times out of 10 it isn’t really an inconvenience anyway.

I do see a lot of people who don’t comply though who then seem surprised that the police aren’t happy with them, I think there’s a lot of needless petulance sometimes though I know a lot of it is because some people have axes to grind with the police over more serious stuff.
 
Heam44 said:
If you'd like me to reply more comprehensively I will have to do so later today.

However to provide a couple of quick answers to your questions.

Firstly, my information comes from the police training school and the countless stop searches that I have both witnessed and myself conducted.

Lastly regards to your point about the police not being able to detain someone for a stop search. If you look at the first article you have linked, approximately two thirds of the way down, you will see the following information:

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS IF I’M STOPPED AND SEARCHED?​

The College of Policing have a guide on how police should behave when they stop and search people. It says that the police must search you in accordance with ‘GOWISELY’.

WHAT’S GOWISELY?​

It’s an acronym – each letter of GOWISELY stands for your rights if you’re stopped and searched.

G: Grounds for suspicion. For suspicion-based searches, the police must clearly explain the basis for their reasonable suspicion.

O: Object of the search. The police must clearly explain what they are looking for.

W: Warrant card. The police must show you this if you ask for it, or if they aren’t wearing a uniform.

I: Identity of the police officer or officers. The police officers involved in stopping and searching you must give you their name and shoulder number.

S: Station. The police must tell you which police station they work at.

E: Entitlement to a search record. The police must provide you with a copy of the search record or, if this is not practicable, provide information on how you can get a copy.

L: Legal power used. The police must tell you what legal power they are using to stop and search you.

Y: ‘You are detained for the purposes of a search’. The police must tell you this. ‘Detained’ means you are not free to leave until they tell you.

That's what we have to tell people when we stop and search them. The "Y" of "Go WISELY" is the pertinent point. I have highlighted in bold the last bit.
Click to expand...
Please do explain in more detail, but I am not sure we are disagreeing. A suspicion based search can be done, of there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. Suspicionless searches, that is a search where the reasons for the search are speculative, require a senior officers permission. Either search means you are detained, but not neccesarily arrested.

If a police officer stops you and asks to search and it is suspicionless, in other words he cannot articulate a crime he suspects you off, you are free to refuse and go on your way. Any detention at this point is illegal, without a senior officers permission.

Is that not what you are saying? If not please do expand when you get some time. I am fascinated to hear what the police training on this says. I could read the mets training manual, but that isn;t necessarily what you are being told.
 
Laughing said:
Please do explain in more detail, but I am not sure we are disagreeing. A suspicion based search can be done, of there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. Suspicionless searches, that is a search where the reasons for the search are speculative, require a senior officers permission. Either search means you are detained, but not neccesarily arrested.

If a police officer stops you and asks to search and it is suspicionless, in other words he cannot articulate a crime he suspects you off, you are free to refuse and go on your way. Any detention at this point is illegal, without a senior officers permission.

Is that not what you are saying? If not please do expand when you get some time. I am fascinated to hear what the police training on this says. I could read the mets training manual, but that isn;t necessarily what you are being told.
Click to expand...
Again I'll try to answer this quickly - Ignoring section 60 stop searches, which as I've said are very rarely used but also are very simple to understand and also I'm not disputing what you're saying.

Maybe I have misunderstood what you were saying i.e I thought you were saying that a police officer could not detain someone for the purpose of a stop search. Again I am referring to a "regular" stop search. Of course you have now clarified that you mean a police officer cannot detain a person for a stop search if they don't suspect you of an offence.

I am not really sure what sure what to say to that, as of course that is entirely true, but also entirely irrelevant as I can't see any reason why a police officer would approach someone to stop and search them for no reason i.e without suspecting them of having committed an offence (or currently committing an offence, or about to commit an offence etc). Same as you cannot arrest someone without suspecting them of an offence.

Literally the first thing you explain during a stop and search is the 'grounds' for the suspicion i.e "I've just seen you hand that fella some money and he has passed you a small piece of tinfoil which you secreted in your pocket, therefore I'm searching you under section 23 of PACE - misuse of drugs act or "I've just seen you hide a shiny metalic object in your jacket / trousers" etc etc (I'm sure you understand my point).

I've never seen or heard of a police officer attempting to search someone without suspicion, as evidenced above in the article that you linked you have to inform them of "grounds" (which means - the circumstances of you suspecting them of an offence), what your searching them for i.e drugs / weapons etc and also provide all of the other information listed in "GO WISELY".

I cannot imagine a scenario whereby a police officer would approach someone and say "I'm searching you / arresting you without suspecting you of an an offence". And if that ever did / has happened then not a single police officer would agree with it. In fact you'd actually be committing a crime.
 
do TFL have to pay the police/PCSO?

I find that attitude comes from both sides. If the police have an axe to grind (they've been wound up to do something, like being at a legal protest) then they are inherently unreasonable and err on the side of suspicion . In the same way that hurt people, hurt people. If a person has a bad experience with the police they too will be obstructive.

I also find, depending on what I am wearing I am treated differently but all walks of life. If I'm suited and booted, I can sashay into lots of places, if I've got a hoodie on, I get eyed with suspicion in a shop. It's prejudice. It's bullsheet, it's life.
 
Heam44 said:
Again I'll try to answer this quickly - Ignoring section 60 stop searches, which as I've said are very rarely used but also are very simple to understand and also I'm not disputing what you're saying.

Maybe I have misunderstood what you were saying i.e I thought you were saying that a police officer could not detain someone for the purpose of a stop search. Again I am referring to a "regular" stop search. Of course you have now clarified that you mean a police officer cannot detain a person for a stop search if they don't suspect you of an offence.

I am not really sure what sure what to say to that, as of course that is entirely true, but also entirely irrelevant as I can't see any reason why a police officer would approach someone to stop and search them for no reason i.e without suspecting them of having committed an offence (or currently committing an offence, or about to commit an offence etc). Same as you cannot arrest someone without suspecting them of an offence.

Literally the first thing you explain during a stop and search is the 'grounds' for the suspicion i.e "I've just seen you hand that fella some money and he has passed you a small piece of tinfoil which you secreted in your pocket, therefore I'm searching you under section 23 of PACE - misuse of drugs act or "I've just seen you hide a shiny metalic object in your jacket / trousers" etc etc (I'm sure you understand my point).

I've never seen or heard of a police officer attempting to search someone without suspicion, as evidenced above in the article that you linked you have to inform them of "grounds" (which means - the circumstances of you suspecting them of an offence), what your searching them for i.e drugs / weapons etc and also provide all of the other information listed in "GO WISELY".

I cannot imagine a scenario whereby a police officer would approach someone and say "I'm searching you / arresting you without suspecting you of an an offence". And if that ever did / has happened then not a single police officer would agree with it. In fact you'd actually be committing a crime.
Click to expand...
That is what I am saying, yup. Unfortunately there has been many instances of stop and search without reasonable suspicion. I have been the victim of it myself, many years ago in Acklam walking home from my girlfriends house. I refused to identify myself or allow a search. I was arrested.

It turned out the officers suspicion was simply a report of someone looking suspicious in the area. He had no description of the man reported and the arrest was unlawful.

The issue may be the definition of reasonable supicion. The "genuiney suspect" clause is open to interpretation.
 
Laughing said:
That is what I am saying, yup. Unfortunately there has been many instances of stop and search without reasonable suspicion. I have been the victim of it myself, many years ago in Acklam walking home from my girlfriends house. I refused to identify myself or allow a search. I was arrested.

It turned out the officers suspicion was simply a report of someone looking suspicious in the area. He had no description of the man reported and the arrest was unlawful.

The issue may be the definition of reasonable supicion. The "genuiney suspect" clause is open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
Regarding the arrest being unlawful, is this your opinion or did you make a complaint to the police that was upheld?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top