LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAlso Special Constables aren't required to do the "paper work" back at HQ that normal police officers have to do, plus I think they get certain expenses paid for. Not sure on that one but I think they do.Originally Posted by Gr44
Also Special Constables aren't required to do the "paper work" back at HQ that normal police officers have to do, plus I think they get certain expenses paid for. Not sure on that one but I think they do.
CSO's have neither anything like the full power of a 'proper' police officer, nor do they have no powers at all.
The are given fairly extensive powers, including in some cases the power to require people to provide name and address, and to detain by reasonable force if necessary, those that refuse. Moreover, in situations where they have been given that authority, anyone refusing to comply is committing an offence by doing so.
But .... the exact authority a CSO has depends on the Chief Constable of their area. There are a fairly wide range of powers available for him to authorise under the Police Reform Act 2002 and subsequent amending legislation, but they aren't necessarily all enabled, and even where they are enabled, only in the areas designated for the CSOs to cover.
So IF the CSOs were in their area (and I'd guess they were), and IF the relevant powers had been handed to them (and again, I'd guess they were), then they do indeed have the power to, as Moby said, break up groups indulging in "anti-social behaviour" (though that's a fairly broad spectrum, and very subjective), and to "detain" anyone either refusing or subsequently refusing to give name and address.
Full powers of arrest though? Nope.
We all have some powers of arrest, in the right circumstances, including using reasonable force to do so. But if you try it and get it wrong, you'll almost certainly be committing an offence yourself. An arrest, whether the arrestee is physically touched or not, involves an element of coercion. You are telling someone that they are detained, that their freedom of movement is restricted and implicit in that is that you'll use reasonable force if necessary. And that probably will constitute an assault if the arrest is not legal. So, the general advice is that while we all have those powers, you'd be well-advised to think awfully carefully before trying to use them.
CSOs have those same powers, but they also have more training as to when and how it'd be legal to use them.
In addition, they have the powers, including that of "detaining" people as specified by the PRA etc, but those powers of detention are NOT full powers of arrest. They can then request that the detained person accompanies them to a police station, and if that's refused, they can detain for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a full police officer, using reasonable force if necessary.
It's then down to the police officer to deal with. Could you then be properly arrested and charged? Yup. If it's an arrestable offence, the police officer can arrest on that basis. If it isn't, then as I understand it, you won't be arrested provided you give name and address and that the police officer is satisfied that it's genuine, but you may still be charged with the offence(s). If the officers have reason to suspect the name details may not be accurate, then you may be arrested while they confirm them, though you'll be released as soon as they do check out. But if you do refuse to give identity information to the full officer and you'll probably be arrested on that basis alone, until such time as you do give details.
A full police officer, however, has extensive additional powers of arrest, in addition to those that the rest of us have, given to them by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and by a wide variety of other legislation that permits them to arrest in specific situations.
So in brief, CSO's don't all have the same powers (from area to area) and certainly don't have the full powers of a full officer, BUT they certainly do have the power to do what the officer in the above example did IF that power has been granted, and it may very well have been. They are not all at totally toothless, and they have direct recourse to the teeth of full officers where need-be. But acting in the bolshy and obstructive manner described in the opening post would, if those powers have indeed been granted, be an offence.
Many full police officers will, however, exercise a considerable degree of discretion in how to deal with such a situation when called to it. I suspect, if it was nothing more than rowdy youths waiting for their friends, that they'd point out that the CSOs were acting within their authority and that an offence has been committed by refusing to supply names and addresses, but that the officers would probably rather take the youths arrogance down a peg or two, probably get their names and addresses (and maybe check them out) then tell said youths to clear off and "don't let me catch you doing this again", or similar. It would, after all, hardly seem like the crime of the year or worth tying up court time. But most cops have good memories and if they attend the same bunch of youths in the same "mouthy" situation again ..... who knows?
Rave (14-11-2007)
People are assuming "guilty until proven innocent" if you ask me. Just because there is some youth-related violence doesn't mean all groups of young people should be tarred with the same brush.
Teenagers are noisy - they always have been. They are also easily bored. The reason why they are hanging out on street corners making a ruckus is because no-one has seen fit to provide them with anywhere better to go. So... what's the offical solution: "move them on".
That's a great solution if ever I heard one. Maybe some pink lighting or classical music could be provided so they don't come back again.
Last edited by Fraz; 12-11-2007 at 03:31 PM.
Don't the PCSO's need an actual police officer to take the prisoner's down the station? I thought they had the powers of arrest of a citizen (plus a few other anti-social behaviour powers) but couldn't escort a person under caution.
All told I think it's a failed initative, for the cost of those two PCSO's you could have one extra police officer assigned to that area. People need to know what if someone wearing a police uniform asks you a question, you can get into trouble for mucking them around, even if it's a PCSO.
maybe if they didn't close all the things for the kids to do they wouldn't have this issue.
When I was about 15-16 we had the choice of about 4 local youth centres within a 2 mile area to go to, play pool, darts, table tennis and generally socialise.
Now... I think there is only about 1 left and due to all the cutbacks this is in the threat of closing.
You all heard about the older generations saying that they had "rollerskating" and various other things to do when they we're younger, but now the only real places for them is in fact the abundence of public houses and nothing more.
Give the kids something to do and I bet 1/2 the issues from Anti-social behaviour radically go away over night.
Exactly.
God alone knows how many stupid things I did as a kid just because I was really really really REALLY bored.
Trouble is, now a days, you give kids a place to go and someone trashes it for fun... You can't treat them like adults because they take the mickey (case in point, my g.f's teenaged sister, allowed to drink at home and decides this means she can go into pubs unaccompanied and binge drink)
There is no easy answer to the problem because it's formed over the years for a variety of reasons, each "troublemaker" does it for their own reasons.
As I understand it, yes, more or less.
They can ASK the person to go to a police station with them, and if they're not willing to do that, they can detain them for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a full officer. But they can't compel someone to go to the station.
Actually, the question of PCSO/Community Officers/whatever's powers is a bit of a red herring.
Even if they had been real police, one of the reasons why living in Britain under New Labour is so liberating (compared to say, living in Chile under Augusto Pinochet) is that without being arrested we don't have to identify ourselves at all to police except under very specific situations:
1) the police wants to issue you with a summons for a non-arrestable offence (and has specifically given this reason).
2) you are in control of a motor vehicle.
3) the police reasonably suspects you of engaging in anti-social behaviour which is defined in law for this purpose as causing harassment, alarm or distress to other people.
Since none of these conditions apply to the situation described the kids were absolutely correct to refuse to identify themselves. Sure the police could dream up a groundless suspicion of anti-social behaviour but then why not just dream up a groundless suspicion of terrorism instead, bang them all up for 28 days and be done with it?
Happily, the police aren't quite empowered to demand our papers, detain us on the street or bundle us into vans for no absolutely no reason just yet. In fact, it is arguably the civic duty of all of us to refuse to comply with demands from incompetent police that have no legal basis even under the most authoritarian legal framework this country has ever suffered
Admittedly though the recent Criminal Justice Act, Serious Organised Crime and Police Act and Terrorism Act have together criminalised all forms of human behaviour and interaction meaning that the kids could have been promptly arrested for the 'crime' of unauthorised assembly, held in custody, and their DNA taken and stored until they turned 100.
Some say we live in 1984, but I think that metaphor is overused. I prefer to think of it as just living in the town in "Footloose" instead
classic profiling and response from the authorities and some of you should be fine with that
no-one was complaining about that ?
It is Inevitable.....
In regards to the comment about the kids not doing anything. The fact they are that arrogent and rude to an officer trying to help the community annoys me.
Admittedly the officer was, so it seems, not justified in this case. There is no real need to make their life any harder. Chances are this group of kids are the same innocent weapons we get where I live. eg;
Blocking the footpaths and part of the road with push bikes, or them selves and refusing to move. throwing eggs/beer cans etc. When I was a kid ( and it wasn't that long ago ) I never, ever recall having a need or want to 'hang around' street corners at un-earthly hours for a laugh. Nore do I recall being as rudem arrogent and self-centered as most of these roaming children.
A large number of people, youth and elders alike, need to learn some social skills.
ikonia witnessed a classic case of poor policing regardless of whether it was a PCSO, regular plod etc. Police are now taught that all encounters with the public can be a confrontation so they subconsciously use a far more aggressive stance when dealing with the public. Those youths were doing nothing wrong and all the PCSO has done is alienate a group who are now more likely to be unhelpful and weary of authority in the future.
They could have just said hello how's it going, are you safe. Shared a joke and moved on. If they were blocking an area or something then a polite word to get them to move until their friend arrives would be all that is needed. Instead over officious plod (and alot of them are nowadays) chooses to see a non-existent problem and abuses his/her authority until an unnecessary confrontation is manufactured. It's very sad but I've seen it happen too.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Just to be clear, I'm not questioning if the kids where right or wrong, its more the power this communtiy officer did/didn't have.
My comment about the kids doing nothing is valid - they where doing nothing apart from loiterig in a public place, they looked a little shifty as they had the baggy jeans and baseball caps on, but then, thats their fashion choice, all though their fashion choice to me was a crime, it didn't warrent police involvement
For the record this was about 6:00 the kids where not being a problem, not in the way not blocking anything, not being rude, they only started being gobby to the officer once he started pressuring them to move on - give details and even then they where just vocal about explaing their reasons, the only real rude response came when he threatened to arrest them to which the kids seemed to know the score, they where initially polite to him. They genuinly appeared to be waiting quite in a large public shopping area to meet two friends, but that wasn't the point of this post.
It is Inevitable.....
i think thats balls
as a kid we didnt have youth centres etc. all we did was play football (jumpers for goalposts). but we werent little ******s
I just think that they make the areas where the patrol look at lot more safer and secure for other people. But power wise they can hardly do anything.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote