Arrest for refusing to give name and address from today

[G4Z]

I am missing the point of the article...?

The number of homeless families in England has topped 100,000 for the first time.

But more than three quarters of the families are living in good quality, self contained temporary homes, not on the streets, ministers say.

so there are more homless families than ever and the govt is saying that yes well we may have more homless families than before but three quarters are in temporary homes, there are not 100k in homes, 25% of them are not. Do you think arresting this 25% will help?

Do you think that the 25% not in temorary accomodation wouldnt like some help? do you think that 25k families reject govt help or that in fact they could not be offered temporary housing?

Also it should be noted as Pyle pointed out, there is pretty much zero help if you are not a family and if you are single with no kids its tough luck, see you later.

[G4Z]

Spec, No idea about that forum mate never heard of it. I just seen the gif a few weeks back and I liked it so when the mods decided my 800 x 600 sig was a bit big I went for this one.

[TheAnimus]

away from the homeless arguement, which is normaly caused by why people are on the streets, rather than lack of support (they have reasons, often been abused, substance dependancy, and are ment to be very depressed on the whole). Now thous are generalisations i formed when i was 15, as that was the last time i bothered to interact with people in that situation.

The ch4 news was saying the big worry is protestors. This is a valid point.

But all too often "legitimate" protestors aren't, in my book harmless, they are generally vandals, who are cuasing problems to poeple. Yes there was that old heckler arested last year under terrorism laws (which i don't approve off) but he was been fundimentally rude. He was making his point in a manner which would break the world if everyone did. If that makes sense..... anti-hang over beer has been administered to ease my pain.

[TeePee]

The new figures show the number of households in accommodation arranged by local councils under homelessness laws was 100,810 at the end of September.

Don't post something just because you think people will read the headline. Just because they are in B&B's rather than self-contained temporary homes, doen't mean they are without help. The figure comes from the number of families who are being helped, nothing to do with people on the streets.

If you are not a family, there are shelters available, which far from being full usually run at less than 50% occupancy. Many do lock there doors at a certain time though, which makes them unpopular. They also don't take kindly to disruptive 'guests'

[Rave]

I've opened up a can of worms with the homelessness argument eh? I was a lot more proud of my 'free society means freedom to commit crimes' argument. Anyone care to take that up?

[G4Z]

Well I am going to put the homeless aspect to one side now because im not getting anywhere with you TeepPee, you seem to think that there is 'no excuse' for being homeless and if you are homeless you deserve to be arrested where you will magicaly be sorted out by our wonderful welfare system, I think you are completely wrong and Im gonna leave it at that.


Rave, I agree with you 100% for every example of a totalitarian police state with nearly 0 crime rate I can give you an example of somewhere else at the opposite liberal end that is the same, Holland, Sweden, Japan?

I for one would much rather live in a place where I have the freedom to commit a crime, not because I want to commit crime but because I am responsible enough to know the difference bewteeen right and wrong and so is everybody else (well, would probably need to make exception for our leaders and ministers there).

I dont want to be tracked and tagged 24/7/365 because at some point I might decide I want to commit a crime, its getting that way here and I wonder how long it will be before thoughtcrime is an offence.

[Mike Fishcake]

In my opinion, if someone intentionally drops litter, they deserve to get arrested or maybe at least a decent on the spot fine. What are rubbish bins for? Decoration?

WHAT?

Someone that leaves a piece of paper on the floor outside needs to take up hours of police time and paperwork? Yes it's antisocial, but there are crimes a little bit more serious than that taking place. Besides, you can't prove that something was deliberate, and AFAIK there *are* on the spot fines for littering anyway, aren't there?

[TeePee]

Well I am going to put the homeless aspect to one side now because im not getting anywhere with you TeepPee, you seem to think that there is 'no excuse' for being homeless and if you are homeless you deserve to be arrested where you will magicaly be sorted out by our wonderful welfare system, I think you are completely wrong and Im gonna leave it at that.

You have a right to an opinion, and I hope you'll get around to reading the article you found. There is material there for another thread on the reasons why more people are relying on governmental housing support, but it's going a long way off topic. Hopefully this will encorage you to look for some evidence which does support your viewpoint, and in doing so you will learn a great deal more about the issue. So far you've very successfully proven yourself wrong.

[Nick]

You might not have one? Does this law make homelessness an arrestable offence?

Did I say anything about be UNABLe to give an address? No, don;t go spinning my words back at me, like an Ally Campbell wannabe...

This is IMO a specious argument. Lots of things would make clearing up crime easier, like having a camera in every room of every house in the land, or injecting tracking chips into everyone so their movements can be traced. That doesn't mean that they're a good idea.

Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, and me to mine.

In any case, how exactly does knowing someone's name and address make clearing up crimes easier? The only way I can think of is if the police stop someone who is already wanted for questioning.

For starters, there's all those little turds that hang around causing grief, being a pain in the arse, intimidating passers-by and committing petty theft. They positively WALLOW in the protection of anominity... let's take that away from them, make sure the cops know who they are and where they live and I truly believe that half of them will think twice before committing a crime.

Stopping me and asking for my address will not help solve any crime. Whereas previously I had the right to tell the police to sling their hook, now I don't and I get noted on the PNC every time I'm stopped.

So? Got something to hide? No? So why is it a problem? If it was compulsory to tell the police absolutely everything if you witnessed a murder would you refuse becuase you're forced to speak by law and not by choice?

Since, as a result of 'function creep', they have tended to invoke these powers for fairly spurious reasons, they debatably already had the power of arrest for for refusing to give your name.

And damn good thing they do. Suppose they WERE looking for someone and you gave a false name, or an unverifiable name or refused... they arrest you and everyone doing the same. Perhaps, just perhaps, they might arrest the person they're after too... Or maybe you prefer a more relaxed police force where everyone can do what the hell they like until someone else complains? Or maybe until someone kills lots of people and then we can all moan together about how the police should have done more?

Ultimately, I'm against this for the simple reason that in a truly free society, people must be free to commit crimes.

Oh ok,.. so you do prefer it that way....

The only way to stamp out all crime is totalitarianism. I like living in Britain as it is and I'm prepared to put up with a bit of crime as a necessary evil. I don't want us turning into (say) Singapore.

A necessary evil? A necessary bloody evil???

So let me just get this right. As far as you're concerned, a bit of crime here and there is just fine, yeah?

Okay, give me your address and a time when you're out and I;ll be round with the van and clear your house out since you've just indemnified me against prosecution with that view. Of course, to keep it within the realms of a 'bit of crime' I promise yours will be the only burgalry I'll commit this year and I'll only take high value stuff I can sell on easily. Of course, I can't vouch for how many jobs my fellow crims will go on seeing as there's no governing body to control how much we thieve and murder... oh hang on, there was one, it was calle dthe police but people wanted them to not have the legal tools they need to deal with crime today....

Not that you could read any of this as your 'little bit of crime' has meant I've nicked your monitor.

Name and Address withheld

[specofdust]

A necessary evil? A necessary bloody evil???

So let me just get this right. As far as you're concerned, a bit of crime here and there is just fine, yeah?

Okay, give me your address and a time when you're out and I;ll be round with the van and clear your house out since you've just indemnified me against prosecution with that view. Of course, to keep it within the realms of a 'bit of crime' I promise yours will be the only burgalry I'll commit this year and I'll only take high value stuff I can sell on easily. Of course, I can't vouch for how many jobs my fellow crims will go on seeing as there's no governing body to control how much we thieve and murder... oh hang on, there was one, it was calle dthe police but people wanted them to not have the legal tools they need to deal with crime today....[/I]

He didn't say he was absolutely a-ok with crime, he said it was a neccesary evil. The wording was a little off, but I agree with him fully. In order to live in a country where we are free, where we have the ability to do as we please, so long as we don't harm others, we have to accept that some people are going to use those freedoms in order to hurt others and do other things that aren't good for other people.

Crime is fine, when the alternative is a totalitarian state. I'd rather be able to go where I please, unmonitored, and not live in a police state, and suffer a robbery or two in my life, then the other way around. Its called freedom, that thing we rant on about all day, but when it comes down to it, most people here would happily see this country worse then Iran, Singapore, and Taiwain all together just if the leaders tell us that it'll cut down crime and terrorism.

[G4Z]

You have a right to an opinion, and I hope you'll get around to reading the article you found. There is material there for another thread on the reasons why more people are relying on governmental housing support, but it's going a long way off topic. Hopefully this will encorage you to look for some evidence which does support your viewpoint, and in doing so you will learn a great deal more about the issue. So far you've very successfully proven yourself wrong.

Could you be anymore patronising?

yes I read the bloody article and yes I understood what it said, I wanted to leave it at that but your reply I find insulting to be honest. You have simply mis read that article and not found any evidence of your own to back you up.

In light of some of your comments I have to wonder, do you live in the real world? at a guess (sorry to get personal here) Id say you are about 18/19 still live at home with your middle class well off parents, sorry mate but thats not the real world but I am pleased for you that you most likely will never know what it is to be homeless. EDIT: right im gonna sort this rant outa bit, im making total assumptions here and its shocking of me really, but what the hell thats just what your comments suggest to me in all honesty.

[Nick]

I'd rather be able to go where I please, unmonitored, and not live in a police state, and suffer a robbery or two in my life, then the other way around. Its called freedom, that thing we rant on about all day, but when it comes down to it, most people here would happily see this country worse then Iran, Singapore, and Taiwain all together just if the leaders tell us that it'll cut down crime and terrorism.

Hmmm, but three crimes is too many?

Mebbe we should have a card system whereby a mugger has to check how many times you've been done over before he can decide whether to cosh you into unconciousness or perhaps just rough you up a bit?

And for the record, has anyone BEEN to Singapore and Taiwan? Cos I have the and the first thing I DIDN'T notice was an oppressed society with rozzers running around battoning people to bloody pulps, police in tanks water cannoning the populace, tear gas raining down and overturned buses on fire... In fact I was struck by just how unlike Toxteth the place was.

I felt safer in Taiwan, walking some very quiet back streets just off the main drag at 4am than I feel even walking in Dunstable during the day.

[specofdust]

Hmmm, but three crimes is too many?

Yes, absolutes are for idiots and fanatics. In britain today, the average person, doesn't have to deal with serious crime on a day to day basis, its mostly kept in check, going on that basis, freedoms should not be sacrificed, in order to possibly lower the crime levels minimally.

And for the record, has anyone BEEN to Singapore and Taiwan? Cos I have the and the first thing I DIDN'T notice was an oppressed society with rozzers running around battoning people to bloody pulps, police in tanks water cannoning the populace, tear gas raining down and overturned buses on fire... In fact I was struck by just how unlike Toxteth the place was.

You're not a citizen, people in those countries are treated quite badly, you'll be treated nicely because you're white, your western etc., I wouldn't want to be someone speaking out against the taiwanese government though, considering its pretty much the same as the chinese one, only facist instead of "communist".

[Ant]

WHAT?

Someone that leaves a piece of paper on the floor outside needs to take up hours of police time and paperwork? Yes it's antisocial, but there are crimes a little bit more serious than that taking place. Besides, you can't prove that something was deliberate, and AFAIK there *are* on the spot fines for littering anyway, aren't there?

No, obviously thats why discretion will need to be used! I'm talking about persistent "litterers" here! On the spot fines should obviously be the first option! I am just sick to death of morons just throwing their crap on the floor in the streets, or out their car windows! Who the hell do they think they are? If nothing gets done about these people, the message will never get across. And that applies to all other crimes too.

Yes, you are right though about the paper work. Its crazy how much paper work is involved when someone is arrested, especially as forces are stretched enough as it is! A very close member of my family is a policeman. So I know all about that. Its a very difficult situation unfortunately. So like I said, discretion will need to be used.

I'm all for the police having a hell of a lot more control than they already have. People take for granted what a good job they do every day. I reckon if they had more control, and the magistrates stop letting all these scumbags free after they get arrested, crime would definitely go down.

Zero tolerance is the way forward!

All in my opinion of course.

Ant

[TeePee]

Could you be anymore patronising?

yes I read the bloody article and yes I understood what it said, I wanted to leave it at that but your reply I find insulting to be honest. You have simply mis read that article and not found any evidence of your own to back you up.

In light of some of your comments I have to wonder, do you live in the real world? at a guess (sorry to get personal here) Id say you are about 18/19 still live at home with your middle class well off parents, sorry mate but thats not the real world but I am pleased for you that you most likely will never know what it is to be homeless. EDIT: right im gonna sort this rant outa bit, im making total assumptions here and its shocking of me really, but what the hell thats just what your comments suggest to me in all honesty.

Your assumptions are wrong.

I didn't need to find my own evidence. The stuff you found was good enough. My assumption that you had not read the article came from the fact that you pulled about three lines from it without actually understanding it. Scroll up. The most obvious part is where you interpreted the article as saying 25% of the 100,000 quoted are not recieving help. If you read it and understood it, you wouldn't have said that. You'd be trying to link an article which actually supported your position.

I patronise you because you actually have a valid position. While I disagree with you, you could use good sources and present a good arguemnt for your point of view. You haven't done that. You linked one article for it's headline and now you're having a hissy fit because the body of the text is about something else and doesn't support you at all. If you still want to do that, good! Do some research, write a good arguement with good sources (which are out there!), rather than a personal attack, and then we'll try again. Make this difficult for me.

[GDVS]

I was thinking about this the other day and wondered whether it affects the rights for anyone to make an arrest. A "citizens arrest" can only be made for an arrestable offence, if just about everything is arrestable now am I on sound legal footing arresting the little yobs on my street for swearing and dropping litter? Can I now lock them in my garage and await the arrival of a police officer? Is vigilantism the way forward? Or do the changes only apply to officers of the law?