Arrest for refusing to give name and address from today

[Rave]

I think what Rave means is that he want's law enforcement which doesn't seek to prevent crimes, but only picks up the pieces after they happen.

That's a rather simplistic (and leading) way of putting it. If the government declare something to be against the law, they inevitably specify a sanction that can be applied should that law then be broken. If the police then apply that law and the people who they catch breaking it receive said sanction (be it a fine, community service, or jail), then that acts as a deterrent to other people, since they can see that they stand a good chance of receiving the same sanction if the commit the same offence. So, simply by enforcing the law after it has been broken, they are preventing others from comitting crime.

In another sense, many of the laws of this country make an action that is a potential precursor to a crime (e.g. owning a gun, carrying a knife, buying the ingredients to make MDMA etc. etc.) illegal as well. By enforcing these laws, the police are, I would say, preventing crimes being committed. I could go out tomorrow with an 8" hunting knife in my pocket and not stab anybody, but if I was caught I'd get, at the very least, community serice and a severe warning not to do it again, and I could get up to two years imprisonment.

Now, in the light of that, I don't really have a problem if the police decide that stopping and searching people for knives is a good idea in areas where knife crime is a problem (although I do have a problem with the fairly blatant racial profiling they seem to employ). What I do have a problem with is when they decide to stop someone purely on the basis that, in their bigoted little worldview, they look a bit 'suspicious'. This happened to me, as I said: walking home one night through a quiet suburban area at about 2am I was stopped and asked what I was doing on the basis that 'oh, there's been a burglary reported nearby'. Fair enough, one might suppose, except that it was pissing down with rain and I was wearing a t-shirt. I couldn't have hidden a fag paper about my person, let alone a stolen VCR. Retards. Anyway, that's simply not sensible preventative policing, it's harrassment- and now that the police have a right to insist on your name and address every time, it becomes a fishing expedition.

[iranu]

So, what would you suggest? Where do you draw the line? How would you keep a stable, modern society in a totally free world?

That my friend is THE most important question. Total freedom = anarchy. The trick to a free and stable society is trust between the people and their governers. We all accept that in order to have liberty one must have laws. That is why it is worth dying to preserve the right for the people to choose their governers.

The difficulty is striking a balance between law that allows people to go about their daily business unmolested by the state yet is sufficient to restrict human nature for the benefit of all.

I am saying that arrest for any offence no matter how small is a step too far. Legislation under this government is particularly poor. You only have to look at the case of the life long Labour member pensioner who was thrown out of last years party conference for heckling. When he tried to get back in he was detained under the recent terrorism act. That law is so loose it is open to abuse, which in the case of the pensioner was the case.

I also like the law that prevents you from any form of protest/demonstration within 1km (might be mile) of the houses of parliament unless you inform the police first (who have powers to refuse). This law was passed becasue MP's didn't like the niose of 1 man protesting outside. It means that nurses outside St Thomas' can be arrested for demonstrating for a pay rise across the river.

People who say "if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear" do not understand that the state is not the be all and end all - it exists for the people by the people. It does not have a right to exist, it is allowed, purely because we allow it.

It is therefore very important to ensure that "the state" is kept in check. The only people that can do that are you and me. Legislation like this being discussed is a single drop from a tap dripping into an olympic sized swimming pool. It doesn't sound like very much but keep dripping the authoritarian legislation and after a few years you'll find that we are drowned by it. By then it is too late.

History is littered with cases of "if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear" propaganda - Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Chairman Mao's purges, Cambodia's killing fields, Pinochet's Chile - Arrest for any offence no matter how trivial would fit in nicely with these examples. Now it's UK policy too .

[MAdMaN]

I also like the law that prevents you from any form of protest/demonstration within 1km (might be mile) of the houses of parliament unless you inform the police first (who have powers to refuse). This law was passed becasue MP's didn't like the niose of 1 man protesting outside.

Fortunately that man is still there (see my post on the previous page).

[Steve A]

I was in the london underground, and there isn't a single bin, I mean, great, no bombs.

Who needs bins when they have rucksacks and Armani C4 diamond studded belts ...

But i agree, why should i give my name if i havent done anything, they can arrest me for all i care if i have done nothing wrong why should i let someone invade my privicy ...

Regards

[specofdust]

Yeah, exactly, it should be a case of "arrest me, or go bark up another tree" giving the police powers between arrest and nothing, is a bad idea, if more are given, it'll basicly allow police to do things "off the record", and makes me nervous altogether.

For the time being though, I'll just do as I normally do anyway, and avoid the police.

[Taz]

Of course we should have laws in order to protect the citizens of a country. However, when certain laws antagonise innocent people, infringe human rights and alienate sections of society that, on the whole are hard-working and make a positive net contribution to this countries' coffers then I think those laws need to be addressed.

Worse still, when those laws can be used to curtail and prevent protest against the government then we have lost the plot.

[specofdust]

We lost the plot along time ago, some would say we never have it. Us peons aren't in any more control then we were back in the feudal ages, just because we choose the dictator every four years, doesn't make it any less of a dictatorship.

Its time for direct democracy, the technology exists, its been tried in other nations, it works.

[Saracen]

According to the radio news from today you can be arrested for a number of things that you couldn't previously. You could only be arrested for things which would result in a jail sentence.

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may already have been said, but it simply isn't ture that prior to this change you could only be arrested for offences that would lead to a jail sentence. I've seen this said in papers, and on TV and it is utter cobblers.

Prior to this change, there were general powers of arrest, for which that statement was broadly accurate, but there were also a number of other pieces of legislation giving powers of arrest in specific situations, many of which did not lead to probable jail time.

It doesnt sound too bad until you think that if they are demanding to know your name and address they should already have enough suspicion that you have committed a crime to arrest you for that.

One of the situations in which you could be arrested without committing an offence that rated jail time was if you were suspected of an offence that would normally lead to a summons or fine being issued, and you either refused to give your name and address, or the police did not believe the address was legitimate. Under those conditions, the police have long been able to arrest, until either you DO provide the name and address, or the suspicious address you provided has been verified. However, in that situation, as soon as that criteria was met, you must be released.

So, for instance, if you dropped litter and that was an offence normally dealt with by issuing a summons, the police have to have an address to serve you with the summons. If you refuse to give your name and address, you would have been arrested until such time as you did provide such details. This has been the case for many, many years and for newspapers and TV stations to suggest that you could only be arrested for offences that would see you in jail is not only factually incorrect, but irresponsible.

[RedPutty]

Cheers for that saracen. So has nothing changed then, I don't get it really

[Saracen]

Cheers for that saracen. So has nothing changed then, I don't get it really

Oh, I'm not saying things haven't changed, just that they weren't how the media were saying they were before. I haven't studied the new legislation, but as I understand it, it is certainly now easier for police to arrest someone, and they can do it in circumstances where they couldn't before.

Part of the problem, and it is what was being addressed as I understand it, was that the power of arrest was contained in a wide variety of different pieces of legislation, many of which were effective in specified circumstances. The result was that whether police have the power of arrest or not, in a given situation, could be quite complex and, of course, if they get that wrong they can end up being sued, and people end up getting away with things over technicalities.

I'm not entirely sure I'm happy with the broadening/simplifying of the power of arrest myself, partly because I haven't really looked at it, and the right of the citizen to go about his legal business without unecessary interference from the state is a critical one. The point I was making is that the media I've read and seen certainly didn't understand what the situation was before, which makes them rather poor judges of how it's changed, for better or worse.

[Trippledence]

Why would asking someone there name an address help in the first place, a criminal, or dare to say it terrorist is most likely to lie, unless of course we give the police some the lie detectors that come in packets or cereal and board games for teenage girls.

This sort of policy is the opener to the nanny state extreme, whatever happened to the original bases, in my opinion to British law. You are innocent till proven guilty, I don’t want to see that turned around.

Laws against been a general nuisance, such as dropping litter, shouting abusively at old people, basically things that gangs of teenage kids from the ‘estate’ do, it’s a shame that society is generally more immature today, back in the day your local bobby could give them a slap on the wrist and tell them to keep it down, and they would. I guess the laws are going to be necessary, I don’t think you can reasonably expect any person who would through a brick at an ambulance to be civil. Stereo typing I know, but it does happen, more and more in the UK and I think losing the ‘threat’ of giving my name and address would be more than a fair trade off to stop this kind of behaviour, the only problem is, it wont.

The extremist thug mentality may only be dealt with, via use of similar clout? I think so, I just hope who ever makes these laws structures them in such a way that they do not impinge on ‘normal’ people as much as they could. For example, a Student was arrested for taking photos off a motorway footbridge under the anti-terrorism laws, I guess its because he wouldn’t put up a fight unlike a real criminal.

[iranu]

The problem with making arrests easier for the police is that they will tend to arrest easy cases such as the woman who read out the names of the dead in Iraq at the cenotaph.

You'll get a situation where the arrest rate goes up and the police can say, "hey what a wonderful job we are doing" yet arrests for more serious offences go down. It's all about statistics and showing how good you are rather than preventing crime or targeting crime that people are worried about such as assualt and robbery/burglary.

Human beings are naturally lazy and will always do the easy job rather than the harder task.

Madman - yes I'm aware he is still there and why he is able to remain.

[badass]

The problem with making arrests easier for the police is that they will tend to arrest easy cases such as the woman who read out the names of the dead in Iraq at the cenotaph.

You'll get a situation where the arrest rate goes up and the police can say, "hey what a wonderful job we are doing" yet arrests for more serious offences go down. It's all about statistics and showing how good you are rather than preventing crime or targeting crime that people are worried about such as assualt and robbery/burglary.

Human beings are naturally lazy and will always do the easy job rather than the harder task.

Madman - yes I'm aware he is still there and why he is able to remain.

So unbelievably true.