NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381799&in_page_id=1770

I really hope this is website is wrong, can any UK'ers clear this up?

I'm from Canada but can tell you that is as wrong as can be.

Whew, good thing. I would rather check that than to jump to conclusions. Thanks for clearing it up!

Well yeah, it's understandable you were shocked. Tha's just plain dumb, that policy explained in the article.

Seen it to....I hope that was the april fools joke.

I'm from Canada but can tell you that is as wrong as can be.


Unfortunatly it is correct. The UK's going to hell. If it wasn't 6am I'd find you the Sundat Times article on it.

What absolute stupidity!
It's this kind of crap that makes me support the decriminalisation of drugs. If two consenting adults want to make a drug transaction and some other person wants to break into someone's business, victimising the business owner (and in many cases the employees who for instance often have personal effects on the premises), and victimising every insurance customer in the country, well I know who is on my list of priorties both for helping and for hindering. I'd rather put an end to the unwanted victimisation of people by other people, than put an end to people victimising themselves, especially since the means of rescuing the drugees from themselves is often both unwanted and worse than the thing we are purportedly rescuing them from.

We have the same problem in my country. People voted (in a referendum) to 'come down tough' on crime. The result is ever more over-crowded prisons and police priority stuff ups. If we want to sort out crime we need a consistent justice system, and we frankly need a minimum of laws. To achieve that we need to only consider that acts which involve one person harming another person without the harmed person's consent are crimes and any other act is not a crime. Not only would this free up justice system resources, it would also ensure that we didnt have ill-thought out prioritising. For instance spending resources chasing up drug convictions while having to send taxis out to people who call the police emergency system urgently in need of police assistance, or having people who have rung up from a public phone box to report a sexual assault (on themselves) that has just happened, being told to walk to the police station....both of these two examples happened and yet our police force still think finding and apprehending people for smoking vegetation should take precedence over establishing a strong and accessable police presence in the community.

I've had enough of police resources being over stretched on a fantasy.
We are not going to stop people polluting their bodies with drugs, and frankly it isnt our (as society) job to do this.

I've personally reported victi- inclusive crimes that the police have done nothing about, and been told by the police that it is because they lack resources, and many people I know have had similar circumstances. Tell a policeman someone assaulted you and probably you will be told, 'there's not much we can do, it's your word against their's and we lack the resources to investigate', but tell them you spotted a certain plant in you quiet and harmless neighbour's back yard and they promptly bother a judge (or JP) for a search warrant, bring out several officers to search the property, arrest some person, then spend tens of thousands of dollars and many police hours putting together a case and prosecuting the 'offender' who often ends up with a pitiful fine of some tens of dollars and a life-long criminal record that can affect them negatively for the rest of their lives and often makes them a less productive citizen.

They (the police) dont necessarily lack the resources to do what they should (although it may be the case that they do), the largest problem is they lack a consistent justice mandate and resultingly have a screwed up concept of their priorities and further have the problem of alienating a significant portion of the community who aside from wanting to pollute their own bodies with illegal substances, are law abiding and would willingly cooperate in the effort to prevent crime were they not unnecessarily and unjustifiably placed in the category of criminals themselves.

Before we call a wholesale amnesty of property crimes, we ought to drop this notion of being our co-citizens' keepers and sort out our priorities by having a consistent and reasoned justice system based not on arbitariness, or historical-particular accidents, but on objective and sound reasoning applied to a an objectively justifiable goal (purpose) that is consistent with the social values that we give lip-service to and cite as being necessary in a free society.

As home Office circulars are a matter of public record, and I have not found any circular stating anything of the kind, I think the Mail has made its usual anti labour leap into the dark. (I too am opposed to the Labour party).

Home office Circular database (http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/HO/circular.nsf/ViewTemplate%20For%20HOCircularsWeb?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=1&Seq=1).

Violent crime recorded by police rose by four per cent in the third quarter of last year including an 11 per cent jump in robbery, official figures showed today.

From the same site.

/heading off to check the circulars./

Unfortunatly it is correct. The UK's going to hell. If it wasn't 6am I'd find you the Sundat Times article on it.

...:eek:

Oh God, please let that be sarcasm.

...:eek:

Oh God, please let that be sarcasm.
I'd be more impressed if it were true. Not only that, but if the article he'll hopefully show us isn't reporting on crime rates, but the known fact that the UK is, in fact, going to hell.

Not that I have anything against the UK, but welll....that just seems like tabby fodder to me.

The times report on this.

The Times on-line (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2114638,00.html)

The times report on this.

The Times on-line (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2114638,00.html)

Yep, things are going to hell when police can't arrest criminals. No, give them a WARNING! :rolleyes:

Yep, things are going to hell when police can't arrest criminals. No, give them a WARNING! :rolleyes:

I think the policy is that police have the option of giving them a caution.... They still have the power to arrest - heck they can still arrest you for a hunch you might be a terrorist (no evidence needed). The police most certainly can and will arrest if they think thats the right move.

Yep, things are going to hell when police can't arrest criminals. No, give them a WARNING! :rolleyes:
You think that's bad, there was a report on the news (channel 4...I don't watch any other) a few weeks back that the police could arrest people regardless of whether or not they were suspected of a crime. I tried to find a link to the story last week for another thread but couldn't. Anyone who can, it'd be much appreciated.

Why do I get the feeling that it has a lot to do with the large number of muslims youths in England? A lot like the way NSW police were told to let off muslim retaliators after the Cronulla riots here in Australia.

You think that's bad, there was a report on the news (channel 4...I don't watch any other) a few weeks back that the police could arrest people regardless of whether or not they were suspected of a crime. I tried to find a link to the story last week for another thread but couldn't. Anyone who can, it'd be much appreciated.
I suspect that is, shall we say, bollocks. Channel Four is not the best of sources, I have found. Police are being given more and more powers, not less; this caution is an option not an instruction, and police can still if they so decide arrest the burglars. The police can arrest you if you are a suspected terrorist but other than that its just a government proposal the polive themselves don't seem to want.

You think that's bad, there was a report on the news ... a few weeks back that the police could arrest people regardless of whether or not they were suspected of a crime.
I recall reading an article where the UK was the first European nation to adopt something along the lines of American legislation where police only need "good reason" to stop and search folks. I don't recall anything on being able to arrest people, but it obviously goes hand in hand with what the states in question view as anti-terrorist legislation. Other European nations, like France, are adopting such policies, as said in the article I'm regurgitating.

You think that's bad, there was a report on the news (channel 4...I don't watch any other) a few weeks back that the police could arrest people regardless of whether or not they were suspected of a crime. I tried to find a link to the story last week for another thread but couldn't. Anyone who can, it'd be much appreciated.
You are certain of this?

I find it hard to believe the police have an acknowledged right to simply arrest people for fun...surely there is more to it than that?

I mean certainly I could easily believe that the police could arrest you when they dont suspect you of a crime, but to believe they are publically and explictly aknowledged as acting lawfully if they do so, that I find rather odd...:confused:

Hey, aren't British police unarmed? That's a little sad.

I recall reading an article where the UK was the first European nation to adopt something along the lines of American legislation where police only need "good reason" to stop and search folks. I don't recall anything on being able to arrest people, but it obviously goes hand in hand with what the states in question view as anti-terrorist legislation. Other European nations, like France, are adopting such policies, as said in the article I'm regurgitating.Well, we have "Gefahr im Verzug" in Germany, where if the cops don't act now, evidence or so might be lost. I'm not sure about the restrictions, but if a person they've been chasing suddenly runs into a privately owned apartment, it means they're allowed to search it.

Hey, aren't British police unarmed? That's a little sad.
I dont see that as sad. So far as I know they are if circumstance warrant it able to obtain fire arms for use in the line of duty.

You are certain of this?

I find it hard to believe the police have an acknowledged right to simply arrest people for fun...surely there is more to it than that?

I mean certainly I could easily believe that the police could arrest you when they dont suspect you of a crime, but to believe they are publically and explictly aknowledged as acting lawfully if they do so, that I find rather odd...:confused:
I don't remember the entire exact story, but that's the lines it was along. It's not actually that hard to believe when you think that it's Charles Clarke bringing in this sort of stuff.

Well, we have "Gefahr im Verzug" in Germany, where if the cops don't act now, evidence or so might be lost. I'm not sure about the restrictions, but if a person they've been chasing suddenly runs into a privately owned apartment, it means they're allowed to search it.
Authorities in the States cannot do that (as far as I know) but that's not what I meant, which is: An officer thinks something looks suspicious, a person on foot or in a car for example, they have the right to stop and search the person in question. That's according to my understanding of the legislation. It could really not be so. As far as private property, authorities can only look into them with a warrant, if the owner/occupant does not give permission.

I think the policy is that police have the option of giving them a caution.... They still have the power to arrest - heck they can still arrest you for a hunch you might be a terrorist (no evidence needed). The police most certainly can and will arrest if they think thats the right move.
I expect alot more burglars will be declared terrorists.
"Well, I didn't know he wasn't a terrorist so I shot him in the leg."

"Well, I didn't know he wasn't a terrorist so I shot him in the leg."
In the UK? What are you on? More like:
"Well, I didn't know he wasn't a terrorist so I impaled him on my beat-stick."

One name for you: Jean Charles de Menezes.

One name for you: Jean Charles de Menezes.
I remember that, but British police do not routinely carry firearms.

Also [please reember that this is the British press, whilst the British government doesnt need any assistance making mistakes the pressis perfectly willing to distort anything to get a better story, particularly things people dont really undertand or cant really check for themselves such as politics. But what am i saying you've got Fox.

I remember that, but British police do not routinely carry firearms.
So far as I know you are entirely right. I believe that ordinary police officers can only carry firearms when authorised to do so for specific reasons and only for the specific task/duty/operation that the carrying of the firearm was authorised for.

One name for you: Jean Charles de Menezes.

...was shot by a specialist firearms team.

Why do I get the feeling that it has a lot to do with the large number of muslims youths in England? A lot like the way NSW police were told to let off muslim retaliators after the Cronulla riots here in Australia.

How the hell did you draw that conclusion?

So far as I know you are entirely right. I believe that ordinary police officers can only carry firearms when authorised to do so for specific reasons and only for the specific task/duty/operation that the carrying of the firearm was authorised for.
There is considerable pressure from some places to change this however.

There is considerable pressure from some places to change this however.
That's good because police should not be able to carry firearms even if they are facing a megaton of armed sex offenders in evil collusion with several megatons of heavily armed terrorists....:p

Er, unless you mean the not being able to carry firearms will change (as opposed to the being able to carry them in some circumstances)....

That being the case I am not surprised and I disapprove.

That's good because police should not be able to carry firearms even if they are facing a megaton of armed sex offenders in evil collusion with several megatons of heavily armed terrorists....:p

Er, unless you mean the not being able to carry firearms will change (as opposed to the being able to carry them in some circumstances)....

That being the case I am not surprised and I disapprove.
I mean that the police (obviously) and several people on the descision making sub commitees are calling for police to be able to carry firearms, if not all the time, basically at the drop of a hat

Actually few of the police want that, in part because of previous mistakes made by armed coppers. Its mainly people like blair (in this case Ian) who want it, and the politicians.

I mean that the police (obviously) and several people on the descision making sub commitees are calling for police to be able to carry firearms, if not all the time, basically at the drop of a hat
That being the case, I am neither surprised nor approving...

I personally dont think it is a good idea.
"Oh look we shot an innocent person who was following our directives, we should carry firearms more regularly..."
Perhaps they're reasoning along the lines of 'practise makes perfect', which sounds ok at first glance (or looks ok on first hearing if you prefer). The only problem is I'm not sure I'd want them practising on me, my loved ones, my community,garden variety scum, or other live organisms....

...was shot by a specialist firearms team.
Not specialist enough.

Not specialist enough.
They are pretty darn 'special' though....not necessarily in a good way, but special none the less (in their own special way of course)...

Why do I get the feeling that it has a lot to do with the large number of muslims youths in England? A lot like the way NSW police were told to let off muslim retaliators after the Cronulla riots here in Australia.

Oh I don't know, probably because you're an ignorant right wing bigot .
At a guess.

Not specialist enough.

Agreed, the shooting was a travesty. However, I was simply pointing out that firearms are not standard issue for UK police.

You think that's bad, there was a report on the news (channel 4...I don't watch any other) a few weeks back that the police could arrest people regardless of whether or not they were suspected of a crime. I tried to find a link to the story last week for another thread but couldn't. Anyone who can, it'd be much appreciated.I think the Police must inform the arestee that are being arrested and why as soon as is practicable. Which means a drunk or violent person might not be told that are being arrested or why. If english isn't the arrestee's first language then an interpreter must explain to the arrestee why he has been arrested, again, as soon as is practicable (at the police station).

Why do I get the feeling that it has a lot to do with... muslims..?.Because -no matter what- You(and others like you) always have the same feeling.. :D :D :p :D

How the hell did you draw that conclusion?I am telling you.. Kievan always draws the same conclusion..

Because -no matter what- You(and others like you) always have the same feeling.. :D :D :p :DHaha, made me laugh. :D

About the police NOT carring guns. The differance between gun related crime in the UK and USA is something like 500%. Gun owner ship here is *TIGHTLY* controlled, so in 99% of cases, police don't need more than a stick and a can of mace. If you've seen photos from London around the Underground-bombing, police stationed around there were carring sub-machineguns, and undercover officers were carrying pistols.

One of the reasons is... if the police are armed, and armoured, criminals will be more heavily armed and armoured... And theres only so far the police can go, before they turn into a military force...

Laws conserning burglary have changes drastically recently. Victims are now allowed to use 'reasonable force' to stop a burglary and to keep a criminal in a Citizens-Arrest, you're now also allowed to persue the burgular to recover any stolen goods, and use reasonable force to arrest them.
If death of the burgular occurs from your DEFENCIVE attacks, depending on your physical and mental conditions (shock, panic, fear etc), those things can determine any punishment for you. (The worse your conditions, the less case the criminals family have)

If it is true, hpefully it'll just be an 'england and wales' thing. The Scottish Parliament should have more sense than that.

Besides, it's a wildly unpopular idea - and right now, the Labour Party can't afford to be making any more horribly unpopular decisions, especially with Mr. Blair struggling to maintain at least some semblance of integrity.

Laws conserning burglary have changes drastically recently. Victims are now allowed to use 'reasonable force' to stop a burglary and to keep a criminal in a Citizens-Arrest, you're now also allowed to persue the burgular to recover any stolen goods, and use reasonable force to arrest them.
If death of the burgular occurs from your DEFENCIVE attacks, depending on your physical and mental conditions (shock, panic, fear etc), those things can determine any punishment for you. (The worse your conditions, the less case the criminals family have)

Actually you have been allowed to use reasonable force in defence of your property since the mid 19th century. The current Crown Prosecution Service guidelines make it very clear what this means.

CPS Guidelines
(http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html)

I like living in a county where police aren't routinely armed.

That's the army's job, for a start.

However, as the general public and the vast majority of criminals in the general public have no access to firearms (and if you own a licensed firearm, the authorities know everything about it and watch your every move) it is therefore not necessary for the police to carry arms either. If they are alerted that the criminal is carrying a weapon, be it a knife, a pistol or indeed a bomb, then the specialist firearms unit will be called in (if necessary) and police officers heading to the scene can arm themselves with handguns as well. Where no firearm is involved on the criminal's part (and in 99% of cases there isn't) then the usual 'outnumber, negotiate and baton-defend if necessary' technique is adequate. Knife/bullet proof vests are standard here.

Giving a policeman a gun in a situation which doesn't require is just asking for trouble (say, investigating a shop robbery), however, regardless of their training. If they are disarmed, this gives the criminal a nasty little advantage.

Actually you have been allowed to use reasonable force in defence of your property since the mid 19th century. The current Crown Prosecution Service guidelines make it very clear what this means.

CPS Guidelines
(http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html)

Allowed to..but you'd be punished.
A man was sentanced to 5-6 years inprision because he hit someone with a baseball bat, when he broke into his house.

That farmer, was given a long sentance, because he shot a burglar who had broken into his house on SEVERAL occasions, and the police wouldnt help.

AND... one burgular SUED a family, because he cut his hand on glass, as he was escaping through a window...AND he won....

Hey, aren't British police unarmed? That's a little sad.

It does however make us one of the few police forces that are still effective when they run out of bullets (there are a couple of places on the net with videos of a british cop being attacked, suffice to say it wouldn't have looked entirely out of place in a kung fu film)