Felix.

I'm not sure what you refer to with this - you will need to give some examples.

What i would say is that peaceful protests are not stifled, however we have a responsibility to prevent them becoming out of hand and 'stifling' other members of the public who have lives to live. Bare in mind, a lot of protests are invaded by those who see an opportunity to cause public order. How do we interfere with the work of journalists - the papers still manage to release what they want, when they want

stipete75

A couple of examples Felix....
Metropolitan police have stopped and searched 58 children aged nine or younger using terrorism powers (section 44) designed to fight al-Qaida.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives the police the power to stop and search any person, a constable does not need to have reasonable suspicion!!! use of the power has been controversial to say the least.

more than 2000 children aged 15 or under have been stopped under section 44.
section 44 stops are used as an instrument of general policing rather than for the special purpose for which they were designed, which is not acceptable.

police have used stop and search powers against peaceful protestors and disproportionately against black and Asian people.

It is crucial for government to protect public safety I agree, but it has to balance this with its obligations to protect the rights of all individuals.
Basic human rights!

counter-terrorism powers are being used to stop people taking photographs of buildings or people and cameras are being confiscated and images being deleted during searches.

grey_boy

Drag them back to there parents house... I would have made sure they know the penalties for trespassing on my ma's property..

Maz

iTrader: (34)

This is one area of the law that needs addressing. Trespass is currently a civil offence, so if you apprehend a trespasser you can only pursue a civil action. However if you give the trespassers a good pasting you can be held liable criminally and be pursued for damages in a civil action. All for protecting your property.

Felix.

You don't think that youngsters are involved in terrorism - even if it is used as a carrier

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-AK-47.html

And are you wanting us to ignore the fact that this can happen..? If the next bomb goes off in the UK killing innocent people, would you be happy that the police didn't search the possible terrorists before hand as it might not have looked good or seemed fair. Search powers are used to prevent incidents from happening.

You still have to have a reason to search under this power, just as you do for section 1 PACE. You will be surprised how many 'dodgy' people are not searched as we simply do not have a power to do so. You will also be surprised what we find on searching people which will have prevented all sorts of crimes.

Terrorists will also take photographs of strange things - bins, park benches etc etc. - so as to select viable targets. If someone taking such photos is sighted, do we ignore this or do you want us to 'dig a little deeper'

stipete75

Taking photos in a public place is not an illegal action. Anybody can take pictures of whatever they like when ever they like however they like.
Taking a picture of a tube station doesn't warrant the humiliation of a stop and search because an officer deems it may be a terrorist act, it's infringement of basic human rights!!!

As I stated in an above post I firmly believe section 44 stops are used as an instrument for general policing rather than for what is supposed to be for.

As for actual "terror attacks" on uk soil, that's a whole different can of worms for me as My opinions on terror attacks on uk ground would differ greatly from your opinions and probably most people opinions.

Felix.

Ah... OK then, you'll be ok with Gary Glitter camped outside the local primary school or swimming baths with a series of cameras taking photos. And the police to say "well there's nothing we can do...." Or somebody videoing outside your house especially at the times when you are coming and going from work

And if it also shows pictures of electrical points, escape routes, phone boxes, muster points from various different angles - would that not set alarm bells ringing? If a bomb does go off in the rubbish bin and it turns out police were informed of suspicious males taking photos of it days before but did nothing to investigate, would there be a back lash?

'instrument of general policing' i'm not sure what you mean when we have PACE search legislation, drugs search legislation etc etc - for us to use when required, i'm not sure why you think we need to turn to other 'dubious' lines to conduct searches if needed.

I'm not sure what your opinions on terror attacks are - but mine are that they are wrong and should be prevented and a police force should be in the front line of preventing such attacks from happening. How do yours differ so greatly....?

stipete75

1)Ok, obviously Gary glitter camping outside school gates armed with a camera, shooting away is something different, he would probably get beaten up before the police arrived.
Also yes there may be something not right with an individual taking pictures at school gates and I for one would be the first to question that.

2)Again that could be classed as strange behaviour and could maybe be questioned,although that is at the extreme(suspicious) end of the scale though rather than someone from the general public taking general pictures.

3)PACE sets out to strike the right balance between the powers of the police and the rights and freedoms of the public. Maintaining that balance is a central element of PACE.
The PACE codes of practice cover:
stop and search
arrest
detention
investigation
identification
interviewing detainees
Section 44 is a search could be for any item on the person, carried by the person or in the vehicle, and there was no need for the police officer to suspect that person of anything.

4)yes of course terror attacks are very very wrong.
I truly believe terror attacks on uk soil, and many other terror attacks are not as they seem, that's all I'll say on the matter at this time.

Felix.

So, if taking pictures in a public place may at times be 'suspicions' depending on their motives, is it not prudent to be able to 'check' to see if they are not more sinister, once there action has been highlighted to police? At the end of the day, a simple check maybe all it takes to be sure and if you have nothing illegal on there, whats the issue?

Section 44 (i believe) is not a general search power. It has to be a designated area by an assistant chief constable and the Home Secretary must confirm the authorisation. The authorisation could be made at any time that the person making it ‘considers it necessary’ for the prevention of acts of terrorism and can last up to 28 days and could be renewed. If this is not in place, then section 44 can not be applied - its never been in place in our area.

Terror attacks are as they seem, either by a group or an individual - they are wrong and a very bad thing to say the least. Their prevention must be at the forefront of what we do as the preservation of life is the corner stone of policing.

Felix.

You have 'found on enclosed premises' which is criminal and can be pursued. You can use reasonable force to protect your property and you can detain anyone who you believe is committing an offence. I don't think you can justify 'giving someone a good pasting' just for standing in your property though.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Found on enclosed premises is a bit vague though isn't it? It's just an extension of the Vagrancy Act 1824. You still have to prove they are there with criminal intent. Proving this intent is hard without evidence and you are powerless to pursue any charge.

Felix.

But it will be enough to arrest - the 'intent' will be part of the following investigation. Following that investigation, we can still pursue a charge if there is sufficient evidence to support one.

shytorque

So I could have detained this ****** then after all??

And if he had tried to escape?
What would have been reasonable to keep him until the police arrived?

Felix.

i would say so - if you genuinely believe he was on the property for an unlawful purpose (burglary), but the investigation will have to be carried out by police; but you have to balance the proportionality of it. Hence, in this example if there were no units free, and they hadn't been in the act of burgling, and you would have had to hold him for 30 minutes plus, they were under the age of 10 etc etc - then perhaps letting them go may have been the correct advice.

Reasonable use of force to prevent escape - i.e keep hold of them. But you can't meter out your own summary justice.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Felix, having spoken to a couple of your colleagues in my local force today at some length I'm of the mind you're trying to do your job with one hand tied behind your back. In your response above it's clear you've got so many caveats to observe that it's no wonder criminals are able to **** a snook at the police. The officers I spoke to were having to investigate a false allegation of domestic violence. Even though they knew the allegation was false they were duty bound to investigate fully. Cue two officers tied up for several hours. Valuable time wasted when they could have been attending genuine emergencies.

shytorque

Well I know for next time ...
They were 13/14 these so may well have been looking to enter the house or looking for something to pinch.
If they were under ten then I would have just put the wind up them and scared them off ,but in future ,if it happens again I will grip the little sh*t until Dibble arrives no matter how long the delay...
Thanks for clarifying for me .Appreciated.

Felix.

Just make sure they understand on the phone that you have got one detained and point out your fear that they were about to commit a crime. Don't dish out your own summary justice while you wait, just wait with them until police arrive - try and have someone stand with you during this time too.

shytorque

Yep will do.

My mother was there this time ,my 14 year old son and my mate from next door.
Plenty of people to back up that nothing untoward happened.
They should have explained this to me , or did they not want the paperwork ,for something that may have been trivia to them and had no chance of going anywhere???
At least I know now.