Jump to content

Police


Recommended Posts

To address a previous point of yours where you made reference to "hiding behind the Human Rights Act, I would, therefore, surmise that - in your world, at least, Police are not human? Or is it that we are not to have the same rights as you, or your neighbour? An interesting land you would have us live in, where thousands daily "hide behind" such rights, while you would deny it, willy-nilly, to whomsoever had raised your displeasure that day.

 

I have no problems with officers as indviduals being afforded the same protection from the Human Rights Act as everyone else when they are not on duty.

 

While on duty its a whole other matter, by default of the position an officer holds his is IMHO the singularly most important position where justice, fair play and all that is good must be done and must be seen to be one at all times. The integrity of the force as a whole, and belief and trust in it can only be maintained when an officer is answerable directly to the public for any and all allegations made against them while on duty. If that in some way contravenes their rights as an individual under the Human Right Act, then so be it, the means justify the end in my mind, and officers should only be employed on the understanding that while on duty they are no longer subject to the Human Rights Act protections they currently enjoy while under investigation for any alleged misconduct while on duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 672
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ghostrider they are policed by the independent police complaints department. they are not the police.

 

A toothless talking shop, a bunch of stuffed shirts, thats all those are. One token gesture to oversee the entire nation's Police, its nothing but lip service and a front to appease with.

 

I was talking about an independent overseeing body at a local level, one in each command area to investigate, in public, unless in very entenuating circumstances any and all allegations made against an officer while on duty, and with an affiliated prosecutor to take an officer to court, if appropriate.

 

No more internal equiries, no more internal disciplinary hearings, no more one force investigating another force, no more the local fiscal deciding whether to take an officer to court, the guy works alongside the Police day by day on regular court work, unbiased he certainly isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

paulb, I find your blanket condemnation of everyone taking part in the G20 demonstrations as "rioters" inaccurate and offensive. If every single protester had been rioting, then there would have been a damn sight more damage and mayhem caused. The protests were 99% peaceful and legal. There were a few disturbances but there was no riot.

Please stop doing this. :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

paulb, I find your blanket condemnation of everyone taking part in the G20 demonstrations as "rioters" inaccurate and offensive. If every single protester had been rioting, then there would have been a damn sight more damage and mayhem caused. The protests were 99% peaceful and legal. There were a few disturbances but there was no riot.

Please stop doing this. :evil:

For a protest to be legal they must get permission. I very much doubt they did. When a crowd gets out of hand then the 99% innocent become part of the mob. They should not have been there they should not have taken part in unlawful behaviour. Look at the other protest that was peaceful. The police did not have to don riot gear and private property was not destroyed. And as we had to pay for the stupid bank it our money your mates were busting up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a protest to be legal they must get permission.

 

One of the first and quite large steps that constitutes a Police State. "Please Sir, may I have permission to tell you that I think you're wrong". :roll:

 

A protest that had to first obtain permission to occur has by default lost 99% of its value, and is a most excellent method for the "powers that be" to stifle/silence protest, should they choose to go that way, and lets face it, that law has only minimal justification for its existence on other grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

England and Wales

Under English law, a riot is defined by the Public Order Act 1986 as twelve or more persons who "together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety". A single person can be liable for an offense of riot when they use violence provided that it can be shown there were at least twelve present using or threatening violence. The violence can be against the person or against property. This carries the possibility of a fine and a sentence of up to ten years' imprisonment.

 

If there are fewer than twelve people present, the lesser offense of "Violent Disorder" is charged, for which there is a requirement for at least three persons to use or threaten unlawful violence together. This is defined similarly to riot, but no common purpose is required.

 

In English Law Riot forms part of the Public Order Act 1986 under section 1.

 

The Public Order Act 1986 s.1 states:

 

1) Where twelve or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.

 

2) It is immaterial whether or not the twelve or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.

 

3) The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.

 

4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

 

5) Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.

 

1902 Encyclopedia > Riot

 

Riot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RIOT is "an unlawful assembly which has actually begun to execute the purpose for which it assembled by a breach of the peace and to the terror of the public. A lawful assembly may become a riot if the persons assembled form and proceed to execute an unlawful purpose to the terror of the people, although they had not that purpose when they assembled" (Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law, art. 73). The above is the definition of a riot at common law in England. The offence is the most grave kind of breach of the peace known to the law, short of treason. In its previous stages it may be an affray, an unlawful assembly, or a riot, According to circumstances, and it may, if carried far enough, become treason. An affray is the fighting of two or more persons in the public street An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons with intent to commit a crime by force or carry out a common purpose, lawful or unlawful, in such a way as to give reasonable grounds for fearing a breach of the peace. A rout is an unlawful assembly which has made a motion towards the execution of its common purpose. If the unlawful assembly should begin to demolish a particular inclosure, that would be a riot; if it should proceed to pull down all inclosures, that would be treason. It was considered as early as the 14th century that the common law gave an insufficient remedy against riot. In 1360 the statute of 34 Edw. III. c. I gave jurisdiction to justices to restrain, arrest, and imprison rioters. In 1393 the statute of 17 Ric. II c. 8 conferred similar powers on the sheriff andposse comitatus. Numerous other Acts extending the common law were passed, especially in the Tudor reigns (see Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, vol. i, p. 202). The effect of existing legislation is to constitute certain statutory offences similar to riot at common law. The earliest Act now in force is one commonly called the Riot Act, I Geo. I. St. 2, c. 5. That Act makes it the duty of a justice, sheriff, mayor, or other authority, wherever twelve persons or more are unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together to the disturbance of the public peace, to resort to the place of such assembly and read the following proclamation:—"Our Sovereign Lady the Queen chargeth and commandeth all persons being, assembled immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George for preventing tumultuous and riotous assemblies. God save the Queen. It is a felony punishable with penal servitude for life to obstruct the reading of the proclamation or to remain or continue together unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously for one hour after the proclamation was made or for one hour after it would have been made but for being hindered. The Act requires the justices to seize and apprehend all persons continuing after the hour, and indemnifies them and those who act under their authority from liability for injuries caused thereby. Any prosecution for an offence against the Act must be commenced within twelve months after the offence.

 

By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, § 11, it is a felony punishable with penal servitude for life for persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together to the disturbance of the public peace to unlawfully and with force demolish or begin to demolish or pull down or destroy any building, public building, machinery, or mining plant. By § 12 it is a misdemeanour punishable with seven years’ penal servitude to injure or damage such building, &c. A riotous assembly of three or more seamen unlawfully and with force preventing, hindering, or obstructing the loading or unloading or the sailing or navigation of any vessel, or unlawfully and with force boarding any vessel with intent to do so, constitutes a misdemeanour punishable with twelve months’ hard labour, 33 Geo. III. c. 67. In addition to these Acts, there are others aimed at crimes of a somewhat similar nature, such as assembly for the purpose of smuggling, going armed in pursuit of game by night, forcible entry and detainer, political meetings in the city of Westminster, tumultuous petitioning, and unlawful drilling. For these offences see Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law, art. 76-82.

 

It is the duty of a magistrate at the time of a riot to assemble subjects of the realm, whether civil or military, for the purpose of quelling a riot. In this duty he is aided by the common law, under which all subjects of the realm are bound to assist on reasonable warning, and by various enactments enabling the authorities to call out the auxiliary and reserve forces for the suppression of riot, and to close public houses where a riot is apprehended. It is his duty to keep the peace; if the peace be broken, honesty of intention will not avail him if he has been guilty of neglect of duty. The question is whether be did all that he knew was in his power and which could be expected from a man of ordinary prudence, firmness, and activity. The law as thus stated is gathered from the opinions of the judges on the trials of the lord mayor of London and the mayor of Bristol on indictments for neglect of duty at the time of the Gordon riots of 1780 and the Bristol riots in 1831.[Footnote 565-1] In addition to his liability to an indictment at common law, a defaulting magistrate is subject under the provisions of 13 Hen. IV. c. 7 and 2 Hen. V. st. 1, c. 8, to a penalty of £100 for every default, the default to be inquired of by commission under the great seal. A matter of interest is the extent of the protection afforded by the Riot Act to soldiers acting under the commands of their officers. The soldier is at the same time a citizen, and the mere fact of his being a soldier is not sufficient to exonerate him from all responsibility. No case in which the question has called for decision seems to have arisen. It is the opinion of Mr Justice Stephen that a soldier would be protected by orders for which he might reasonably believe his superior officer to have good grounds (History of the Criminal Law, vol. i. 206). On the other hand, he would probably not be protected by an order plainly unnecessary, such as an order to fire into a crowd of women and children when no violence was observable.

 

It is clear that in Law that they were rioting. The bankers having to have a day off and dress down shows that they caused fear. The criminal damage caused also results in it being a riot. Being there place those acting in simular fashion under the same law. they broke the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a protest to be legal they must get permission. I very much doubt they did. When a crowd gets out of hand then the 99% innocent become part of the mob. They should not have been there they should not have taken part in unlawful behaviour. Look at the other protest that was peaceful. The police did not have to don riot gear and private property was not destroyed. And as we had to pay for the stupid bank it our money your mates were busting up.

Irrelevent. There_was_no_riot.

 

And how can a few broken windows (which would have been covered by insurance) compare to the £4000* which every man, woman and child has had to pay out to "rescue" the countries banks from the incompetent, greedy criminals who brought them to the brink of destruction.

 

Please show a little perspective.

 

*That's right, that's your share of the public debt theses criminals have run up. :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't much fancy to "riot" against the police and all their wonderful toys; much better option is to get them to turn around and serve us as the front line in eliminating the scum who would have us at each others throats, spilt the winnings and declare free love for the new galactic order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being there place those acting in simular fashion under the same law. they broke the law.

 

I really think you ought to get things in perspective. The quoted phrase seems to me to sum up your attitude. The guy was guilty of "being there" so obviously he was a bad un and deserved all he got.

 

Personally I'd prefer to wait till the facts become clear before making a judgement. It seems entirely plausible that he was simply trying to make his way home and got caught up in this. I'm not convinced that if I was in the early stages of having a heart attack, i'd be too thrilled with getting caught up in a protest and getting trapped in the middle, unable to find a way through. I might even get a bit miffed with the Police who were herding me towards where they wanted me to be, not to where I wanted to go.

 

Again there may well be more to the story than we know. He might well have had pockets full of petrol bombs ready to let loose. I strongly suspect though, that if he was a hard line 'rioter' he might at least have taken the day off work to attend something going on right on his doorstep. It does at least seem clear that he had just finised work and was heading home.

 

Bottom line is, I simply don't know. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not as balanced as I actually feel.

 

Unfortunately, I find myself automatically going on the defensive against paulb's attitude, when I suspect he doesn't know any more about the circumstances than I do.

 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

paulb wrote

Under English law, a riot is defined by the Public Order Act 1986

Is it pure coincidence that the latest in a long line of laws defining riot was passed just after the miners strike?. In any event it is not acceptable that the act should be used to deny people the right of protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly has this thread gone off the tracks fromt the original comments???

 

I would like to point out that most of the police are very helpful, they do their job not only to help us but to keep the community of shetland a safer place!

 

Why on earth do people have such a problem with the police when guess what....when trouble strikes them the police are the first port of call for them.....It really is outrageuous how some people treat them....

 

I must agree on another hand that there are certain police officers past/present who do tent to seem like they are out for revenge on certain things, either they despise someone or they simple are into their "revenge" route.....

 

Back to previous thread though....I got PMed the names of the two officers originally spoken about, one i know of well and he would simply of been doin his job, as for the other one, i had a few walkin's with himself and i did not lile the way he treatment either....maybe i was young and didn't understand the way the law worked????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...