Britain: Police State?

[Yithian]

I detect sarcasm and, as I'm sure you realise from the dates, the legislation under which the arrest was made dates from Thatcher's first government.

That, however, is to miss the point: the problem isn't really the law, it's an overzealous and unyielding enforcement of it. Investigations and prosecutions are often abandoned on the grounds that they are not in the public's interest. I should be very surprised if it turned out that this man was trying get around the law; his actions are hardly promoting the sale of bird eggs. Though the fact that the eggs were in no way valuable does not alter the fact that their sale breaches the law, it should influence the police's view of the intention and spirit of the act, which, in turn, should have led them to turn up, remove the eggs, and remind all concerned of the legal position with no need for arrests.

I do worry that the fear of facing censure has meant all common sense has been abandoned in matters legal.

 

[Stormkhan]

Pointless bureacracy and silly litigation is always great for the media to run, especially the tabloids.
What is less publicised are the cases which do not proceed (on advice from senior and more sensible bodies) and those which get thrown out of court - only prompting a half column comment if the case has religious and/or previous "righteous condemnation" by the tabloids.

MAN SUES CHILD OVER MISPLACED SKATEBOARD ACCIDENT is newsworthy.

MAN TOLD TO WATCH WHERE HE WAS WALKING, GET A LIFE AND STOP TRYING TO GET COMPENSATION is less so.

 

[sonofajoiner]

Definitely one for the WTF? files.

Man thrown off train over Killers gig list
By Ben Mitchell, Press Association

A musician has spoken today of his shock at being removed from a train for "behaving suspiciously" by writing a list of songs which included the band name "The Killers".

Tom Shaw was travelling on a South West Trains when he began writing a list of song titles which his band The Magic Mushrooms would play at a forthcoming gig.

But the 25-year-old was approached by two security staff employed by the train company and asked to leave the train at Fareham railway station.

Mr Shaw, who works with young people with learning difficulties, said that they told him he had been behaving suspiciously and asked him to explain the list he had been writing.

The set list included Take Me Out by Franz Ferdinand, Cigarettes and Alcohol by Oasis and Love Me Like You by The Magic Numbers.

Mr Shaw, of Portsmouth, Hampshire, said his band also intended to play All These Things That I've Done by The Killers but he had simply written "killers".

He told the Portsmouth News: "They made me get out at Fareham and when I asked what was wrong they told me to show them the piece of paper I'd been writing on.

"They said I'd been behaving suspiciously. I couldn't understand it. It seemed very strange as it was only a list of songs.

"We had a gig coming up so I was writing out what we could play. They made me explain song by song."

Mr Shaw added that the security staff told him that he had been questioned because there had been a number of arrests in the area including a man who had murdered his wife. (What that has to do with anything remains a mystery.)

A South West Trains spokeswoman said Mr Shaw was asked politely to leave the train because it was busy and the officers wished to speak to him about their concerns.

She added: "We employ a team of highly professional rail community officers who work closely with the British Transport Police in protecting the security of passengers on the rail network.

"During a routine high-visibility patrol back in early March, they talked with a passenger on the platform at Fareham station.

"The team clarified the nature of the individual's business, were satisfied with his explanation and the man went on his way.

"We would like to thank the passenger for his co-operation and understanding of the need to be vigilant in the current environment."

A more reasonable and understanding fella than I that's for sure.

The Independent

 

[Yithian]

What the f*ck is 'the current environment' and how does it affect anything.
Private security goons? I'd have called their bluff and the transport police in one go and then ask them to justify to a real policeman why I was being detained.

 

[Spookdaddy]

To be honest I'd probably have thrown him off the train simply for wanting to cover anything by The Killers. To paraphrase Brian Clough: Human may not be the most irritating song in the world - but it's in the top one.

Just as well I'm not a security guard then. I'd be throwing people off for wearing sandals and underpants visible above the belt line.

 

[Stormkhan]

You could do that - but I'd hope you had to justify your argument to more powerful public bodies, especially those who don't share your own tastes.

Though I agree with your stand on the sandals policy inasmuch as the sock interface obscenity!

 

[Spookdaddy]

You could do that - but I'd hope you had to justify your argument to more powerful public bodies, especially those who don't share your own tastes.

Though I agree with your stand on the sandals policy inasmuch as the sock interface obscenity!

Socks in ter face!!? Well, that'd definitely get you thrown off. Can't be hygenic.

 

[McAvennie]

Having taken an interest in the Chris Atkins film 'Star Suckers' I did a little research and heard about his earlier film 'Taking Liberties'.

I'd not heard about it, although it has been out since 2007 and aired on Channel 4 so it may be well-known.

It's had a couple of mentions on here already I think.

Managed to find it online, just been watching it and I have to say it is one of the most frightening things I've seen in a long while. :shock:

The opening five minutes should send a chill down your spine. I must admit in the past I've not always had much sympathy with anti-this and anti-that protesters but whether or not I agree with their causes I certainly do not agree with the apparent use of police force to prevent them having the right to protest.

If you haven't seen it the film can be watched online here, I'd recommend giving an hour and a half of your time to watching it...did someone say East Germany? :shock:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/true-sto ... liberties/

 

[OneWingedBird]

Mr Shaw added that the security staff told him that he had been questioned because there had been a number of arrests in the area including a man who had murdered his wife. (What that has to do with anything remains a mystery.)

There's always been a number of arrests in the area, prob. fairly regardless of where the area is

 

[sonofajoiner]

Mr Shaw added that the security staff told him that he had been questioned because there had been a number of arrests in the area including a man who had murdered his wife. (What that has to do with anything remains a mystery.)

There's always been a number of arrests in the area, prob. fairly regardless of where the area is

Perhaps the man murdered his wife by writing The Killers on a piece of paper before handing it to her secretly, causing a massive squeaky demon to turn up and set her on fire.

 

[OneWingedBird]

You might rather enjoy the anime Death Note

 

[sonofajoiner]

You might rather enjoy the anime Death Note

Ha ha! Perhaps one of the security staff had seen it too and guessed what he was up to. It's all starting to make a bit more sense now!

 

[agentbuffy]

Having taken an interest in the Chris Atkins film 'Star Suckers' I did a little research and heard about his earlier film 'Taking Liberties'.

I'd not heard about it, although it has been out since 2007 and aired on Channel 4 so it may be well-known.

It's had a couple of mentions on here already I think.

Managed to find it online, just been watching it and I have to say it is one of the most frightening things I've seen in a long while. :shock:

The opening five minutes should send a chill down your spine. I must admit in the past I've not always had much sympathy with anti-this and anti-that protesters but whether or not I agree with their causes I certainly do not agree with the apparent use of police force to prevent them having the right to protest.

If you haven't seen it the film can be watched online here, I'd recommend giving an hour and a half of your time to watching it...did someone say East Germany? :shock:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/true-sto ... liberties/

Well, I've just taken your advice and just watched one of the most thought-provoking pieces of documentary I've seen in a while. OK, so there is only one side of the story presented, but it's hard to argue with the case studies used, and if the actions shown here by those in power become more prevalent and impinge on (I hesitate to use the phrase) the man in the street more, then it truly is a frightening prospect.

I almost wish I hadn't watched it now - it's made me really angry, but in a good and indignant way.

 

[rynner2]

One small step for HMRC, one giant leap for totalitarian government:

Intercepting mail is worthy of the Stasi
Labour's plan to allow tax inspectors to open private mail before it is delivered is unacceptable in a democracy

The last days of this dreadful government are being accompanied by an attack on rights and privacy that seems unprecedented during Labour's 13-year rule.

The government is now drawing up plans to amend the Postal Services Act to allow tax inspectors to intercept and open people's mail before it is delivered. Given the state's ambitions to collect all communications data this is hardly surprising, but we must ask ourselves how many more rights are seized by government and its agencies before Britain becomes the GDR's most obvious European imitator.

Currently postal workers have the right to intercept suspicious letters and packages and pass them to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and then at an agreed moment the item is opened in front of the addressee. The change in the law will mean that HMRC will be able to open whatever it likes without the addressee being present or being made aware of the interception.

As usual, the government and HMRC public relations people underplay the wide-ranging and dangerous nature of this proposal by insisting that the new measure is simply designed to deal with the problem of tobacco smuggling. But the change, disclosed in a document published with the budget, means that HMRC will be able to trawl through private mail pretty much at will.

Quoted in the Daily Telegraph, Heather Taylor, a senior tax partner at Grant Thornton, said: "This seems like a very small and limited change, but it could be a very big step for increased powers [of] HMRC. Once new powers are in the hands of HMRC they tend to be extended."

This is a very alarming development, and it is worth remembering who the HMRC employees work for and who is paying the bills for the enormous waste of money by government that, together with the attack on democratic rights, is one of the dominant features of the last 13 years. They work for us, the taxpayers – British citizens who are now to be relegated to the units of control familiar to the East German authorities.

Years ago I found myself in a dismal room at the Stasi headquarters in the East German town of Leipzig and saw the piles of opened mail left by Stasi officers when the Berlin Wall came down. There was a pulping machine, adapted from a piece of agricultural machinery, which had been hastily used to destroy the evidence of the massive programme of interception. It was an impressive sight and to me a lasting symbol of the East German dictatorship.

It seems extraordinary that we are about to allow the exact same type of interception to be established in Britain with such little complaint. How long will it be before we protest? Where is the political leadership needed to assert that these sorts of laws are unacceptable in a democracy? And for Pete's sake, how does the government square the measure with the rights to privacy "guaranteed" by its own Human Rights Act?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... inspectors

 

[rynner2]

I find this disturbing, since I generally carry a folding knife with me:

Caravanner, 61, prosecuted for having Swiss Army knife in his glove box... to cut up fruit on picnics
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:53 PM on 15th April 2010

A disabled caravanner who kept a penknife in his glove compartment to use on picnics has blasted the authorities after being dragged through court for possessing an offensive weapon.
Rodney Knowles, 61, walks with the aid of a stick and had used the Swiss Army knife to cut up fruit on picnics with his wife.
Knowles yesterday admitted possessing an offensive weapon at Torquay Magistrates Court. He was given a conditional discharge.
But speaking after the hearing, he said: 'It's a stupid law. Now I have a criminal record.'

Prosecutor Philip Sewell told the court that Knowles was stopped by police when he left a pub on February 24.
He was arrested for suspected drink-driving but a breath test showed he was under the legal limit, the court was told.
But Knowles was charged with possession of the knife, which was found in its pouch in the car glove compartment.
Mr Sewell told the court: 'He told officers that he had the knife for caravanning. He is not working and had no malicious reason for carrying the blade'

Defence solicitor Jolyon Tuck said Knowles, who is a carer for his wife, had used the knife to cut up fruit on picnics with his wife.
'He accepts it was in his car and the law is very clear,' he said. He admits possession of it and he had no good reason for having it.'
Chairman of the bench Robert Horne ordered forfeiture of the knife and £40 costs to be paid.
He said: 'There is no previous conviction history whatsoever and it was not in his possession and was in the car glove compartment in a pouch.'

The retired maintenance engineer, from Buckland, Devon, had no criminal record before the case.
He said: 'The tool was in my glove box in a pouch, along with a torch, first aid kit and waterproofs.
'It is everything I need for the maintenance of my car or if I break down.
'Now I have a criminal record for the first time in my life. I am upset by that.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0lG3bo4r4

The UK law on carrying knives is given here:
http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_(UK)

I used to carry the knife as a tool of my trade, when I was involved with boats or the chandlery business, but I don't have that excuse now I'm retired. Perhaps I should always carry a piece of fruit with my knife...

But did the police have the right to search the man's car? I imagine most motorists would carry a few basic tools, any of which could be considered 'an offensive weapon'... For that matter, a tow-rope could be 'an offensive weapon' if you used it to strangle someone! :shock:

 

[rynner2]

But did the police have the right to search the man's car?

The answer might lie here:

Stop and search UK: A Briton is interrogated by police every 20 seconds. 90% aren't even arrested
By James Slack
Last updated at 11:21 AM on 16th April 2010

Somebody is stopped and searched by the police every 20 seconds in 'Big Brother' Britain, it was revealed last night.
More than nine out of every ten of those interrogated by officers are not even subsequently arrested, let alone charged.
Opposition parties say the revelation is yet more evidence of the Government's disregard for civil liberties and 'state knows best' attitude.

According to figures released by the Home Office yesterday, the use of each of the three main types of police stop and search powers is rocketing.
The statistics follow warnings that police are making unjustified stops to give the figures 'racial balance' and that suspects are being searched even though there is no evidence against them.
The biggest rise was in searches carried out because an officer believed a suspect may be about to commit an act of violence - up 182 per cent in a year, to 150,174.

Use of the controversial Section 44 anti-terrorism power - which allows police to search people without any reasonable grounds they suspect wrongdoing - leapt by 66 per cent, to 210,013 cases.

The police's long-standing stop and search power, which dates back to 1984 and requires an officer to at least suspect a person could be involved in crime, was up ten per cent, to 1,153,572 cases.

In total some 1,513,759 people were interrogated on the streets or in their car by an officer in 2008/09 - an overall increase of 24 per cent.
That is the equivalent of three every minute.

Yet the searches led to only 118,118 arrests. In the remaining cases, an entirely innocent person had been put through the humiliation - often in public - of a lengthy search for no reason.

The most controversial aspect will be the steep rise in the use of the Section 44 anti-terror powers. It led to the arrest of only nine people for terrorism offences - or 0.004 per cent of those who were stopped.
The power has already been ruled unlawful by the European courts.

Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terror laws, has also said he knows of ases where suspects were stopped by officers even though there was no evidence against them.
But, pending a final appeal, the Home Office has decided to allow officers to continue to use the power.

etc...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0lG9yatmo

 

[Yithian]

He admits possession of it and he had no good reason for having it.'

The whole point of a Swiss-army knife is that it has multiple functions and is, hence, a exceptionally useful tool to carry for unforeseen exigencies. It's also a very impractical weapon as the blades do not lock. I had always thought the law had some specification about locking blades. Perhaps I'm behind the times, but I carried mine in my rucsac for years and it came in handy literally hundreds of times.

I recall, much earlier, that the mightily named Mr Claw, my favourite junior school teacher used to carry his everywhere at school and use any excuse possible to demonstrate one of the functions. I also recall being allowed to use his knife to sharpen my pencil when the big bolt-down mechanical one in the classroom broke. I'm sure I was watched closely, but It wouldn't have been necessary as I felt like I'd been treated as a grown-up and I wasn't about to let the teacher think I wasn't responsible enough to be trusted.

I also recall, aged 13 or so, being taken my father to buy my first sheath knife from the local hunting & fishing shop. I was utterly awed by the ceremony (at least that's how it seemed to my young eyes) with which the various models were removed from a locked cabinet for my inspection while my father made quiet suggestions as to the merits of each blade. The next week, at the last meeting before my first camp with the troop, we were given a lesson in knife safety and told when and when not to reach for a blade. Is all this so hopelessly outmoded? I really, seriously felt I'd been given a great trust as a child; one we don't even permit adults today, it seems. I can't help but think this is a pretty sad state of affairs.

Edit: I've just recalled that I named my knife 'Thorin'. I suspect I should be embarrassed by that, but strangely, I'm not.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Given the rise in knife crime, I'm not sure that the law as it stands is overly draconian. It's not that carrying a knife is banned, but that it must not be larger than a certain size or have a lockable blade and, if it is larger than the 3 inches allowed, then it is only allowed to be carried in specific circumstances. I can't see how this really affects anyone except those who wish to carry a large blade on the streets.

I really, seriously felt I'd been given a great trust as a child; one we don't even permit adults today, it seems. I can't help but think this is a pretty sad state of affairs.

What's sad is that so many adults and kids have demonstrated they don't deserve that trust.

 

[rynner2]

My knife has a non-lockable, under 3" blade, but

...even a folding pocket knife of less than 3" (76mm) may still be considered an offensive weapon if carried or used for that purpose.
...
Although English law insists that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide evidence proving a crime has been committed an individual must provide evidence to prove that they had a bona fide reason for carrying a knife (if this is the case). Whilst this may appear to be a reversal of the usual burden of proof, technically the prosecution has already proven the case (prima facie) by establishing that a knife was being carried in a public place.

http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_(UK)

The Police response in the reported case seems to back up the idea that the knife carrier has to provide good reason for having it.

"We are all guilty!" Dr. Heinz Kiosk

 

[Mythopoeika]

There may come a time when we aren't allowed to carry anything at all, in case it is a potential weapon.
Scary thought.

 

[Quake42]

I also recall, aged 13 or so, being taken my father to buy my first sheath knife from the local hunting & fishing shop. I was utterly awed by the ceremony (at least that's how it seemed to my young eyes) with which the various models were removed from a locked cabinet for my inspection while my father made quiet suggestions as to the merits of each blade. The next week, at the last meeting before my first camp with the troop, we were given a lesson in knife safety and told when and when not to reach for a blade. Is all this so hopelessly outmoded? I really, seriously felt I'd been given a great trust as a child; one we don't even permit adults today, it seems. I can't help but think this is a pretty sad state of affairs.

Hmm. I have to be honest and say I'd be reluctant to see many of the hoodie-wearing youths in my own ("vibrant, but challenging") inner London suburb running around carrying sheath knives with impunity. So if that's what you really want to see, then yes I think it's "hopelessly outmoded". Nor it practical or desirable to have one rule for inner city kids and one for those in the shires.

In summary, I've got to agree with Dr B. I can't see that restrictions on knife-carrying are particularly draconian or symptomatic of a "police state". If

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I have two Swiss Army knives. A little one, with a knife blade, a bottle opener/wire-stripper/screwdriver and a corkscrew. Very handy, for fixing plugs, for repairing my bike, on a picnic and the corkscrew is one of the most reliable I've ever used.

I have a larger one, that comes in handy for fixing the computer, woodwork, first aid, extracting splinters, small do-it-yourself jobs, etc. It also has an excellent corkscrew.

Not being allowed to carry something like that, as a responsible adult, does seem a bit of a loss of personal freedom.

 

[Timble2]

You are allowed to carry a folding knife (i.e. a penknife) without a locking blade as long the cutting edge is under 3 inches long. (I just measured my Swiss Army knife and it's a shade over 2.5 inches. Either the chap had a huge old knife, or he got bad legal advice. If the blade was less than 3 inches the Police really were just trying it on and he fell for it.

Source: Criminal Justice Act, 1988. Section 139(1).

It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches.

 

[Timble2]

You are allowed to carry a folding knife (i.e. a penknife) without a locking blade as long the cutting edge is under 3 inches long. (I just measured my Swiss Army knife and it's a shade over 2.5 inches. Either the chap had a huge old knife, or he got bad legal advice. If the blade was less than 3 inches the Police really were just trying it on and he fell for it.

Source: Criminal Justice Act, 1988. Section 139(1).

It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches.

 

[rynner2]

Either the chap had a huge old knife, or he got bad legal advice. If the blade was less than 3 inches the Police really were just trying it on and he fell for it.

Not just the Police - the Court as well!

Not to mention

Defence solicitor Jolyon Tuck said Knowles, who is a carer for his wife, had used the knife to cut up fruit on picnics with his wife.
'He accepts it was in his car and the law is very clear,' he said. He admits possession of it and he had no good reason for having it.'

 

[Yithian]

I also recall, aged 13 or so, being taken my father to buy my first sheath knife from the local hunting & fishing shop. I was utterly awed by the ceremony (at least that's how it seemed to my young eyes) with which the various models were removed from a locked cabinet for my inspection while my father made quiet suggestions as to the merits of each blade. The next week, at the last meeting before my first camp with the troop, we were given a lesson in knife safety and told when and when not to reach for a blade. Is all this so hopelessly outmoded? I really, seriously felt I'd been given a great trust as a child; one we don't even permit adults today, it seems. I can't help but think this is a pretty sad state of affairs.

Hmm. I have to be honest and say I'd be reluctant to see many of the hoodie-wearing youths in my own ("vibrant, but challenging") inner London suburb running around carrying sheath knives with impunity. So if that's what you really want to see, then yes I think it's "hopelessly outmoded". Nor it practical or desirable to have one rule for inner city kids and one for those in the shires.

In summary, I've got to agree with Dr B. I can't see that restrictions on knife-carrying are particularly draconian or symptomatic of a "police state". If

I'm not suggesting people be allowed to carry sheath knives on the street. That was an anecdote to explain how knives can be used responsibly. I wasn't allowed to take mine out of the house unless I was going to a scout camp or outdoors exercise.

Neither, of course, do I think that we should have a dual system. I should just like to see the police and courts use some common sense discretion. In the case cited, it appears they did not.

 

[Quake42]

Timble2 wrote:
Either the chap had a huge old knife, or he got bad legal advice. If the blade was less than 3 inches the Police really were just trying it on and he fell for it.

Not just the Police - the Court as well!

Do we know that for certain? Isn't Timble's suggestion, that the knife was perhaps an old or non-standard one, and had a blade exceeding 3 inches, more likely?

Neither, of course, do I think that we should have a dual system. I should just like to see the police and courts use some common sense discretion. In the case cited, it appears they did not.

The problem for the police is that politicians and media talk incessantly of "zero tolerance" for those found carrying knives, and most of the public, if asked, would probably say they agreed with this. I haven't bothered to check the Daily Mail (source of the first article) archives but I'm pretty sure it will be full of shock horror stories on knife crime and ridicule for anyone suggesting that those caught carrying knives should suffer anything other than immediate and severe punishment. I'm pretty sure the Tory manifesto also includes a promise of mandatory jail time for anyone found with a knife. This would, of course, include the harmless carvanner in the original story.

 

[balding13]

Just before I left London in 2003...

...I was eating an apple in a park in Marylebone. I noticed an afro-caribbean guy staring at me. In a welsh accent he told me he was a police officer, producing a warrant card, and explained the blunt table knife I was cutting the apple with was an offensive weapon. 'If a member of the public complains I can arrest you'.

My immediate reaction was that a short walk away people were visibly dealing drugs, begging, soliciting for prostitution etc. Had he said it in a rueful way I would probably have respected him but I didn't need to be Freud to see the motivation of this individual; he revelled in his authority.

Since then there have been various articles (not daily mail/express!) explaining how the police find it much easier to criminalise the innocent rather than police criminals. Sometimes I think its a conspiracy to make us vote for the extreme right (then of course you see them speak and find it impossible to consider!).

 

[Quake42]

...I was eating an apple in a park in Marylebone ...
My immediate reaction was that a short walk away people were visibly dealing drugs, begging, soliciting for prostitution etc.

I must admit I find this surprising, as I go to Marylebone frequently and know it as a very upmarket area of London. I can't recall seeing any of the behaviour you mention there, especially during the day.

Since then there have been various articles (not daily mail/express!) explaining how the police find it much easier to criminalise the innocent rather than police criminals. Sometimes I think its a conspiracy to make us vote for the extreme right

I don't think that's particularly surprising. Most people want an easy life, especially at work, and given the option would prefer to tick off mild-mannered, usually law abiding folk rather than risk verbal or physical abuse from a drug addict or career criminal. This doesn't excuse it of course; it just doesn't imply a conspiracy,

 

[balding13]

I must admit I find this surprising, as I go to Marylebone frequently and know it as a very upmarket area of London. I can't recall seeing any of the behaviour you mention there, especially during the day.

I don't know about now, since the Eurostar opening, but back then Kings Cross was as I've described 24 hours a day. Regarding him wanting an easy life, well he shouldn't have become a cop.