The behaviour of UK police officers.

[smartcooky]

For example, carrying one into a jewellers shop,

But he didn't carry one into a jeweler's shop...

when you are wearing a face mask.

... and he wasn't wearing a face mask.

Or when there are youth gang fights taking place.

There weren't any youth gang fights taking place.

Or outside your neighbours, when you have had a huge argument over something.

He wasn't outside his neighbours and he hadn't had a huge argument over something

Many places, such as a courthouse

He wasn't in a courthouse.

or pub

He wasn't in a pub.

or hospital

He wasn't in a hospital.

He was walking down an open pedestrian area, bothering no one, and a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ arrogant ◊◊◊◊ of a cop came up behind him without warning and attacked him.

STOP . STRAWMANNING . IRRELEVANT . SCENARIOS . THAT . NEVER . HAPPENED!!

 

[bluesjnr]

You'd be wrong. The circumstances are not identical to that case, so there is still some doubt as to whether the outcome would be the same. Regardless, that doesn't mean a conviction would be guaranteed.

In that case, the woman wasn't stealing from charity.
Do these auditors have nothing better to do than worry about the ownership of old clothes that people have thrown away? Or do they, perhaps, have an ulterior motive which can only be heard if you can hear high frequencies?

Your irrational hatred of auditors is colouring your responses. The fact that the police officer sat on her arse and didn't even attempt to speak to the woman, even if only to ask her to return the stuff is being ignored by you.

It's like the racist guy who posted it being the issue for some when this thread is about the behaviour of police officers in the UK. The thread isn't about who posted the obviously poor police behaviour, this thread isn't about who filmed the obviously poor police behaviour. We've even got one zealot spouting about neo Nazis and the far right on a thread that's supposed to highlight the behaviour of police.

 

[Nessie]

Thank you foragreeing with me!
Given that I think you mistyped I would have thought that the rest would go without saying. We're getting back to intent in almost all of your examples aren't we.

That doesn't change the fact that it's not illegal to carry a baseball bat.

A courthouse, or pub, or hospital, may not welcome an individual with a bat but they cannot be charged for attempting to enter while carrying, unless some other action ensues.

Carrying a baseball bat openly in the UK, is unusual pretty much everywhere, I agree. Unusual is not a crime

My number 3 is entirely correct, if you read for understanding.

What is happening here is that you leaning on your previous career and that career encourages police officers to play fast and loose with the law and to inconvenience law abiding citizens for the slightest challenge to their ego.

Now, the bit your conveniently leaving out about detention, do you want to tell everybody or shall I?

Given that many of the successful civil claims made against the police are for poor performance in this area it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't know. I'm sure you do though, just as I'm sure that police officers routinely abuse the process.

Your claim it is entirely legal to carry a baseball bat anywhere in the UK is wrong. There are many occasions where it would be illegal. I would charge someone with possession of an offensive weapon if they entered a courthouse with it, as there is no good reason to possess such in such a place. I am sure most police officers would agree. A pub and hospital, there would need a very good reason and I am struggling to think of one.

Your number 3 is suspect, because in part you are required to acquiesce. If the police want to stop and question you about your possession, you have to comply. You do not need to comply with answers to their questions.

As for me leaving anything out about detention, I would remind you I am referring to the old Sec 14 detention in Scotland, which does not work in the same way as detentions now. You have not got me, if you are using the law in E&W and I know there have been changes in Scotland.

 

[Nessie]

That's correct. According to the police, who are amongst the most dishonest people on the planet. I'll accept it on face value, which ain't much.

No it's not, you are now lying.

I never wrote anything like this. Why are you lying?

Unless they are detained and a certain set of circumstances, that you insist on leaving out, exist, they very much can. Cops hate that inconvenient fact and it's No 1 on their list of fragile ego triggers.

I am not sure what the supposed lie is. I never said you wrote anything like that, I was me who wrote it to expand the conversation.

What it is it that I have left out? When I was a cop in Scotland, I could detain anyone who I reasonably suspected was committing a crime punishable by imprisonment and require them to remain with me whilst I made enquiries. That detention could last up to 6 hours, with extensions if approved. It was S14 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995. Possession of an offensive weapon is a crime punishable by imprisonment.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

www.legislation.gov.uk

If anything, my understanding of the new law, which does include detentions as separate to arrest, is even more expansive, as it allows arrests for crimes that are not punishable by imprisonment and keeping people in custody for up to 12 hours to make enquiries.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about criminal justice including as to police powers and rights of suspects and as to criminal evidence, procedure and sentencing; to establish the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Nessie]

But he didn't carry one into a jeweler's shop...


... and he wasn't wearing a face mask.


There weren't any youth gang fights taking place.


He wasn't outside his neighbours and he hadn't had a huge argument over something


He wasn't in a courthouse.


He wasn't in a pub.


He wasn't in a hospital.

He was walking down an open pedestrian area, bothering no one, and a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ arrogant ◊◊◊◊ of a cop came up behind him without warning and attacked him.

STOP . STRAWMANNING . IRRELEVANT . SCENARIOS . THAT . NEVER . HAPPENED!!

I was responding to the claim "It's entirely legal to carry a baseball bat anywhere in the UK." That is clearly not true, as shown by the examples I provided. The legality of carrying a baseball bat in Manchester city centre, is determined by intent, so it can be both legal or illegal.

 

[Vixen]

Your claim it is entirely legal to carry a baseball bat anywhere in the UK is wrong. There are many occasions where it would be illegal. I would charge someone with possession of an offensive weapon if they entered a courthouse with it, as there is no good reason to possess such in such a place. I am sure most police officers would agree. A pub and hospital, there would need a very good reason and I am struggling to think of one.

Your number 3 is suspect, because in part you are required to acquiesce. If the police want to stop and question you about your possession, you have to comply. You do not need to comply with answers to their questions.

As for me leaving anything out about detention, I would remind you I am referring to the old Sec 14 detention in Scotland, which does not work in the same way as detentions now. You have not got me, if you are using the law in E&W and I know there have been changes in Scotland.

To be fair, when I did jury service regarding being In Possession of an Offensive Weapon in a Public Place, if my memory serves me correctly, only a 'baton' is one of those specifically mentioned as 'Offensive', whereas a baseball bat is subject to context and interpretation. I expect it would qualify as being a 'baton' should one intend to use it as such.

 

[bluesjnr]

Your claim it is entirely legal to carry a baseball bat anywhere in the UK is wrong. There are many occasions where it would be illegal.

How so? You keep introducing another level of carrying to make your case.

I would charge someone with possession of an offensive weapon if they entered a courthouse with it, as there is no good reason to possess such in such a place. I am sure most police officers would agree.

Like this.

A pub and hospital, there would need a very good reason and I am struggling to think of one.

... and this. All aggravating factors that could give reason to suspect an intent to use as a weapon.

Your number 3 is suspect, because in part you are required to acquiesce. If the police want to stop and question youabout your possession, you have to comply. You do not need to comply with answers to their questions.

With specific regard to my number 3 you really need to just read it and quote it and stop adding little bits on that weren't under discussion in that post.

As for me leaving anything out about detention, I would remind you I am referring to the old Sec 14 detention in Scotland, which does not work in the same way as detentions now.

Even back in the day you had to have, "reasonable suspicion", as you have already mentioned. You keep jumping straight to that circumstance.

You have not got me, if you are using the law in E&W and I know there have been changes in Scotland.

I'm using the law across the UK, even back in Sec 14 Detention days. We're talking, now, about the ability to detain an individual following a stop and account request. You have to remember that it starts as a voluntary exchange, not mandatory.

Unless, and this is where you consistently think you're making your case, there are aggravating factors leading to, wait for it........ a reasonable suspicion.

You must have a genuine, objective basis rooted in specific facts, information, or intelligence, not a mere hunch, that any other reasonable person would also view as supporting the likelihood of involvement in an imprisonable offense. There it is.

I'm walking home carrying nothing, doing nothing at all. You, back in the day when you served, see me and just don't like the look of me, that might happen. You stop me and ask what I'm doing. I respond, "◊◊◊◊ off and mind your own business". There is absolutely nobody else around, nobody in earshot, just you and I. Nobody is even peeping through net curtains at us.

What will you do next?

 

[bluesjnr]

To be fair, when I did jury service regarding being In Possession of an Offensive Weapon in a Public Place, if my memory serves me correctly, only a 'baton' is one of those specifically mentioned as 'Offensive', whereas a baseball bat is subject to context and interpretation. I expect it would qualify as being a 'baton' should one intend to use it as such.

Yes, there's that word again, "intend".

 

[bluesjnr]

I was responding to the claim "It's entirely legal to carry a baseball bat anywhere in the UK." That is clearly not true, as shown by the examples I provided. The legality of carrying a baseball bat in Manchester city centre, is determined by intent, so it can be both legal or illegal.

... and there it is again, "intent".

 

[Wudang]

... and there it is again, "intent".

I honestly can't see what point you're trying to make here. "Intent" is important in law. There's whole books been written about Mens_rea^WP

 

[bluesjnr]

I honestly can't see what point you're trying to make here. "Intent" is important in law. There's whole books been written about Mens_rea^WP

I'm not in any way, shape or form saying anything different. Neither is anybody else, I think.

The point is kinda lost, what with all the to-ing and fro-ing but we're drilling down on how intent is established and when it can be established. It's not as cut and dried as one might think. Well, it is.... if you are a cop.

You may have a good memory and recall that I consistently harp on about cops doing their level best to put people on the wrong side of the law, immediately upon interacting with them? If you don't or you've never read that from me you know now.

That's where this started from, back there somewhere, when talking about the guy with the baseball bat. It's a muddled mess now, I'll admit but I can't stop myself.

I think it was maybe the point where Nessie, an ex copper as you know, insisted, more than once, that I was a danger to the public because I'd seen a guy with an exposed, unsecure and accessible claw hammer and within my description to Nessie said, "I could easily have grabbed it". He took that as intent, and stated that he would have warned the guy carrying an unsecured hammer that could be used by him or any one else as a weapon, that he should stay clear of, "the likes of" me.

One mans casual descriptor becomes, in the twisted mind of a cop, intent.

The situation I described was 100% real and had occurred on the day I posted it. Imagine I had phoned police and said exactly what I wrote above to the attending officer, imagine that PC Nessie had turned up.

Or don't...

S'up to you.

 

[Wudang]

Yeah I think Nessie needs to re-read your post about the hammer and also his response to it.
Disclosure - my dad was a cop in Ayrshire in the 60's. He (thick enough to try to reattach a leg to a glass coffee table with a hammer and nail) used to brag about how they "knew" who'd broken into a house or whatever and how they'd "help" the guy remember. He left the police after getting so scared his sarge was going to kill a guy they were questioning that he punched the sarge. So low expectations for me.
Later my brother joined the police as a custody officer after being asked by a serving cop to do so as they needed more good guys. Davie was well liked and respected in town, known to be hard but never started anything. So the guys in cells knew they were safe and not to take the piss.
Later he watched that same cop join others in shoving around an obviously autistic kid. He tried to get them to calm down but didn't want to lose his job as he'd struggled for years (call centre, social care wiping backsides and cleaning bedding) and was a single parent to his disabled son.
He also had a lot of good to say about most of the police he worked with but saw something I'd seen myself - people in groups, especially where the expect the others to have their back, often descend to the lowest common denominator. If one acts the ◊◊◊◊ the others will still back him which often leads to them being as bad. Maybe worse if they're angry at him, or themselves and anger often needs somewhere to go.

Anyway, mix of expectations but before final judgement I'd still like to see the warm-up to this event.

 

[theprestige]

Your claim it is entirely legal to carry a baseball bat anywhere in the UK is wrong. There are many occasions where it would be illegal. I would charge someone with possession of an offensive weapon if they entered a courthouse with it, as there is no good reason to possess such in such a place.

That would be bad policing.

UK courthouses already have a list of prohibited items, which reasonably can be understood to include sportsball sticks of all kinds.

You don't need to charge the citizen with any damn thing. You can just deny them entry with a prohibited item. Let them put it in their car, or take it home, or whatever.

The overabundance of caution is one thing. But could you not portray UK cops as paranoid psychos for five minutes?

 

[Wudang]

I’ve been out in public with a scythe and cops have left me alone as they could see from a distance my intent was to clear large areas of tall plants.
And if I saw a guy carrying a baseball bat in a city centre I’d give him a wide berth on general principles. A lot would also depend on his body language. Does he act like he thinks he’s carrying a weapon? For example. As a society the UK is rather weapons averse. Even Glasgow, known for razor gangs etc, still respects the idea of a “square go” - a gator fight. WTF Autocorrupt changed fair to gator?

 

[bluesjnr]

That would be bad policing.

UK courthouses already have a list of prohibited items, which reasonably can be understood to include sportsball sticks of all kinds.

You don't need to charge the citizen with any damn thing. You can just deny them entry with a prohibited item. Let them put it in their car, or take it home, or whatever.

The overabundance of caution is one thing. But could you not portray UK cops as paranoid psychos for five minutes?

You have to by-pass security to gain entry. It would be at that point the bat would be taken off of him.

 

[bluesjnr]

Yeah I think Nessie needs to re-read your post about the hammer and also his response to it.
Disclosure - my dad was a cop in Ayrshire in the 60's. He (thick enough to try to reattach a leg to a glass coffee table with a hammer and nail) used to brag about how they "knew" who'd broken into a house or whatever and how they'd "help" the guy remember. He left the police after getting so scared his sarge was going to kill a guy they were questioning that he punched the sarge. So low expectations for me.
Later my brother joined the police as a custody officer after being asked by a serving cop to do so as they needed more good guys. Davie was well liked and respected in town, known to be hard but never started anything. So the guys in cells knew they were safe and not to take the piss.
Later he watched that same cop join others in shoving around an obviously autistic kid. He tried to get them to calm down but didn't want to lose his job as he'd struggled for years (call centre, social care wiping backsides and cleaning bedding) and was a single parent to his disabled son.
He also had a lot of good to say about most of the police he worked with but saw something I'd seen myself - people in groups, especially where the expect the others to have their back, often descend to the lowest common denominator. If one acts the ◊◊◊◊ the others will still back him which often leads to them being as bad. Maybe worse if they're angry at him, or themselves and anger often needs somewhere to go.

Anyway, mix of expectations but before final judgement I'd still like to see the warm-up to this event.

Me too. I suspect that the officer did attempt to speak to the guy and was ignored.

 

[Wudang]

And the list of prohibited weapons is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ridiculous. Half of it is stupid ninja gear that’s about as dangerous as a week old kitten with a black belt. I have a nunchaku set from 1978 that’s now prohibited and I’d rather have a stout walking stick in a fight.
“There ought to be a law”
“This is a law”
“Just what we wanted”

 

[Wudang]

Me too. I suspect that the officer did attempt to speak to the guy and was ignored.

I’m pretty sure most cops prefer to be told to F off than be ignored.

 

[smartcooky]

How so? You keep introducing another level of carrying to make your case.

Yup. Making up additional scenarios, and then using those additional scenarios to falsify your statement

In, and of itself, it is not illegal to be walking down the street with a baseball bat in your hands, any more than it is illegal to be carrying a camera tripod. Both COULD be used as weapons, but they are not weapons. Additional context such as intent, or behaviour before legality might be considered.

 

[bluesjnr]

And the list of prohibited weapons is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ridiculous. Half of it is stupid ninja gear that’s about as dangerous as a week old kitten with a black belt. I have a nunchaku set from 1978 that’s now prohibited and I’d rather have a stout walking stick in a fight.
“There ought to be a law”
“This is a law”
“Just what we wanted”

Don't forget the table leg, we must never forget the table leg.