• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The behaviour of UK police officers.

smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's exactly the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point.
 
Wudang said:
Absolutely. That's why we should resist every "but terrorists" and "think of the worst case" and "of course we won't use it against normal people" bit of legislation.
Click to expand...
Which brings me to Sec. 44. of the Terrorism Act.

This was a far reaching piece of legislation that originally allowed police officers in the UK to stop and search pedestrians and vehicles without needing any reasonable suspicion that a person was involved in terrorism. What great move to combat terrorism, yes?

What did the police do with this? They disproportionately used it against minority and black communities. They widely misused it for unjustified profiling and random searches. In short, they abused it and it ended up being repealed. That's what the police do with legislation designed to make their primary functions of keeping people safe from harm and safeguarding personal and public assets, of preventing crime and maintaining public order. They use it to bully me and and you, the low hanging fruit.

Trust the police?

Freedom of Information data shows that over 300 police officers across Britain were accused or reported for rape over a recent five-year period, and dozens more have faced criminal charges and convictions. Trust the police?

27 people died in or following police custody during the 2025/26 period. This figure marks a substantial increase from previous years and represents one of the highest annual totals recorded in two decades.

Compare that with how many officers died in the line of duty, let me just say that however much I hate the police that should be zero. 4 police officers lost their lives in the line of duty during the 2025/26 financial year. You balance the books.
 
Vixen said:
Not even 'intend'. Carrying a baton in a public place is a criminal offence - it is specifically listed -
Click to expand...
Nobody is arguing against that, so stop. It's agreed and a done deal
Vixen said:
and a bat would qualify unless you are using it for a sport.
Click to expand...
Take an hour or so to go through the previous posts. You're bringing nothing new here.
Vixen said:
I knew of someone who was charged just for walking down the road with a big stick.
Click to expand...
I suspect there is significantly more to that story than, either, you know or your letting on. That, undoubtably, being the case, let's park that story right there.
 
Last edited:
This actually happened about ten years ago. Young woman was being stalked by her ex. She was frightened and she reported it to the police. They slapped her with a £90 fine for wasting police time. She stopped going to the police. He murdered her.

www.bbc.co.uk

Shana Grice: Disciplinary action for Sussex Police officers

Murdered Shana Grice's parents say three officers facing misconduct proceedings is "too little too late".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
bluesjnr said:
How so? You keep introducing another level of carrying to make your case.

Like this.

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

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.

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

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?
Click to expand...

I have discussed the need for reasonable suspicion and given numerous examples of how that applies. Stopping someone to make enquiries whether someone has a reasonable excuse for possessing an item where it is reasonable to suspect it is an offensive weapon under the law, is not voluntary.

I would not have stopped someone who was walking home, doing nothing, carrying nothing. At most, I would have acknowledged their presence, hello, morning, evening, or whatever. That is because I was taught not to put myself in a position where I was the weaker party.
 
bluesjnr said:
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.

...
Click to expand...

Intent has been established by the courts and the police know what the courts are likely to accept. That is why the police were right to arrest the male in Manchester. The courts will have been dealing with violence in the city centre, with young males bringing in weapons. There are no facilities to play baseball in the city centre. The male initially failed to cooperate with the officer, so he knows, because of the history of violence, that he should act and arrest.

I suspect that the male, in the end, was not reported to the courts, because it turned out his claim about meeting a friend was true and he does not have pre cons for violence, especially disturbances in the city centre. Say he had previously been convicted by the local court for fighting in the city centre, he would have been reported to the court.
 
theprestige said:
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?
Click to expand...

I can assure you that anyone caught at court security checks with a prohibited item, will be arrested. The courts take a zero tolerance attitude when it comes to any form of violence or aggression towards themselves. I wish they had that attitude when it comes to the police, who they switch to expecting them to tolerate higher levels of aggression and violence.
 
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...

I use scenarios as a way of explaining the law. Walking down the street with a baseball bat in your hands, is not necessarily illegal, BUT, there are so many circumstances where it is likely to count as possession of an offensive weapon, that anyone doing such, is likely to attract the attention of the police.

The male in the busy shopping street attracted the police's attention. If he had been walking down the same street in the dead of night, with no one around and was spotted on CCTV, he still would get the police's attention, because there would be reasonable suspicion he intended to use it to cause damage or break in to a shop. The only reasonable excuses to possess a baseball bat in Manchester city centre are that it has just been bought or it is being taken to play baseball and in both cases, because of the nature of the item, it is best carried discretely.

Edit - I thought of another reasonable excuse, a juggler who includes a baseball in his street performances.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what the ◊◊◊◊ is going on here? What we have is,

Plod - "I'm not saying you've committed a crime, am I? I need your details in order to say that you are not involved in this because you do live at this location. You're saying that you won't give me your details to prove that you live here so that means I have [WAIT FOR IT FOLKS]..... reasonable grounds to suspect that you ain't here here for a lawful reason".

I'll let you watch the rest and make up your own mind. What was the guy doing? Well he had his "hood up" and he was "on his phone". Otherwise...

Nothing but being nosey while waiting for a Domino's pizza, in the street where he lived and being in possession of a GoPro.

Edited by jimbob: 
rule 12 snipped


 
Last edited by a moderator:
bluesjnr said:
I don't know what the ◊◊◊◊ is going on here? What we have is,

Plod - "I'm not saying you've committed a crime, am I? I need your details in order to say that you are not involved in this because you do live at this location. You're saying that you won't give me your details to prove that you live here so that means I have [WAIT FOR IT FOLKS]..... reasonable grounds to suspect that you ain't here here for a lawful reason".

I'll let you watch the rest and make up your own mind. What was the guy doing? Well he had his "hood up" and he was "on his phone". Otherwise...

Nothing but being nosey while waiting for a Domino's pizza, in the street where he lived and being in possession of a GoPro.

@zooterkin - I think he might be an auditor at other times so, maybe, take a pill and lie down before, or if, you view it.

Click to expand...

Watch the video around the 35-45 seconds point and there is a clear explanation by the police officer why he is being detained. You are clearly being very disingenuous, with your pretence you cannot work out what the police were doing and what their reasonable grounds were.
 
Rolfe said:
babylonbee.com

Man Arrested In Britain For Briefly Thinking About Sharing Meme

BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND — Local man Roger Fisher was arrested this morning on suspicion of briefly considering sharing a meme.
babylonbee.com babylonbee.com
Click to expand...

"According to authorities, the British online activity monitoring system showed that Fisher's mouse hovered for a split second over the "Share" icon below a meme mocking the idea that mass murderers were following a "religion of peace." Within an hour, police had arrived at Fisher's flat."

Further down the page, below that article;

"The Babylon Bee finally exposes everything about the Jews in this documentary of hard-hitting investigative journalism."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom