Police lose Duff case

[Ixion]

You are bordering on rdiculous - obviously nobody would would stetch it THAT far

But in the good 'ol UK they arrest on 'suspicion' - unlike here.

Lucky 'here' eh?

So, repeating yet again, how far DO you think a cop should be entitled to "stretch it".

Bearing in mind that laws have to be written for all situations. You may well be a reasonable bloke who wouldn't abuse an undefined power. But not all cops would be so reasonable. Take our friend Gingacunt ACD868 , f'instance. Anyone want to reckon that, if cops had a right to detain people "as long as they think necessary" he wouldn't abuse that? And treat it as a licence to lock motorcyclists up indefinitely?

And, given that the UK is now the most fascist state in the Western world, comparisons with them are on dangerous ground.

[peasea]

More impatient than the average guy huh?

Hell yes. My incontinence waits for no clock.

[98tls]

So , your demand is indeed for detention at pleasure?

If your radio was broken, you would expect to be permitted to lock the driver up until it was fixed?

And what about the other issues that are implicit in detaining someone for hours or days? Presumably, you will take the driver (who, bear in mind may have committed NO OFFENCE - you just want to detain him because your radio isn't working !), back to the station, where he will at least be fed . Or do you expect him to camp out overnight by the roadside?

It has been one of the most fundamental principles of British justice for over 1000 years that none can be arbitrarily detained. No one can be locked up simply because "I say so, and that's enough". You want to overturn this.

And that without even the imprimatur of Parliament.

Do you also want this power of indefinite imprisonment without charge extended to people on foot. "Lock this guy up for a few weeks, I don't like his attitude". If not, the why do you think that motorists should be deprived of the most fundamental of civil liberties, but not non-motorists?

Your like a dog with a bone here,any chance you had an over militant 3rd form teacher?Let it go.

[peasea]

Your like a dog with a bone here,any chance you had an over militant 3rd form teacher?Let it go.

I had heaps of them, it was fun baiting them too. Ixion has a few valid points though, starting with; "how far DO you think a cop should be entitled to "stretch it".

They have more cards than most on the side of the road and when they are questioned they usually get aggro. Then YOU'RE in the bin and their word against yours is the bottom line.

Even when cops are video-taped beating on someone there's usually a court wandering off in their favour......

As you get older you get better at not making (visible) waves. They do their thing, I do mine.

[Patrick]

... making them shuffle paper adds a certain 'honesty' to the cash grab by making you feel they 'worked' for it.

Funny... ya don't have any idea how it works, do ya...

We've got a D/S here who is the file briefer... he does all the paperwok for me.

I asked a question of the police members earlier (or maybe in another thread , i can't be arsed checking back).

Which has not been answered. And was

The law presently allows you 15 minutes to check out a driver, which seems reasonable. But you, and the Police bosses say that it is not sufficient. So, what then do you demand? How long DO you want be able to detain (and, by correlation, imprison) someone, who has very possibly committed no offense.

An hour? a day? a week? a month? indefinitely (which is the impression I'm receiving)

And what, if your wish is granted and you are permitted to detain motorists up indefinitely without charge , do you intend to do about the necessities of life? For 15 minutes things like toilet provisions, food, shelter sleep etc don't really figure.

But, if your wish were granted and the time limit was made "as long as I want to", then they would start to figure. So how do you propose to feed these motorists you have detained for the last few hours? what about sleeping arrangements once it gets into days?

Parliament reckoned that 15 minutes was a reasonable time. You, Mssrs Scumdog, Indoo, Patrick Spudchuka et all, and your bosses, disagree. You demand longer. tell us then , how long?

Lay off the "P"... Total delusion here.... Your "impressions" of up to a month of delay is just plain bizarre.

It was answered... "Up to" 15 minutes is normally way more than enough. The radio analogy is not uncommon in smaller places who share the radio with the fireys etc, but is rare everywhere else. Smaller rural townfolk don't get all upity than their big smoke cousins. When explained, people are more than happy that they are being kept in the loop.

Dunno where the call came from that 15mins isn't enough.... As for people who haven't committed any offence, I don't delay at all. Why would ya?

[Patrick]

Take our friend Ginga , f'instance. Anyone want to reckon that, if cops had a right to detain people "as long as they think necessary" he wouldn't abuse that? And treat it as a licence to lock motorcyclists up indefinitely?

And if I read it right, he has only been "detaining" people who have actually been doing some lawbreaking in one way or another? (Speed, licence breaches, arguments over the legality of how a number late is displayed perhaps?)

[peasea]

Funny... ya don't have any idea how it works, do ya...

We've got a D/S here who is the file briefer... he does all the paperwok for me.

HA! Further proof you don't work for it!

Thank you. (Ka-ching, mind your fingers Mr Arkwright!)

PS: What's a D/S? A Dirty Sluuuu....oops, you said "he", hard to tell these days in the Blue Gang, isn't it?

[scumdog]

HA! Further proof you don't work for it!

Just gives him more time to write out more tickets.

"Kachiiiiing"

[Skyryder]

Ixion raises a point that has no one has been willing to address and that if 15 minutes is not a reasonable time to ‘arbitrarily’ delay a member of the public, what is a reasonable time? Given the fact that his question has not been addressed then one can assume that some would see no time frame as being the ideal solution. On that score his arguments of days or month do not appear to be an exaggeration but an obvious conclusion. Fortunately Parliament has addressed this issue with the 15 minute as being a reasonable amount of time for any officer to perform his/her duty within the framework of the law. Communication or lack of it is not a good enough reason to arbitrarily detain a member of the public at the officers discretion. The fact that most members of the public adhere to the officers instructions does not make the instruction lawful or for that matter reasonable either.
As the law now stands it is perfectly lawful for any member of the public that is not subject to arrest to remove themselves from the officers presence after they have satisfactorily identified themselves. That is all that is required of us. The police want the powers of arbitrary detention and should we thepublic attempt to remove ourselves from the officers presence then arrest. This is the purpose of the appeal of the Duff verdict.

Skyryder

[scumdog]

To raise a few of the points mentioned by Skyryder:

I have no knowledge of "police want powers of arbitrary detention" - that is just the opinion of Skyryder. (and maybe some others)

15 minutes IS more than enough time for 90%+ of the time, when it is not then it is a combination of the motorists patience and the officers reasonableness whether it goes over 15 minutes.

It is up to the motorist there at the time whether the extension of the 15 minutes is 'reasonable' (and nobody tried to claim it was a 'lawful instruction'.) - they don't need some embers(s) of a internet site to instruct them that anything over 15 minutes is unreasonable. (how much longer? 1 second, 30 seconds, 2 minutes??)

There have been numerous times when cops have said to the motorist "Carry on, I can't get on the air at the moment so I won't hold you up anymore"
And then done a check later to find out there was a WTA, the guy was wanted for suspending his licence for demerits, he was disqualified but produced an old/duplicate licence etc etc.

Unlike what some preach here the cops do not 'win' every time.

[swbarnett]

I think Scumdog has hit on the crux of the matter. The law is only there to protect us, the public, from things getting totally out of hand. As long as both the cop and the motorist conduct themselves in a friendly manner and the motorist is kept informed of any technical delays then I have no problem with how ever long it takes for the cop to do their job - within reason.

The problem comes when the motorist is obviously getting impatient and the cop continues to detain them unreasonably.

This assumes, however that the motorist has been stopped because the cop reasonably suspects or has observed wrong-doing.

I take umbrage at being asked to provide proof of identity where no reasonable suspicion exists and the cop is just on a fishing trip. My identity is no-one's business but my own unless I'm being accused of committing a crime.

[SixPackBack]

I think Scumdog has hit on the crux of the matter. The law is only there to protect us, the public, from things getting totally out of hand. As long as both the cop and the motorist conduct themselves in a friendly manner and the motorist is kept informed of any technical delays then I have no problem with how ever long it takes for the cop to do their job - within reason.

The problem comes when the motorist is obviously getting impatient and the cop continues to detain them unreasonably.

This assumes, however that the motorist has been stopped because the cop reasonably suspects or has observed wrong-doing.

I take umbrage at being asked to provide proof of identity where no reasonable suspicion exists and the cop is just on a fishing trip. My identity is no-one's business but my own unless I'm being accused of committing a crime.

I see increasingly the 'them against us' mentality creeping in.......interesting article here that makes me wonder if this is what the unzud police are turning into.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/16...-Deaths-In-USA-

[peasea]

To raise a few of the points mentioned by Skyryder:

I have no knowledge of "police want powers of arbitrary detention" - that is just the opinion of Skyryder. (and maybe some others)

15 minutes IS more than enough time for 90%+ of the time, when it is not then it is a combination of the motorists patience and the officers reasonableness whether it goes over 15 minutes.

It is up to the motorist there at the time whether the extension of the 15 minutes is 'reasonable' (and nobody tried to claim it was a 'lawful instruction'.) - they don't need some embers(s) of a internet site to instruct them that anything over 15 minutes is unreasonable. (how much longer? 1 second, 30 seconds, 2 minutes??)

There have been numerous times when cops have said to the motorist "Carry on, I can't get on the air at the moment so I won't hold you up anymore"
And then done a check later to find out there was a WTA, the guy was wanted for suspending his licence for demerits, he was disqualified but produced an old/duplicate licence etc etc.

Unlike what some preach here the cops do not 'win' every time.

I'll vouch for that!!

However I have been stopped more than once in my lifetime and NEVER has a copper said "Carry on I can't get on air ...." I do recall one occasion where I was told to WAIT until he could get a check done on me but I doubt it took fifteen minutes, between five and ten I'd say.

Most coppers can write fairly fast (it sure looks that way in the end result too, what scrawlers!) and it is in their best interests to get ticket-writing over and done with expediently so that they can move onto the next fiscally advantageous encounter.

As for the "us and them mentality" (post 177) it will always be there, so get over it.

[Patrick]

Ixion raises a point that has no one has been willing to address and that if 15 minutes is not a reasonable time to ‘arbitrarily’ delay a member of the public, what is a reasonable time? Given the fact that his question has not been addressed then one can assume that some would see no time frame as being the ideal solution.

The two of you seem to want to read only what you want to read..... I can repeat it for ya..... as below...

It was answered... "Up to" 15 minutes is normally way more than enough. The radio analogy is not uncommon in smaller places who share the radio with the fireys etc, but is rare everywhere else. Smaller rural townfolk don't get all upity than their big smoke cousins. When explained, people are more than happy that they are being kept in the loop.

Dunno where the call came from that 15mins isn't enough.... As for people who haven't committed any offence, I don't delay at all. Why would ya?

Well, on a good day without much radio chatter 15 minutes is plenty most of the time.

But on a bad day and a bad crash nearby and the fire service using the radio too (we share the same channel) you may have to wait almost 15 minutes just to get on the air.

So yes, at times we disagree 15 minutes is enough as a 'blanket' time for EVERY occasion.

15mins is enough. Usually... And when those unusual situations arise, we let ya know, and on every single occasion, the motorist has been fine with it, being polite and courteous. Be as unpleasant as you want to be - suit yourself, but those results are usually going to go against you. (Interpreted - no warning for you fella - quota achieved, donut time!!).

[Patrick]

Yay... A Post dredge....!!!

Thought SixPackBack would have been dying to post this result up!!!!

The Police won their appeal against DUFF.

The cops were right. He was wrong.

One has to remain while checks are being done.

Due to the time passed, the charges won't be relaid and the result remains the same, ie: he got off... so fair enough

But the next one won't.

Guess there will be a new thread moan soon......