72 replies to this topic

[MacGregor]

So can we discuss it then because unlike yourself it is a little scary that these people became indoctrinated so quickly... The fact that one of these lads has been placed under arrest for terror related offences should have you a little concerned me thinks.

I don't find that scary, some people are predisposed to certain ways of thinking and I can't change that. I don't fear these people or their ideology and I feel a great deal of pity for anybody who is scared of these people. They should be mocked rather than feared.

If that wasnt a covert dig I dont know what is, but to clarify this thread isnt about being scared of muslims, its about being scared/worried over the extremists.

It wasn't a covert dig aimed at anyone in this thread, you've misunderstood that completely. Bear in mind that Muslims aren't a race, accusing somebody of being racist for not liking Muslims would be nonsensical.

Extremists just do not scare me, you might think I should cower in fear behind the sofa but I will not let these people get to me. You cannot force me to be scared of what scares you.

[Radman]

I don't find that scary, some people are predisposed to certain ways of thinking and I can't change that. I don't fear these people or their ideology and I feel a great deal of pity for anybody who is scared of these people. They should be mocked rather than feared.
It wasn't a covert dig aimed at anyone in this thread, you've misunderstood that completely. Bear in mind that Muslims aren't a race, accusing somebody of being racist for not liking Muslims would be nonsensical.

Yeah im sure I did CJM... Im sure I did...

Your right they should be mocked but to deny and simply suggest these people pose no danger is ignorance and in my opinion idiotic.
Also it'd fall under Racial and Religious hate under E/W legislation... Just so you know.

Extremists just do not scare me, you might think I should cower in fear behind the sofa but I will not let these people get to me. You cannot force me to be scared of what scares you.

CJM im not trying to force you to fear anything but YOU mis-understood the point of the original post, it was never about hating muslims or being scared of them, it was about the fanatics.

[Peteee]

How old are you CharlieJulietMike? All of your posts have the air of a fairly immature person attempting to appear much more knowledgeable about things than you actually are.

[MacGregor]

Yeah im sure I did CJM... Im sure I did...

Your right they should be mocked but to deny and simply suggest these people pose no danger is ignorance and in my opinion idiotic.
Also it'd fall under Racial and Religious hate under E/W legislation... Just so you know.

I never did suggest they posed no danger.

CJM im not trying to force you to fear anything but YOU mis-understood the point of the original post, it was never about hating muslims or being scared of them, it was about the fanatics.

I'm still not sure why I'm supposed to fear the fanatics, I simply do not fear them. Why should I? The chances of meeting one are pretty slim, let alone anything more serious.

[Frank Castle]

It doesn't matter what ideology or group it is,they all target impressionable individuals who know little about their cause or beliefs. This way they can sell them anything and the said individual will believe it. I think a lot of people are surprised a white working class guy has totally changed and is a suspected terrorist, and this is what alarms a lot of people.

The reality is these groups actively target white people who are considered to be "clean skins" so they can travel or gain access with out gaining attention,to commit terrorist acts.
Although this guy from the documentary stands out like a sore thumb to be honest.

With the olympics so close,people have legitimate security concerns. The problem is when these stories come out all muslims get" tarred with the same brush".

[Shogy1]

Out of interest, what's your role (Regular/Special), Shogy, and how long have you held it? What qualifies you to know better than the 3 officers who you'er disagreeing with? Have you read the codes of practice (Code B), as that makes it quite clear that you can't search without a power (and you ARE searching - it's a dictionary definition)...? Where has your apparent legal advice come from? I'm assuming it's not a solicitor or actual legal advisor as they would know better...

What qualifies me? 5 yrs as a special and 11 yrs as a regular. The legal advice comes from being sad enough to trawl through the intranet looking for advice on our intranet. I don't think I can really expand further at the monent as I am not at work and can't remember if it's a restricted doc. All I can say really it is from the legal dept

[Police Constable 1]

What qualifies me? 5 yrs as a special and 11 yrs as a regular. The legal advice comes from being sad enough to trawl through the intranet looking for advice on our intranet. I don't think I can really expand further at the monent as I am not at work and can't remember if it's a restricted doc. All I can say really it is from the legal dept

Do you move things about inside he vehicle to check under them?
do you open gloveboxs to check inside them?

Also you didnt comment on my point about it being brought up in interview if you arrest someone over what you found?

[Shogy1]

Yes I do. But not search just to check there is nothing there to be listed. As I said earlier if something is found then it is dealt with under whatever power exists. It's no different than if you decide to check seat belt mountings under the rear seat and lift it only to discover drugs etc. of course it is covered under interview. It would be wrong not to.

[Police Constable 1]

Yes I do. But not search just to check there is nothing there to be listed. As I said earlier if something is found then it is dealt with under whatever power exists. It's no different than if you decide to check seat belt mountings under the rear seat and lift it only to discover drugs etc. of course it is covered under interview. It would be wrong not to.

But you are searching, you are searching to see if there is anything there that is not listed. What if the occupant doesn't want you to check? do you insist on doing it?

And it is different to checking a physical part of a vehicle due to a possible defect, you are checking that defect and you notice something, you have a power to check that defect hence being covered if you find something in that particular section. You cant use that excuse if you find something whilst checking when the vehicle is seized.

Out of interest are you in a EW force or Scottish?

[Shogy1]

The other point to note is that once the car is seized it then comes under the control of the police and we are responsible for it and the contents.
I'm sure if you speak to your respective forces legal dept then they will give you their advice. For the moment I will follow ours.
And it's an English force.

[Rocket]

This story intrigues me.

So was the car recovered to an actual 'police compound' and then searched by actual police officers?

Or was it recovered to the compound of the garage whose turn it was on the police rota for the job and whose employees checked the car for property when they could be bothered to get around to it?

[Shogy1]

It's checked at the time the car is seized at the roadside.

(oops. Sorry rocket thought you meant the sub topic not the original one)

Edited by Shogy1, 08 July 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[Hades]

I wonder if the situation has arrived where the car is about took be crushed with a body or 10 kilo in the boot and all the police can do is shrug their shoulders.

Every country to their own but some times a little common sense goes a long way.

When it comes to disposal of the vehicle there isn't a need for a power to search the vehicle as the ownership of it has transferred from the original driver/keeper...

[The Constable]

This scares me just as I'm preparing for a job at the Olympics!!

[mdon]

What qualifies me? 5 yrs as a special and 11 yrs as a regular. The legal advice comes from being sad enough to trawl through the intranet looking for advice on our intranet. I don't think I can really expand further at the monent as I am not at work and can't remember if it's a restricted doc. All I can say really it is from the legal dept

I have to say I disagree with this, it sounds like you've self taught yourself this method of working so I would check with your training/traffic department for advice. That's like saying "I'll just check in your house and make a list of what you have, don't worry though, it's not a search!"

If its force policy then fair enough and litigation can be directed at them as its written down, however if it's not then you could find yourself in a whole world of bother.

[Morse]

I have to say I disagree with this, it sounds like you've self taught yourself this method of working so I would check with your training/traffic department for advice. That's like saying "I'll just check in your house and make a list of what you have, don't worry though, it's not a search!"

If its force policy then fair enough and litigation can be directed at them as its written down, however if it's not then you could find yourself in a whole world of bother.

I think we have to stop looking at the word search in a literal context.

Search powers are given to the police in relation to finding evidence of a criminal act and thereafter a prosecution if applicable.

This is a search if we go by the dictictionary definition however it is not a search in the criminal context where we are specifically looking for evidence of a crime.

If the police seize a car then they have a responsibility to safeguard the contents. That doesnt mean taking a crow bar to the interior but having a look to itemise the property in our custody.
This saves later allegations that the police seized my car and left the ten grand in the boot or a million other different scenarios.

We could arrest someone for dangerours driving. Search them and take them to a police office. We still rifle through their pockets itemising everything in their wallet which often includes drugs.

We can argue that maybe whilst under arrest but ultimately it is to safeguard the property of the accused person however unrelated offences often come to light.

We have a duty of care for prisoners property and there is a major difference between searching with criminal suspicion and searching to account for what is being taken into our care.
Dave's Auto Recovery maybe vetted but that means diddly squat.

As I showed earlier we use the same powers in Scotland for the power of search - weapons, firearms, drugs and stolen property. This scenario has already happened, the accused was convicted and appealed. The Sheriff or law Lords who tend to be slightly above our pay scale found the actions to be perfectly acceptable and thus the conviction was upheld.

[i-plod]

What about checking under Con & Use reg's isn't that allowed anymore?

[Shogy1]

I have to say I disagree with this, it sounds like you've self taught yourself this method of working so I would check with your training/traffic department for advice. That's like saying "I'll just check in your house and make a list of what you have, don't worry though, it's not a search!"

If its force policy then fair enough and litigation can be directed at them as its written down, however if it's not then you could find yourself in a whole world of bother.

It's nothing like searching a house. For starters we don't seize houses.

[Hades]

It's nothing like searching a house. For starters we don't seize houses.

Both a vehicle and a house are considered the same (as 'premises') under Code B... So it's actually very similar (pretty much the same)... And we effectively seize a house when we put on a scene guard and deprive an occupant of it / prevent access to it.

What about checking under Con & Use reg's isn't that allowed anymore?

You have a requirement to be able gain access to the vehicle to check certain components of vehicles which are legally required to be in working order. You don't need to carry out a search of the vehicle to fulfil that whereas to find 'hidden' guns you would need to carry out a search.

[HazRat]

The advice that I have seen circulated today indicates that once we seize a vehicle we are legally the "owners" and are responsible for logging and securing its contents.

[i-plod]

Yeah I realise that but if I slide the seat foward to check the seat belt ancors and there is a baggie on the floor then its not illegal and I havent been searching for it. This will raise my suspician and warrant further questioning and most likely lead to a search if deemed lawful. I'm not saying that is what this officer should of done I just mean in general. Checking these areas isnt unlawful and any items spotted wouldnt be examined or touched untill a lawful search was carried out

[Damsel]

The advice that I have seen circulated today indicates that once we seize a vehicle we are legally the "owners" and are responsible for logging and securing its contents.

I'd argue that point in as much that whist we might be 'custodians' of the vehicle (and its contents) we're most certainly not the owners, unless the owner disclaims the vehicle, or the usual 14 days have expired.

I can kind of see the argument around the police, and subsequently the recovery agent being responsible for the vehicle and it's contents, but I can't quite get my head my head around the illegal search sorry, checking.

I'm sure a defence solicitor would be having a field day in court with that gem.

[Shogy1]

I'd argue that point in as much that whist we might be 'custodians' of the vehicle (and its contents) we're most certainly not the owners, unless the owner disclaims the vehicle, or the usual 14 days have expired.
I
I can kind of see the argument around the police, and subsequently the recovery agent being responsible for the vehicle and it's contents, but I can't quite get my head my head around the illegal search sorry, checking.

I'm sure a defence solicitor would be having a field day in court with that gem.

Having double checked the advice at work today it is basically as said before although the word used is "inspecting" the vehicle. We have a right to do this to ensure that property is listed in the event of a claim against either damage or loss.

It not a search for illegal items and can be argued as per the Scottish case already mentioned.

I wish people would stop getting confused with this Your not looking for illegal items just noting property in the vehicle. If you happen to come across drugs etc the whatever power to search then would kick in.

Edited by Shogy1, 10 July 2012 - 09:04 PM.