Legality of random stops

[Westley]

11 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

I can't remember the original question now but do know I'm bored. 

Quite  !  It does worry me to think that some of those posting this rubbish have access to firearms    🙄

[sportsbob]

I don`t have the original document at hand but here is a link to a publication at the start of April.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/uk-police-reissued-with-guidance-on-enforcing-coronavirus-lockdown

 

[GingerCat]

14 minutes ago, sportsbob said:

The original question is pasted bellow.

And the correct answer is they have no power under the coronavirus act to stop you and make you account for your journey or ask for ID or other paperwork.

 

Quote from OP

What is the legality of these so called random stops. With Police officers stopping whoever takes their fancy and asking them what they’re doing and where they’re going? 
I get we need to support the Government with Covid etc but to me that prospect stinks. Like living in a Police state. 
I also worry that these practices start now and the Police et al get used to it and it carries on when this is all over. 
Very dodgy ground imo.

So this bit of the Corona virus act applies in conjunction with by code G of PACE 1984 2.9 (e)  and possibly sec 50 police reform act. 

 

Restrictions on movement

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e)to donate blood;

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g)to attend a funeral of—

(i)a member of the person’s household,

(ii)a close family member, or

(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;

(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

Edited May 24, 2020 by GingerCat

[sportsbob]

1 minute ago, GingerCat said:

 

Please read the information in the link above it is quoted from the original document which I had a copy of the day it was issued. It clearly states what I have said all along.

[12gauge82]

56 minutes ago, sportsbob said:

The link you gave states the conviction was quashed and they admit she should never have been arrested in the first place. The first thing a person should do is establish why the police are asking questions, if the question is where is your ticket then the reason is valid however if the reason is they suspect you are in breach of the Coronavirus act or similar wording that the arrest was unlawful  because there is no intelligence to say the person is a danger to the wider public by making their journey and their ID and any other paperwork should not have been requested leaving the person to go unhindered about their business 

I am not going to watch it again but as I recall when challenged by the traveller as to why he was being questioned the answer was something like under the coronavirus act which was completely wrong. I have read the act and as much of the provided guidance as I could find and the BTP officer was clutching at straws.

That's not quite right, they messed the charge up, but a police officer has every right to ask where someone is going, if they believe that you have broken the lock down rules, (failure to answer isn't going to help that cause I would suggest) they can fine you, at which point, failing to give your details could get you arrested.

[sportsbob]

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

That's not quite right, they messed the charge up, but a police officer has every right to ask where someone is going, if they believe that you have broken the lock down rules, (failure to answer isn't going to help that cause I would suggest) they can fine you, at which point, failing to give your details could get you arrested.

This thread was started on May 18, some seven weeks beforehand the Police were instructed by the National Police Chiefs Council otherwise.

Please click the link above and read it

[AVB]

I still don’t get what the issue is. The police can ask what they like. Whether you comply with that request is up to you and there may be consequences if you don’t depending on whether there is any legal backing to why they are asking. In the specific video we are debating here:

BTP office asked for details (legal or not doesn't matter) 

traveller refused to give (not an issue if request not legal)

BTP officer asked for ticket (legal request)

Traveller refused to give (gave officer reason to prevent travel). 
 

remind me what’s the issue? 

[GingerCat]

34 minutes ago, sportsbob said:

Please read the information in the link above it is quoted from the original document which I had a copy of the day it was issued. It clearly states what I have said all along.

I did and gave my answer. I'm not wrong with it either. The charge was incorrect. That is all. 

As to guidance from wherever, it is just that, no one can tell any officer to carry out an unlawful order. To ignore the law is unlawful and can be an offence in itself for the officer. Same as telling  an officer to arrest someone is also unlawful, its and individual power and is not up for direction. Same goes for use of force and many other things. Use of discretion is different for obvious reasons.

[mudpatten]

It`s been a stimulating discussion gents, I`m just sorry that the younger ones amongst you will be living in a police state in ten or fifteen years if you neither know your rights or fail to stand up for them. Good luck with your future.

[CharlieT]

1 hour ago, mudpatten said:

It`s been a stimulating discussion gents, I`m just sorry that the younger ones amongst you will be living in a police state in ten or fifteen years if you neither know your rights or fail to stand up for them. Good luck with your future.

Exactly my thoughts. I truly cannot understand how anyone of sound mind can accept and take the view that such actions are justified.

[Westley]

On 25/05/2020 at 09:57, CharlieT said:

Exactly my thoughts. I truly cannot understand how anyone of sound mind can accept and take the view that such actions are justified.

The idiots that Officers are dealing with today,  are no different to the idiots that I was dealing with over 20 years ago. Unless I have missed something we are NOT living in a Police State and never will be.  I suppose the only saving grace is that I will not be around in 15 years to experience it   !       😂 

[mudpatten]

Agreed! But I`m sure we`d both concur that, even when dealing with an idiot, they deserved to be treated fairly and within the legal framework. Not arbitrarily dealt with by an officer with no grasp of his legal powers.

What will you do when a police firearms enquiry officer comes round your house with some made-up and outlandish idea about what he whimsically thinks you need to do to retain your guns - and we all know that that actually happens. Will you just say"Yes officer" or will you argue your case?

You could be right about us not yet living in a police state. The courts stopped the police from threatening Harry Miller that he needed to "check his thinking" and described them as being akin to the Stasi. The Home Secretary interceded to prevent a Chief Constable, in a recent tv interview, from deploying his officers into shops to ensure we were only buying essentials, and many of the Covid Reg. fixed penalties have been withdrawn since they are unlawful.

We`re not yet living in a police state, but that is not through lack of trying on the part of the police.

[AVB]

33 minutes ago, mudpatten said:

Agreed! But I`m sure we`d both concur that, even when dealing with an idiot, they deserved to be treated fairly and within the legal framework. Not arbitrarily dealt with by an officer with no grasp of his legal powers.

What will you do when a police firearms enquiry officer comes round your house with some made-up and outlandish idea about what he whimsically thinks you need to do to retain your guns - and we all know that that actually happens. Will you just say"Yes officer" or will you argue your case?

You could be right about us not yet living in a police state. The courts stopped the police from threatening Harry Miller that he needed to "check his thinking" and described them as being akin to the Stasi. The Home Secretary interceded to prevent a Chief Constable, in a recent tv interview, from deploying his officers into shops to ensure we were only buying essentials, and many of the Covid Reg. fixed penalties have been withdrawn since they are unlawful.

We`re not yet living in a police state, but that is not through lack of trying on the part of the police.

Some police officers are idiots as are a lot of the general public. And yes the attitude of many of the Chief Constables annoys me (either through trying to do too much or too little). But as Gingercat has said many times there is nothing to stop a police officer asking any question. He may not have the laws to back up why he/she is asking but that is either human nature or a misunderstanding of complex laws. 
 

The video we have spent so long debating would have ended so differently if the person had shown his ticket which the officer was entitled to ask for. 
 

And as for answering questions from a firearms licensing bod I would consider three things. 
 

1) are they entitled to ask that?

2) if not am I bothered about answering that?

3) if I was then I would question why they are asking it and probably decline to answer it. 
 

It’s not that hard. 

[panoma1]

Years ago I had a disagreement with the firearms “manager” of my issuing force, I was shooting in Scotland at the time, with a gun I had just purchased, prior to this trip, I informed the firearms department of my acquisition......whilst away my wife received a phone call from them, saying I must contact the firearms department immediately on my return! 
This I did! Only to be informed, the firearms manager had told the admin assistant to instruct me to send in my SGC, apparently, so they could put the new gun on my certificate! I laughed and said I was not required to! After some discussion during which I stuck to my guns....the admin person said I would have to speak to the firearms manager....I said “ok put him on”......She did....well to say that the person on the other end of the telephone was a nasty, bullying, officious, overbearing ******* would be an understatement! He threatened me with all sorts of sanctions, if I refused to do as he instructed! Which only served to make me dig my heels in further!
I told him I was not going to send in my SG certificate in the middle of the shooting season, as if their current service was true to form, it would take weeks for me to get it back, and anyway, I was not required by law to do so! He got even more insistent......angrily stating he was “instructing” me to send in my SGC, I advised him that I would not! However I would consider driving to their office with my SGC, and wait for them to fill it in whilst I waited, his reply...........“well you might have quite a wait”.......I hung up!
I immediately contacted my shooting association, who confirmed he was acting ultra vires, and that I was correct in refusing to do as he instructed!  A couple of days later I received a copy of a grovelling email, sent to my shooting association contact, advising that I didn’t, after all need to send in my SGC, if I didn’t want to? And claiming no other certificate holder had complained at this “request”...I heard no more about the incident....not even an apology!

Some time later I had more trouble from this officious ******* concerning my BP licence..........he tried again to bully me into something I was not required under legislation to do.....I wrote to him to tell him to politely **** off........never heard from him again, he has since left the department!

Just shows the way some of these coppers make up the rules as they see fit........if we don’t stand our ground it ain’t difficult to see creeping regulation by the police....leading further towards a police state!

Isn’t this similar to what’s happening with the GP letter fiasco? 
 

If shooters don’t stand up for themselves, the police will regulate us out of existence!

I realise this is off topic but forgive me......but I think it’s relevant, as it relates to individual police officers conduct!

Edited May 26, 2020 by panoma1

[Westley]

59 minutes ago, mudpatten said:

Agreed! But I`m sure we`d both concur that, even when dealing with an idiot, they deserved to be treated fairly and within the legal framework. Not arbitrarily dealt with by an officer with no grasp of his legal powers.

What will you do when a police firearms enquiry officer comes round your house with some made-up and outlandish idea about what he whimsically thinks you need to do to retain your guns - and we all know that that actually happens. Will you just say"Yes officer" or will you argue your case?

You could be right about us not yet living in a police state. The courts stopped the police from threatening Harry Miller that he needed to "check his thinking" and described them as being akin to the Stasi. The Home Secretary interceded to prevent a Chief Constable, in a recent tv interview, from deploying his officers into shops to ensure we were only buying essentials, and many of the Covid Reg. fixed penalties have been withdrawn since they are unlawful.

We`re not yet living in a police state, but that is not through lack of trying on the part of the police.

THAT has already happened, It's called a 'Doctor's Letter '  !     Yes, I argued (and won) my case.

Problem with a lot of Chiefs, they joined with a University Degree, disappeared for 2 years to Brands Hatch, then returned with 2 pips and delusions of grandeur. Just a shame that none of their attributes involved man management, more adhere to the party line  !

Edited May 26, 2020 by Westley

[AVB]

17 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Years ago I had a disagreement with the firearms “manager” of my issuing force, I was shooting in Scotland at the time, with a gun I had just purchased, prior to this trip, I informed the firearms department of my acquisition......whilst away my wife received a phone call from them, saying I must contact the firearms department immediately on my return! 
This I did! Only to be informed, the firearms manager had told the admin assistant to instruct me to send in my SGC, apparently, so they could put the new gun on my certificate! I laughed and said I was not required to! After some discussion during which I stuck to my guns....the admin person said I would have to speak to the firearms manager....I said “ok put him on”......She did....well to say that the person on the other end of the telephone was a nasty, bullying, officious, overbearing ******* would be an understatement! He threatened me with all sorts of sanctions, if I refused to do as he instructed! Which only served to make me dig my heels in further!
I told him I was not going to send in my SG certificate in the middle of the shooting season, as if their current service was true to form, it would take weeks for me to get it back, and anyway, I was not required by law to do so! He got even more insistent......angrily stating he was “instructing” me to send in my SGC, I advised him that I would not! However I would consider driving to their office with my SGC, and wait for them to fill it in whilst I waited, his reply...........“well you might have quite a wait”.......I hung up!
I immediately contacted my shooting association, who confirmed he was acting ultra vires, and that I was correct in refusing to do as he instructed!  A couple of days later I received a copy of a grovelling email, sent to my shooting association contact, advising that I didn’t, after all need to send in my SGC, if I didn’t want to? And claiming no other certificate holder had complained at this “request”...I heard no more about the incident....not even an apology!

Some time later I had more trouble from this officious ******* concerning my BP licence..........he tried again to bully me into something I was not required under legislation to do.....I wrote to him to tell him to politely **** off........never heard from him again, he has since left the department!

Just shows the way some of these coppers make up the rules as they see fit........if we don’t stand our ground it ain’t difficult to see creeping regulation by the police....leading further towards a police state!

Isn’t this similar to what’s happening with the GP letter fiasco? 
 

If shooters don’t stand up for themselves, the police will regulate us out of existence!

I realise this is off topic but forgive me......but I think it’s relevant, as it relates to individual police officers conduct!

I only have a SGS so don’t have to go through the same rigmarole as others. However, when my Certificate was up for renewal the licensing officer asked for the contact details of two people I regularly shot with. That didn’t sit easy with me as I am not sure they would want their details given out. So I declined to answer and said that I had given references on the application renewal form. They didn’t ask again. 

[JohnfromUK]

33 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Isn’t this similar to what’s happening with the GP letter fiasco?

I refused to pay for a GP letter (as advised by BASC) - I have no relevant medical conditions.  After a long 'stand off' FEO came and visited.  Pleasant chap, pleasant chat, explained that they were welcome to have access to my medical records (I had given permission for that previously) should they wish, but I was not paying for private work with my Doctor (which is how the Doctor put it) which would in effect more than double the cost of my renewal.  FEO understood and a few days later - renewed certificate arrived.

I got the firm impression he was in agreement with me - but that his Chief Constable was leaning on him.

In my view - whilst there may be a few bad ones at the coal face, the high levels are staffed not by career policemen, but by ambitious career administrators who have different agendas.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, mudpatten said:

Agreed! But I`m sure we`d both concur that, even when dealing with an idiot, they deserved to be treated fairly and within the legal framework. Not arbitrarily dealt with by an officer with no grasp of his legal powers.

What will you do when a police firearms enquiry officer comes round your house with some made-up and outlandish idea about what he whimsically thinks you need to do to retain your guns - and we all know that that actually happens. Will you just say"Yes officer" or will you argue your case?

You could be right about us not yet living in a police state. The courts stopped the police from threatening Harry Miller that he needed to "check his thinking" and described them as being akin to the Stasi. The Home Secretary interceded to prevent a Chief Constable, in a recent tv interview, from deploying his officers into shops to ensure we were only buying essentials, and many of the Covid Reg. fixed penalties have been withdrawn since they are unlawful.

We`re not yet living in a police state, but that is not through lack of trying on the part of the police.

To be honest, I don't think there's been a time in history that the police were as constrained by the rules and letter of the law, rather than simply using common sense as today and yet there seems to be more issues with members of the public refusing to engage with them or following a simple request as "what law says I have to!" And yet the public seems more dis-satisfied  than ever.

I don't know what the answer is, people will be people and you'll get idiots whether wearing a uniform or not.