New "anti-knife" powers for Brit. police
- Thread starter KenpoTex
- Start date
and your solution to cut deaths would be?
Ahriman
Green Belt
Interesting idea. I'm waiting to hear how many cops they lose... y'know there are guys out there who should be searched, their appearance gives enough suspicion, yet our policemen (and women) don't really search them. They want to live, which is a hard thing to do with a bullet in your digestive system. Simple thugs are one thing, people caring about SD is another but members of criminal organizations and "professional criminals" are a very different thing.
Now policemen there either understand this as well as their Hungarian colleagues did or they'll lose a few when learning it.
...
Other thing is they won't ever get rid of all those bad things and even if they do manage somehow... broken bottles, anyone? Baseball bats? Hammers? Axes? A bicycle chain? You can't ban these... you can confiscate some of these items, but how would you confiscate a bicycle chain for example? What do you say, "give it to me, you don't have to lock your bicycle" or what?
Someone intent on killing or committing a crime will most likely succeed. The less tools and training the average folk has, the more chance of success the bad guy has. Even more if the victim is always told to leave these things to the police.
And as usual, I do not aim to attack anyone, so even if some parts of my post could be interpreted that way, blahblahblah.
Now policemen there either understand this as well as their Hungarian colleagues did or they'll lose a few when learning it.
...
Other thing is they won't ever get rid of all those bad things and even if they do manage somehow... broken bottles, anyone? Baseball bats? Hammers? Axes? A bicycle chain? You can't ban these... you can confiscate some of these items, but how would you confiscate a bicycle chain for example? What do you say, "give it to me, you don't have to lock your bicycle" or what?
Someone intent on killing or committing a crime will most likely succeed. The less tools and training the average folk has, the more chance of success the bad guy has. Even more if the victim is always told to leave these things to the police.
And as usual, I do not aim to attack anyone, so even if some parts of my post could be interpreted that way, blahblahblah.
I understand where Tez is 'coming from' with her point above and I also understand that without draconian infringements of personal freedoms there is no really effective way of removing arms from the general populous that wish to carry them. However, I, for my sins, am still of the mindset that allowing us to be bowed, without oversight. to the whim of Officers of the Law, is not a good thing.
I know and gladly accept that we are subjects and not citizens but this 'search without cause' attitude cannot lead to a good place in the hands of government. Hopefully Mrs Queen will have something to say if 'excesses of zeal' get out of hand.
I know and gladly accept that we are subjects and not citizens but this 'search without cause' attitude cannot lead to a good place in the hands of government. Hopefully Mrs Queen will have something to say if 'excesses of zeal' get out of hand.
OP
KenpoTex
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #5
well...not crucifying people when they exercise their natural right to defend themselves might be a step in the right direction.
I realize that our cultures are different. Based on your comment above, it seems that you have no problem with the notion of the police conducting searches without the requirement for even "reasonable suspicion," (in other words, "we're searching you just because we feel like it").
This type of police power does not sit well with me. But then again, some of us on this side of the pond have weird notions about individual liberty and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Do you really think completely unfettered police search powers are the way to go about it?
What I'm asking for here is what people see as solutions to the problem not just criticisms. We've had several threads now pulling up British news stories about the police and we've had lots of comments about how people believe in freedom and democracy and not being searched etc but not one has laid down a plan of action which will stop the problem of knife crime.I would like people to also stop assuming I'm in favour of all these procedures as well. England is looking for answers, solutions and ways to stop and no one, other than criticise what has been proposed has come up with anything else. Saying and stop crucifying people when they exercise their natural right to defend themselves is not a solution. The knife crime is youth and gang based, we aren't talking your average everyday person being threatened, we are talking of young people carrying knives to go out and stab other young people. So, I reiterate, what's your solution to this problem?
I'd link directly to the movie "V for Vendetta" right now if I could. To reduce the number of deaths? People need to be able to defend themselves within the protection of the law.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Ahriman
Green Belt
Hm, if knife crime occurs mostly in gang problems, a possible solution would be giving them free firearms with a bit of explosives in it with a remote controller. Let gangs kill each other as fast as possible, then blow up the guns to eradicate the remaining few. They just don't deserve to live.
...
Ok, now seriously. Police should identify gangs, economists should identify reasons of the existence of given gangs. They should remove all removeable reasons of their existence, for example those who "surrender" should get jobs, amnesty, social support and the like for giving up their weapons and lifestyle, while maintaining constant surveillance to avoid their return to crime and giving them protection from earlier "colleagues".
Now this removes those from crime who do it for logical reasons. The rest should be exterminated, their criminal connections tracked down and killed, their gathering places if possible torn down or burnt up, if this is not possible simply give that area or building a use which directs a lot of people there making it an unsafe location.
This would both pull and push them out of crime. Who are willing to give it up get the chance of a new life, those who aren't willing will lose the chance of any life. Those between will likely go legal either because living legally becomes safer and more attractive or because living illegally becomes a lot less safe.
...
Now these are simply my ideas. Vote me for dictator and I'll try them. :wink2:
...
shesulsa: that's what some of us keep on ranting about...
...
Ok, now seriously. Police should identify gangs, economists should identify reasons of the existence of given gangs. They should remove all removeable reasons of their existence, for example those who "surrender" should get jobs, amnesty, social support and the like for giving up their weapons and lifestyle, while maintaining constant surveillance to avoid their return to crime and giving them protection from earlier "colleagues".
Now this removes those from crime who do it for logical reasons. The rest should be exterminated, their criminal connections tracked down and killed, their gathering places if possible torn down or burnt up, if this is not possible simply give that area or building a use which directs a lot of people there making it an unsafe location.
This would both pull and push them out of crime. Who are willing to give it up get the chance of a new life, those who aren't willing will lose the chance of any life. Those between will likely go legal either because living legally becomes safer and more attractive or because living illegally becomes a lot less safe.
...
Now these are simply my ideas. Vote me for dictator and I'll try them. :wink2:
...
shesulsa: that's what some of us keep on ranting about...
I agree.
Tez, personally I feel that in your country the citizens are giving up alot of their rights and that is a problem. First guns were the problem so they are gone, now knives have replaced guns and they are gone. Since it was so hard to find the knives now police can search at will. What is next? Honestly, even with this search at will policy it will not stop knife crime just maybe slow it down a tiny bit. In the meantime you have lost some more rights in the process. Just my 02.
Effective education and teaching at an early age can help. But..........
As to a solution? Well at some point you need to create an atmosphere where any group that is doing this violence becomes successful enough within societies norms that they will no longer want to do these acts because they have too much to lose. Now guess what that is a really hard task. Good luck as every society throughout time has been unable to do this. There are always going to be criminals.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."-Ben Franklin
What happens when they go back to rocks and sticks? Focus on people not objects...criminals not weapons.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
I don't run the government, so I don't need to have a solution. They wouldn't listen to it anyways. I am fully qualified to speak my mind however and criticize what any government comes up with. Receive enough criticism, and perhaps they will go back to the drawing board and brainstorm another solution that doesn't violate fundamental human rights to which England is a signatory.
From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the UK voted for:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
Firstly I should point out that there are no new laws coming out,the article cited in the OP is misleading. The law being used is an old one, it became law in 1994. The searches are being intelligence led as is usual ie known gang members, drug dealers etc. The difference this time is that technology will be used to search suspects rather than the police using their hands plus the Met are putting extra officers on to the iniative.
Stop and search has been with us for 14 years, it's not new and it takes no rights away from anyone (apart from the fact we have no rights being subjects not citizens, we have no constitution only the Magna Carta and thats biased towards the Earls lol)
The spin on this article makes it read differently from what is actually happening. It's very slanted as being anti police and also misleading.
"Under the Metropolitan Police's plans announced this month, officers can search people without reasonable suspicion under Section 60 of the Public Order Act" As I said police have had this power for 14 years but you wouldn't think so the way this is written. It's also not carried out lightly I can assure you.
Powers to stop and search in anticipation of violence.
Section 60.(1) Where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that
(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) above may be exercised by a chief inspector or an inspector if he reasonably believes that incidents involving serious violence are imminent and no superintendent is available.
(3) If it appears to the officer who gave the authorisation or to a superintendent that it is expedient to do so, having regard to offences which have, or are reasonably suspected to have, been committed in connection with any incident falling within the authorisation, he may direct that the authorisation shall continue in being for a further six hours.
(4) This section confers on any constable in uniform power
(6) If in the course of a search under this section a constable discovers a dangerous instrument or an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be an offensive weapon, he may seize it.
(7) This section applies (with the necessary modifications) to ships, aircraft and hovercraft as it applies to vehicles.
(8) A person who fails to stop or (as the case may be) to stop the vehicle when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or both.
(9) Any authorisation under this section shall be in writing signed by the officer giving it and shall specify the locality in which and the period during which the powers conferred by this section are exercisable and a direction under subsection (3) above shall also be given in writing or, where that is not practicable, recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so.
(10) Where a vehicle is stopped by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the vehicle was stopped under the powers conferred by this section if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of twelve months from the day on which the vehicle was stopped and similarly as respects a pedestrian who is stopped and searched under this section.
(11) In this section
Stop and search has been with us for 14 years, it's not new and it takes no rights away from anyone (apart from the fact we have no rights being subjects not citizens, we have no constitution only the Magna Carta and thats biased towards the Earls lol)
The spin on this article makes it read differently from what is actually happening. It's very slanted as being anti police and also misleading.
"Under the Metropolitan Police's plans announced this month, officers can search people without reasonable suspicion under Section 60 of the Public Order Act" As I said police have had this power for 14 years but you wouldn't think so the way this is written. It's also not carried out lightly I can assure you.
Powers to stop and search in anticipation of violence.
Section 60.(1) Where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that
- (a) incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his area, and
(b) it is expedient to do so to prevent their occurrence,
(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) above may be exercised by a chief inspector or an inspector if he reasonably believes that incidents involving serious violence are imminent and no superintendent is available.
(3) If it appears to the officer who gave the authorisation or to a superintendent that it is expedient to do so, having regard to offences which have, or are reasonably suspected to have, been committed in connection with any incident falling within the authorisation, he may direct that the authorisation shall continue in being for a further six hours.
(4) This section confers on any constable in uniform power
- (a) to stop any pedestrian and search him or anything carried by him for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments;
(b) to stop any vehicle and search the vehicle, its driver and any passenger for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments.
(6) If in the course of a search under this section a constable discovers a dangerous instrument or an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be an offensive weapon, he may seize it.
(7) This section applies (with the necessary modifications) to ships, aircraft and hovercraft as it applies to vehicles.
(8) A person who fails to stop or (as the case may be) to stop the vehicle when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or both.
(9) Any authorisation under this section shall be in writing signed by the officer giving it and shall specify the locality in which and the period during which the powers conferred by this section are exercisable and a direction under subsection (3) above shall also be given in writing or, where that is not practicable, recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so.
(10) Where a vehicle is stopped by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the vehicle was stopped under the powers conferred by this section if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of twelve months from the day on which the vehicle was stopped and similarly as respects a pedestrian who is stopped and searched under this section.
(11) In this section
- "dangerous instruments" means instruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed;
"offensive weapon" has the meaning given by section 1(9) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and
"vehicle" includes a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the [1960 c. 62.] Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
FieldDiscipline
2nd Black Belt
You beat me to it Tez. I tried to post the act earlier, but my computer was playing up.
Nothing has changed has it? A senior officer still needs reasonable grounds.
Nothing has changed has it? A senior officer still needs reasonable grounds.
FieldDiscipline
2nd Black Belt
A deliberate pun?
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Just as an aside but anyone else struck by the problem in that statement?
Absolutely! the article is a piece of spin by the BBC and some people have fallen for it hook line and sinker I'm afraid.
By the way a PC playing up can be great fun rofl. It's the sussys and black stockings that does it you know (now that is going to confuse our American cousins lol)
Afriad so, I love puns, sad individual I am!
Empty Hands
Senior Master
How does that gel with "(5) A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons or articles of that kind."
