Following the conviction of Sergeant Mark Andrews, 37 for the assault on Pamela Somerville a petite 59 year old lady in the police custody suite. An incident in which Pamela has suffered permanent physical injury to her eyes and lasting psychological damage. Pamela who had not even received a parking ticket in her 59 years was arrested and brutalized by the police in a Police custody suit. Were it not for the Bravery of a Woman Police Officer who told a supervisor about the assault it would have not been brought to light. Many women claim they are raped and brutalized by male police offers in custody suits it is time to STOP vulnerable women being held in custody by male police officers.
Why is this idea important?
Following the conviction of Sergeant Mark Andrews, 37 for the assault on Pamela Somerville a petite 59 year old lady in the police custody suite. An incident in which Pamela has suffered permanent physical injury to her eyes and lasting psychological damage. Pamela who had not even received a parking ticket in her 59 years was arrested and brutalized by the police in a Police custody suit. Were it not for the Bravery of a Woman Police Officer who told a supervisor about the assault it would have not been brought to light. Many women claim they are raped and brutalized by male police offers in custody suits it is time to STOP vulnerable women being held in custody by male police officers.
Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 has increased police powers of arrest dramatically and removed the distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences.
In order to restore the balance between citizen and state, the idea of offences that cannot result in arrest must be restored.
Why is this idea important?
Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 has increased police powers of arrest dramatically and removed the distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences.
In order to restore the balance between citizen and state, the idea of offences that cannot result in arrest must be restored.
During the reign of the previous government they introduced a 'Power of Arrest' by the Police which covers just about every law on the statute book and even some which are not.
This immediately had the effect of turning our Police from a 'Police Service' to a 'Police Force'.
Now every time there is a complaint made against someone the Police arrest that person and take them to the Police Station where they have their fingerprints and DNA etc taken.
Police should only be able to make an arrest if there is evidence to support the offence and not just because someone has made an allegation.
As a result of the above I can only assume that there have been thousands of innocent people arrested and released after providing the obligatory fingerprint and DNA samples.
This practice has to stop and is not required in a free democratic society.
Why is this idea important?
During the reign of the previous government they introduced a 'Power of Arrest' by the Police which covers just about every law on the statute book and even some which are not.
This immediately had the effect of turning our Police from a 'Police Service' to a 'Police Force'.
Now every time there is a complaint made against someone the Police arrest that person and take them to the Police Station where they have their fingerprints and DNA etc taken.
Police should only be able to make an arrest if there is evidence to support the offence and not just because someone has made an allegation.
As a result of the above I can only assume that there have been thousands of innocent people arrested and released after providing the obligatory fingerprint and DNA samples.
This practice has to stop and is not required in a free democratic society.
this power enables a police officer to arrest someone for almost anything they have done (or might do) that they don't approve of, and because it's a common law matter, not a criminal offence, police can't bail you. so you are kept in a police cell untill you can be put before the court. what if it happens on a friday night of bank holiday weekend – you can be in a police cell for 2 or 3 days.
Why is this idea important?
this power enables a police officer to arrest someone for almost anything they have done (or might do) that they don't approve of, and because it's a common law matter, not a criminal offence, police can't bail you. so you are kept in a police cell untill you can be put before the court. what if it happens on a friday night of bank holiday weekend – you can be in a police cell for 2 or 3 days.
Until a suspect is charged of an offence, the rules of sub judice do not come into effect, This means that following arrest on suspicion of committing an offence but prior to charging, the media are free to publish what they want, as they are not in contempt of court.
My idea is that, as a suspect is to be presumed innocent until he/she has been found guilty in a court of law, the media are restricted to printing only the name, age, local authority of the person arrested, and a passport sized photo. This is enough for the public interest (all I need to know is that the police are working on the case and have a suspect) and also enough to enable the police to seek further information (if anyone knows what Mr Bloggs has been up to etc), but not enough to prevent a suspect who may not have actually committed an offence from living a normal life once the police investigation is completed.
Why is this idea important?
Until a suspect is charged of an offence, the rules of sub judice do not come into effect, This means that following arrest on suspicion of committing an offence but prior to charging, the media are free to publish what they want, as they are not in contempt of court.
My idea is that, as a suspect is to be presumed innocent until he/she has been found guilty in a court of law, the media are restricted to printing only the name, age, local authority of the person arrested, and a passport sized photo. This is enough for the public interest (all I need to know is that the police are working on the case and have a suspect) and also enough to enable the police to seek further information (if anyone knows what Mr Bloggs has been up to etc), but not enough to prevent a suspect who may not have actually committed an offence from living a normal life once the police investigation is completed.
Currently if you are 'caught' speeding you are not allowed to see the evidence against you unless you wish to plead not guilty. i.e. go to court.
The photo evidence that the police have should as a matter of course be sent to you with the letter. The reason why this is important is that often speed cameras especially hand held ones can be 'timedout' i.e. the speed they show is the previous cars speed. I have challenged this and won on more than one occasion.
I find it offensive that i can not see the evidence against me unless i challenge the accusation. This is not a police state. They work for US.
Why is this idea important?
Currently if you are 'caught' speeding you are not allowed to see the evidence against you unless you wish to plead not guilty. i.e. go to court.
The photo evidence that the police have should as a matter of course be sent to you with the letter. The reason why this is important is that often speed cameras especially hand held ones can be 'timedout' i.e. the speed they show is the previous cars speed. I have challenged this and won on more than one occasion.
I find it offensive that i can not see the evidence against me unless i challenge the accusation. This is not a police state. They work for US.
The offence of Obstructing a police officer was surely intended by parliament to prevent people from actively and physically blocking police officers from conducting their duty, such as in making an arrest.
However, this offence (in addition to the common law right of police officers to arrest people to prevent a breach of the peace) is being used routinely against legitimate protesters, and the offence really translates as 'refusing to do what a police officer tells you to do'. Often you hear officers at peaceful protests saying 'move or you'll be arrested for obstruction' for most people this works as they don't really want to risk being arrested – it's too often used a deafult threat to enforce the will of officers on members of he public
This is compunded because if you are arrested and charged with obstruction its almost impossible to be acquitted by a magistrate – if an officer says he was obstructed from conducting his/her duty then they usually accept this.
Why is this idea important?
The offence of Obstructing a police officer was surely intended by parliament to prevent people from actively and physically blocking police officers from conducting their duty, such as in making an arrest.
However, this offence (in addition to the common law right of police officers to arrest people to prevent a breach of the peace) is being used routinely against legitimate protesters, and the offence really translates as 'refusing to do what a police officer tells you to do'. Often you hear officers at peaceful protests saying 'move or you'll be arrested for obstruction' for most people this works as they don't really want to risk being arrested – it's too often used a deafult threat to enforce the will of officers on members of he public
This is compunded because if you are arrested and charged with obstruction its almost impossible to be acquitted by a magistrate – if an officer says he was obstructed from conducting his/her duty then they usually accept this.
At present, when arrested, Police use a statement that includes the words "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" (or very similar).
This is a prejudiced statement and should be altered in two respects (the amendments are underlined):
- The first part should be altered to read something like, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly, we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession"
- the latter part should be altered to state, "Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".
So, in summary, the full statement should read (and be supported by the requisite legislative instruments):
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly, we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession. Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".
Why is this idea important?
At present, when arrested, Police use a statement that includes the words "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" (or very similar).
This is a prejudiced statement and should be altered in two respects (the amendments are underlined):
- The first part should be altered to read something like, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly, we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession"
- the latter part should be altered to state, "Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".
So, in summary, the full statement should read (and be supported by the requisite legislative instruments):
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly, we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession. Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".
Under current legislation, anyone being interviewed in connection with any crime by the police must ask if they would like to have a solicitor present. My idea is that this should be automatically be done without them needing to ask.
Why is this idea important?
Under current legislation, anyone being interviewed in connection with any crime by the police must ask if they would like to have a solicitor present. My idea is that this should be automatically be done without them needing to ask.
Remove the right of the Police to take (by force if necessary) DNA samples Photographs Finger prints and foot prints from any one questioned by the Police.
Why is this idea important?
Remove the right of the Police to take (by force if necessary) DNA samples Photographs Finger prints and foot prints from any one questioned by the Police.
I AM A MAGISTRATE-APPLICANT TO WORCESTER MAGISTRATES CIRCLE 2007
THE WEST MERCIA POLICE DETECIVES ( CID ) DEVELOPED A SYSTEM CALLED THE SPAGHETTI SYSTEM – WHICH IS LAYING ON AS MANY CHARGES POSSIBLE – MANY OF THEM INVENTED TO SEE IF ANYTHING STICKS TO THE JURY
THE POLICE ACT NOT ON ACTUAL OFFENCES BUT MAYBE OFFENCES AS ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS FLAG EVIDENCE FOR SUSPICION
THE POLICE SHOULD BE CRIMINALIZED FOR DOING THIS – FOR THEM IT IS A SPORT – FOR THE DEFENDANT-CITIZEN IT COULD BE A LONG FALSE PRISON-SENTENCE
Why is this idea important?
I AM A MAGISTRATE-APPLICANT TO WORCESTER MAGISTRATES CIRCLE 2007
THE WEST MERCIA POLICE DETECIVES ( CID ) DEVELOPED A SYSTEM CALLED THE SPAGHETTI SYSTEM – WHICH IS LAYING ON AS MANY CHARGES POSSIBLE – MANY OF THEM INVENTED TO SEE IF ANYTHING STICKS TO THE JURY
THE POLICE ACT NOT ON ACTUAL OFFENCES BUT MAYBE OFFENCES AS ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS FLAG EVIDENCE FOR SUSPICION
THE POLICE SHOULD BE CRIMINALIZED FOR DOING THIS – FOR THEM IT IS A SPORT – FOR THE DEFENDANT-CITIZEN IT COULD BE A LONG FALSE PRISON-SENTENCE
The removal of these rights may be the most undemocratic changes to the law in this country for centuries.
We just need to look back at the harm they did in Ulster in the past to see why we need to fix these sort of problems here and now.
Why is this idea important?
The removal of these rights may be the most undemocratic changes to the law in this country for centuries.
We just need to look back at the harm they did in Ulster in the past to see why we need to fix these sort of problems here and now.
Review the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 after its use to convict Miss Evans. LibDems promised to review it. We should be allowed to protest near Westminster where our laws are made and we are governed.
Extract from Mail Online:
The use of controversial new security powers intended to protect Parliament to prosecute a peace campaigner has been condemned in the Commons today.
Maya Anne Evans, a 25-year-old cook, became the first person to be prosecuted under the law which bans unauthorised demonstrations within one kilometre of Westminster after reciting the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq outside the gates of Downing Street.
David Heath, for Liberal Democrats, demanded an urgent debate on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 after its use to convict Miss Evans yesterday.
Commons Leader Geoff Hoon said the legislation was widely supported by MPs and had worked “remarkably well” since coming into effect last summer.
He added that challenges to such laws were a key part of the democratic tradition but often resulted in criminal penalties.
Miss Evans, 25, received a criminal conviction for defying the new law.
She was found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Act, given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 towards costs.
The vegan cook from Hastings, Sussex, was arrested on October 25 as she stood next to the Cenotaph, outside Downing Street, reading out the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq.
Why is this idea important?
Review the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 after its use to convict Miss Evans. LibDems promised to review it. We should be allowed to protest near Westminster where our laws are made and we are governed.
Extract from Mail Online:
The use of controversial new security powers intended to protect Parliament to prosecute a peace campaigner has been condemned in the Commons today.
Maya Anne Evans, a 25-year-old cook, became the first person to be prosecuted under the law which bans unauthorised demonstrations within one kilometre of Westminster after reciting the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq outside the gates of Downing Street.
David Heath, for Liberal Democrats, demanded an urgent debate on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 after its use to convict Miss Evans yesterday.
Commons Leader Geoff Hoon said the legislation was widely supported by MPs and had worked “remarkably well” since coming into effect last summer.
He added that challenges to such laws were a key part of the democratic tradition but often resulted in criminal penalties.
Miss Evans, 25, received a criminal conviction for defying the new law.
She was found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Act, given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 towards costs.
The vegan cook from Hastings, Sussex, was arrested on October 25 as she stood next to the Cenotaph, outside Downing Street, reading out the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq.
I submit that the legislation enacted by a former, now utterly disgraced, Home Secretary which gave our Police the power to arrest for any offence at all is being grossly abused by some officers and should be repealed forthwith.
Prior to the bringing into force of this legislation, there were arrestable and non-arrestable offences. I submit that such differentiation should be restored immediately and the powers of Police to arrest be restricted to arrestable offences only, as before.
At the same time, we might give due consideration to further clarity on the so-called 'necessity to arrest' and the grounds upon which arrest can be deemed necessary.
Why is this idea important?
I submit that the legislation enacted by a former, now utterly disgraced, Home Secretary which gave our Police the power to arrest for any offence at all is being grossly abused by some officers and should be repealed forthwith.
Prior to the bringing into force of this legislation, there were arrestable and non-arrestable offences. I submit that such differentiation should be restored immediately and the powers of Police to arrest be restricted to arrestable offences only, as before.
At the same time, we might give due consideration to further clarity on the so-called 'necessity to arrest' and the grounds upon which arrest can be deemed necessary.
Please be aware that I served as a police officer for over 30 years retiring as a Detective Chief Superintendent. I had 26 years continuous service in the CID which included 9 years with regional crime squad and 3 years as the senior advisor to the Home Office Police Department and the H.O.Scientific Research and Develoment Branch. I then worked for 15 years with British Telecom in a police liason role. This role required regu;lar contact with all 43 forces, the Home office Departments, ACPO and Security Services. I served in an age when the police had considerably more success fighting crime than they do today. I have over 45 years knowledge and experience of the police service.
Prior to the Police & Organised Crime Act 2005 police officers had powers of arrest under common law and by certain statutes. In effect arrestable offences where listed and in the main confined to those offences which were punishable by 5 or more years imprisonment. The 2005 act gave the police powers of arrest greater than those of Hitlers Gestapo, prior to the war. Todays police officers can and frequently do, arrest for the most trivial of offences, many of which prior to this act were not even considered crimes and were not recorded as crimes. For instance police now arrest for common assault and record it as a crime. It was always a civil offence as no bodily harm occurred. All agrieved persons were advised to seek a private summons if they wanted to pursue the matter. Police took no action other than to ensure the queens peace was maintained.
Reports in the news of gross abuse of police powers are now almost a daily occurrence with examples of arrest for the most ridiculous of reasons, the very old the very young and the mentally less able included . The story of the 11 year old arrested for assault because he threw a piece of cucumber at another child is known to most. Many are arrested for matters which in the past, would have resulted in the police officer being sacked and a possible appearence in court for false arrest, imprisonment and assault.
The Police do not require this power and never asked for it in the first instance. This all inclusive power was given to the police solely in order that the increased number of arrests and the new recordable crimes would boost the dreadfully low detected crime figures and make Mr Blair look like a crime fighter.
This police power added to to the other pointless police powers such as the retention of photographs, fingerprints and DNA of innocent persons have done enormous damage to our civil libertys and do not in any way add to police performance. A lot of nonsense is written about the need to store DNA of all citizens but it should be remembered that DNA is the simplest evidence to plant at a scene of crime. It is very difficult if not impossible to leave some other persons fingerprints at a crime scene but anyone can scatter the DNA of many others at a crime scene. DNA is of considerable assistence when re-investigating old crimes committed when no one knew of DNA. It will be of far less use in future investigations.
Fingerprints were once said to be the wonderous aid to Police Detection. What happened?The villians took to wearing gloves.
Why is this idea important?
Please be aware that I served as a police officer for over 30 years retiring as a Detective Chief Superintendent. I had 26 years continuous service in the CID which included 9 years with regional crime squad and 3 years as the senior advisor to the Home Office Police Department and the H.O.Scientific Research and Develoment Branch. I then worked for 15 years with British Telecom in a police liason role. This role required regu;lar contact with all 43 forces, the Home office Departments, ACPO and Security Services. I served in an age when the police had considerably more success fighting crime than they do today. I have over 45 years knowledge and experience of the police service.
Prior to the Police & Organised Crime Act 2005 police officers had powers of arrest under common law and by certain statutes. In effect arrestable offences where listed and in the main confined to those offences which were punishable by 5 or more years imprisonment. The 2005 act gave the police powers of arrest greater than those of Hitlers Gestapo, prior to the war. Todays police officers can and frequently do, arrest for the most trivial of offences, many of which prior to this act were not even considered crimes and were not recorded as crimes. For instance police now arrest for common assault and record it as a crime. It was always a civil offence as no bodily harm occurred. All agrieved persons were advised to seek a private summons if they wanted to pursue the matter. Police took no action other than to ensure the queens peace was maintained.
Reports in the news of gross abuse of police powers are now almost a daily occurrence with examples of arrest for the most ridiculous of reasons, the very old the very young and the mentally less able included . The story of the 11 year old arrested for assault because he threw a piece of cucumber at another child is known to most. Many are arrested for matters which in the past, would have resulted in the police officer being sacked and a possible appearence in court for false arrest, imprisonment and assault.
The Police do not require this power and never asked for it in the first instance. This all inclusive power was given to the police solely in order that the increased number of arrests and the new recordable crimes would boost the dreadfully low detected crime figures and make Mr Blair look like a crime fighter.
This police power added to to the other pointless police powers such as the retention of photographs, fingerprints and DNA of innocent persons have done enormous damage to our civil libertys and do not in any way add to police performance. A lot of nonsense is written about the need to store DNA of all citizens but it should be remembered that DNA is the simplest evidence to plant at a scene of crime. It is very difficult if not impossible to leave some other persons fingerprints at a crime scene but anyone can scatter the DNA of many others at a crime scene. DNA is of considerable assistence when re-investigating old crimes committed when no one knew of DNA. It will be of far less use in future investigations.
Fingerprints were once said to be the wonderous aid to Police Detection. What happened?The villians took to wearing gloves.
Please be aware that I served as a police officer for over 30 years retiring as a Detective Chief Superintendent. I had 26 years continuous service in the CID which included 9 years with regional crime squad and 3 years as the senior advisor to the Home Office Police Department and the H.O.Scientific Research and Develoment Branch. I then worked for 15 years with British Telecom in a police liason role. This role required regu;lar contact with all 43 forces, the Home office Departments, ACPO and Security Services. I served in an age when the police had considerably more success fighting crime than they do today. I have over 45 years knowledge and experience of the police service.
Prior to the Police & Organised Crime Act 2005 police officers had powers of arrest under common law and by certain statutes. In effect arrestable offences where listed and in the main confined to those offences which were punishable by 5 or more years imprisonment. The 2005 act gave the police powers of arrest greater than those of Hitlers Gestapo, prior to the war. Todays police officers can and frequently do, arrest for the most trivial of offences, many of which prior to this act were not even considered crimes and were not recorded as crimes. For instance police now arrest for common assault and record it as a crime. It was always a civil offence as no bodily harm occurred. All agrieved persons were advised to seek a private summons if they wanted to pursue the matter. Police took no action other than to ensure the queens peace was maintained.
Reports in the news of gross abuse of police powers are now almost a daily occurrence with examples of arrest for the most ridiculous of reasons, the very old the very young and the mentally less able included . The story of the 11 year old arrested for assault because he threw a piece of cucumber at another child is known to most. Many are arrested for matters which in the past, would have resulted in the police officer being sacked and a possible appearence in court for false arrest, imprisonment and assault.
The Police do not require this power and never asked for it in the first instance. This all inclusive power was given to the police solely in order that the increased number of arrests and the new recordable crimes would boost the dreadfully low detected crime figures and make Mr Blair look like a crime fighter.
This police power added to to the other pointless police powers such as the retention of photographs, fingerprints and DNA of innocent persons have done enormous damage to our civil libertys and do not in any way add to police performance. A lot of nonsense is written about the need to store DNA of all citizens but it should be remembered that DNA is the simplest evidence to plant at a scene of crime. It is very difficult if not impossible to leave some other persons fingerprints at a crime scene but anyone can scatter the DNA of many others at a crime scene. DNA is of considerable assistence when re-investigating old crimes committed when no one knew of DNA. It will be of far less use in future investigations.
Fingerprints were once said to be the wonderous aid to Police Detection. What happened?The villians took to wearing gloves.
Why is this idea important?
Please be aware that I served as a police officer for over 30 years retiring as a Detective Chief Superintendent. I had 26 years continuous service in the CID which included 9 years with regional crime squad and 3 years as the senior advisor to the Home Office Police Department and the H.O.Scientific Research and Develoment Branch. I then worked for 15 years with British Telecom in a police liason role. This role required regu;lar contact with all 43 forces, the Home office Departments, ACPO and Security Services. I served in an age when the police had considerably more success fighting crime than they do today. I have over 45 years knowledge and experience of the police service.
Prior to the Police & Organised Crime Act 2005 police officers had powers of arrest under common law and by certain statutes. In effect arrestable offences where listed and in the main confined to those offences which were punishable by 5 or more years imprisonment. The 2005 act gave the police powers of arrest greater than those of Hitlers Gestapo, prior to the war. Todays police officers can and frequently do, arrest for the most trivial of offences, many of which prior to this act were not even considered crimes and were not recorded as crimes. For instance police now arrest for common assault and record it as a crime. It was always a civil offence as no bodily harm occurred. All agrieved persons were advised to seek a private summons if they wanted to pursue the matter. Police took no action other than to ensure the queens peace was maintained.
Reports in the news of gross abuse of police powers are now almost a daily occurrence with examples of arrest for the most ridiculous of reasons, the very old the very young and the mentally less able included . The story of the 11 year old arrested for assault because he threw a piece of cucumber at another child is known to most. Many are arrested for matters which in the past, would have resulted in the police officer being sacked and a possible appearence in court for false arrest, imprisonment and assault.
The Police do not require this power and never asked for it in the first instance. This all inclusive power was given to the police solely in order that the increased number of arrests and the new recordable crimes would boost the dreadfully low detected crime figures and make Mr Blair look like a crime fighter.
This police power added to to the other pointless police powers such as the retention of photographs, fingerprints and DNA of innocent persons have done enormous damage to our civil libertys and do not in any way add to police performance. A lot of nonsense is written about the need to store DNA of all citizens but it should be remembered that DNA is the simplest evidence to plant at a scene of crime. It is very difficult if not impossible to leave some other persons fingerprints at a crime scene but anyone can scatter the DNA of many others at a crime scene. DNA is of considerable assistence when re-investigating old crimes committed when no one knew of DNA. It will be of far less use in future investigations.
Fingerprints were once said to be the wonderous aid to Police Detection. What happened?The villians took to wearing gloves.