Reply to: Can the Police stop you for no reason?

[expat]

Better no reason than thinking they have one. Being stopped for fire bombing a NF office and making obscene phone calls from public telephone boxes like I have (been stopped that is) is much more worrying.

Did you really? And did you shout "No Future!"?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Well obviously, writing to people is an infringement of their peace of privacy, innit ?

I take it you have no problem with the proliferation of speed cameras, either?

[Board Game Geek]

Croatian wrote : The West Midlands police have already adopted this policy. It's just that they haven't written to advise anyone.......

Well obviously, writing to people is an infringement of their peace of privacy, innit ?

[Croatian]

[QUOTE=Board Game Geek;877452]Perhaps the services should write to such people and say :

"seeing as you find our involvement from time to time in your life such a tedious chore, we have decided to honour your request at peace and privacy.

We will no longer respond if your car gets stolen, your house gets burgled, your property catches fire, you have a heart attack, etc.

The West Midlands police have already adopted this policy. It's just that they haven't written to advise anyone.......

[HairyArsedBloke]

You’d better have something to hide and let the police find it when they detain you. Otherwise they will get upset when they have to make something up for themselves. Given their sick minds and spiteful nature, it could be a lot worse than anything you could imagine.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I'm really sorry to hear that Mr BB.

I support your case, in the sense that I am more than prepared to suffer the occasional inconvenience to my lifestyle, if it is for the purposes for law enforcement and crime prevention.

Eg, hypothetically, I could be the drunken person coming out of a pub, and subjected to a breath test, instead of getting in to a car and killing someone. That's crime prevention and good policing.

A lot of people see the police as interference in their lives, as if somehow the world revolves around them, and anything which inconveniences them is dreadfully wrong.

It's the "me me me state interference blah blah blah selfish gene gone mad".

Fine.

Perhaps the services should write to such people and say :

"seeing as you find our involvement from time to time in your life such a tedious chore, we have decided to honour your request at peace and privacy.

We will no longer respond if your car gets stolen, your house gets burgled, your property catches fire, you have a heart attack, etc.

Sorry to have been a nuisance, and good luck!"

A small inconvenience to me, is nothing compared to the immense "inconvenience" of someone else losing a loved one.

It's my civic duty to help the police and the services in general, and I have nothing to hide.

Have you ever tried phoning the police after you've had something nicked? They might as well have sent that letter already. Civic duties should cut both ways. I have plenty to hide, none of it illegal.

[Mich the Tester]

It's my civic duty to help the police and the services in general, and I have nothing to hide.

Good for you, but remember that 'something to hide' is not necessarily something illegal that is any business of the police.

Plenty of people have something to hide which is no business of the state whatsoever.

In many European countries plenty of people with 'nothing to hide' have had a lot to fear from their governments.

[Board Game Geek]

Bolshie B posted : Having suffered a loss due to a drunk driver I've not got a problem with random breath testing.

I'm really sorry to hear that Mr BB.

I support your case, in the sense that I am more than prepared to suffer the occasional inconvenience to my lifestyle, if it is for the purposes for law enforcement and crime prevention.

Eg, hypothetically, I could be the drunken person coming out of a pub, and subjected to a breath test, instead of getting in to a car and killing someone. That's crime prevention and good policing.

A lot of people see the police as interference in their lives, as if somehow the world revolves around them, and anything which inconveniences them is dreadfully wrong.

It's the "me me me state interference blah blah blah selfish gene gone mad".

Fine.

Perhaps the services should write to such people and say :

"seeing as you find our involvement from time to time in your life such a tedious chore, we have decided to honour your request at peace and privacy.

We will no longer respond if your car gets stolen, your house gets burgled, your property catches fire, you have a heart attack, etc.

Sorry to have been a nuisance, and good luck!"

A small inconvenience to me, is nothing compared to the immense "inconvenience" of someone else losing a loved one.

It's my civic duty to help the police and the services in general, and I have nothing to hide.

[TykeMerc]

Police used to only be able to stop and ask you for a breath test if you'd committed a moving traffic offence ie driven eratically etc. I think they can now do random breath tests for no reason.

Having suffered a loss due to a drunk driver I've not got a problem with random breath testing.

[xoggoth]

Better no reason than thinking they have one. Being stopped for fire bombing a NF office and making obscene phone calls from public telephone boxes like I have (been stopped that is) is much more worrying.

[Bagpuss]

**** UK police anyway

failed police state

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Not technically correct. The Road Traffic Act 1988 s163 gives any officer the power to stop you. This is the section relied upon for random vehicle checks. Consequently from that check they can ask you for a breath test under section 6 if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you've been drinking. What is reasonable is up to their interpretation.

Fair enough - I apologise, and stand corrected. Not only do they do what they damn well like, but they have statutory sanction for it too.

What is reasonable in terms of suspicion should be subject to a test of what the man on the Clapham Omnibus might think (not the Police)- OTH the man on the Clapham Omnibus is about 30% likely to be a "nothing to hide" twat so maybe he gets what he deserves.

[sappatz]

**** UK police anyway

[BolshieBastard]

Police used to only be able to stop and ask you for a breath test if you'd committed a moving traffic offence ie driven eratically etc. I think they can now do random breath tests for no reason.

[Incognito]

In theory they are supposed to have a reason. In practice they make up the law as they go along and "these nothing to hide " twats help them (nb not you Churchy I can see you were kidding). Sadly there is no-one looking over their shoulder.

Not technically correct. The Road Traffic Act 1988 s163 gives any officer the power to stop you. This is the section relied upon for random vehicle checks. Consequently from that check they can ask you for a breath test under section 6 if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you've been drinking. What is reasonable is up to their interpretation.