...which says all you need to know about the British state's priorities.
No one has any problems with the police investigating a report that a 'rave' and breach of the peace was planned. But in this case they did not investigate, they put together a response team and sent it out.
Ok - it can be important to strike early, and mistakes are only human. But they then fell into the classic mistake which has caused so many outrages in the past:
- They only saw what they wanted to see
- They did not admit their mistake
- They compounded their error by bullying members of the public and closing a perfectly lawful gathering
- They are now trying to justify this arbitary oppression by equivocation and manipulation of figures in a way that amounts to mendacity. I wonder which political figure they learned that from?
This has become the normal basis for interaction between the police and the public nowadays. Modern legislation allows the public no recourse against the police in these circumstances, or right to question their decision. The police are armed with wide-ranging unlimited powers which were originally justified with reference to bogeymen such as terrorists, and they are using them against the people they are meant to serve.
No good will come of this.....
This is yet another case where the police make the assumption about what is to happen (a rave), ignore what they initially find (15 blokes in a field grilling burgers) and proceed as if their assumption was correct.
Once started, like 'Mastermind' contestants, they cannot stop.
"This has become the normal basis for interaction between the police and the public nowadays. "
And when they do take a pointless case all the way and the courts rightly throw it out, then it's a case of 'Not us, guv, it was down to the CPS'.
Re the item referred to by Julia M. They refused the drug test – “We'd refused the drugs sample because we'd done nothing wrong.” Unfortunately for them, they have now ended up with a criminal record because to refuse the test (without good cause) is an offence. Theft, burglary and attempted theft, attempted burglary are among the offences which “trigger” drug testing. See this link for more information:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to...tion_programme/
Of course, they will have had their DNA sampled and fingerprints taken and these will be retained. The British government is determined to bring the minimum possible response to the decision against them in S and Marper v UK 2008.
@Peter Hargreaves:
Isn't 'we did absolutely nothing wrong' a sufficiently good cause?
If not, it should be.
"Isn't 'we did absolutely nothing wrong' a sufficiently good cause?"
Not under current legislation. If you are arrested for a trigger offence (basically all the acquisitive crimes) then Police have the power to do a drugs test (and it is required of us that we do it - no discretion allowed). The test consists of effectively sucking on a straw for a couple of minutes. It tests for cocaine and heroin and if the result is positive you are required to go to a session with drugs councillor. If you are charged the result is given to the court to aid in sentencing and bail decisions.
The is no power for the police to use force in any of the above. There are offences of failing to comply.
All very simple and effective. Especially when you consider that most acquisitive crime is drugs related (In my opinion but I believe it is backed up by the statistics).
If you allow people to say "I'm not guilty therefore I do not have to take the test" you are effectively removing the entire purpose of testing because you'd have to wait until a guilty verdict (probably months later) and that would mean any association between the offence and the drugs taking is significantly reduced. This in turn means that the courts ability to target drugs treatment and testing orders etc is severely hampered. All because someone doesn't want to suck on a straw.
Appreciate that, anon. I didn't really get my point across I suppose.
What I'm getting at is that in a case like this, where no offence has actually been committed at all - there should be a defence to the drug test offence. Otherwise we end up giving people criminal records for no reason.
While there are good reasons for taking samples for drug testing there seems to me no comparably good reason for this couple ending up with a record.
"All very simple and effective. "
Is that the new way of saying 'if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear'?
"If you allow people to say "I'm not guilty therefore I do not have to take the test" you are effectively removing the entire purpose of testing because you'd have to wait until a guilty verdict..."
Gosh, yes. How terrible that would be, the State having to prove their case against you...
"This in turn means that the courts ability to target drugs treatment and testing orders etc is severely hampered. All because someone doesn't want to suck on a straw."
All because someone doesn't desire to be considered guilty before proven so in their own country.
I can see why somone who thinks like you wishes to remain anonymous.
"Otherwise we end up giving people criminal records for no reason."
I suspect, phisheep, that that's precisely the point of this...
@JuliaM: "I can see why somone who thinks like you wishes to remain anonymous."
That was a wee bit uncalled for. We're all anonymous here - with the possible exception of the estimable Mr Hargreaves - and anon did make his point cleanly and politely even if you don't agree with it.
Peter. A drugs test isn't mandatory.
"In authorising the requirement to give a sample, the inspector must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the misuse of any specified Class A drug by the individual caused or contributed to the offence. It will be for the inspector to determine what constitutes 'reasonable grounds'."
Do the two pictured in the Daily Mail look as if they need to steal to support a drugs habit? It seems odd that a court can't rule on whether a policeman has acted reasonably or not.
As they say, "No good deed goes unpunished".
Going back to Bystander's original comment:
In rural areas a helicopter is very useful, more so in midwales and the highlands of Scotland.
The type of helicopter used by the police wouldn't be much use in Helmond.
The primary purpose of the armed services is to protect the UK and provide aid to the civil community.
(if someone drowned in English Channel because all the helicopters were in Helmonde, it would make the expenses row look like a storm in a teacup.)
A better question is why eight Chinooks are sitting unused while Boeing is allegedly refusing to pass on the needed software.
I enjoy reading this blog, as well as the usually sensible comments.
"..All because someone doesn't want to suck on a straw..."
Um. All because someone thought they were free. Why is this so hard an issue to grasp...?
"That was a wee bit uncalled for. We're all anonymous here..."
In the sense that we don't use our real names, no. My name hooks back to my blog, so my 'netpersona' at least is know.
'anon' could be anyone, or someone we have seen before under another name.
"...anon did make his point cleanly and politely even if you don't agree with it."
I don't think there's any doubt about me not agreeing with it!
And I'm sure 'anon' is no delicate flower in need of protection. In fact, I think we are all in need of protection from the likes of him...
@ J L Jones –
Section 63B of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) (as amended by Section 7 of the Drugs Act 2005) provides for a sample of urine, or a non intimate sample, to be requested by a police officer and taken from persons in police detention for the purpose of ascertaining whether they have a specified Class A drug (heroin or cocaine/crack) in their body if:
(a) the person concerned has been arrested or charged with a “trigger” offence ...;
or
(b) the person concerned has been arrested or charged with an offence and a police officer of
Inspector rank or above, who has reasonable grounds to suspect that the misuse by the person of any specified Class A drug caused or contributed to the offence, has authorised the taking of the sample.
An individual who fails without good cause to provide any sample when requested to do so in accordance with these drug testing provisions commits an offence, for which they shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both.
If someone is charged, it is permissible for the court to consider whether there was good cause – those words form part of the definition of the offence.
To prove that a person has committed this offence, it is necessary to prove the following elements:
* that the individual was required to provide a sample under s.63B PACE; and
* the individual failed to provide a sample; and
* there was no good cause not to give a sample.
Prosecutors should pay attention to any reason that the suspect gives as to why he/she is unable to provide a specimen and whether there is any medical report which supports the reason.
Putting to one side for a moment the value or necessity of such tests, I wonder if the drugs testing procedure is being applied consistently even between adjoining police districts. I usually sit in a court where so far, we rarely hear that this drug testing has been done. But on Saturdays, I occasionally sit in a court in the neighbouring borough where the drug test seems to done automatically by police in that area.
Do any of our police officer bloggers have a view or experience of such discrepancies??
We're all anonymous here
I'm not. I consistently use my real name everywhere on the Internet, including here, and a very small amount of work with Google will find my employer, home address, and home phone number.
I've been on the Internet since 1975, when the user community was small, real names were the rule, and people who used pseudonyms were widely considered pretentious blowhards. That attitude no longer applies, of course, but it would be senseless for me to change things now.
I've only used pseudonyms twice: once to leak a bit of information that I learned (not from my employer, but from a trade association) under an umbrella confidentiality agreement that I thought it was in the public's interest to know, and once on some erotica on a public site (basically to fend off unwanted sexual attentions from dickheads).
Two thoughts on JuliaM's link:
(1) In what world did prosecution of these two for failing to provide a sample pass the public interest test?
(2) If I were defending them, I'd be arguing that their arrest was wrongful and hence that there should have been no obligation to provide a sample.
Julia
As the JPs on the site are so fond of saying, "dont blame us" - blame the government who put these laws into place, on the face of it, at the instigation of the public.
If you have an issue with the law as it stands - lobby your MP
Sorry to be a sad b**stard but does anyone know exactly what the Facebook item said?
If we knew that we might get a feel for the intended audience/scale of this event.
rogerh
What is it about the Police that means that once they start they cannot stop. Another typical example was grandmother who was raided by armed police looking for a canabis factory. This was done on the basis of 'information received'. Apparently someone looked through her front window and saw a tomato plant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...s-
cannabis.html
Even when it is blindingly obvious within second of arriving that it is
a. A tomato plant
b. A BBQ
the police do not seem to be able to simply say 'Oops. My mistake. Sorry about that. Please carry on.'
I know of a similar experience that happened to a relative of mine. He was raided 'on information received' (from his girlfried's ex-husband - no bias there then!), that he was part of an IT theft gang. When armed police raided his two-up-two down cottage most of them had to stay outside because there was not enough room for them to fit inside and they found a total of two computers. Even with this total lack of any evidence, the process had to go on and he was taken down the station. He did receive an quiet informal apology from the interviewer for the complete waste of everyone's time, but he still had to go on to be interviewed for several hours. No-one seemed to be able to stand up and say "Stop. Sorry."
Why is that? Any policeman out there care to tell us.
"If you have an issue with the law as it stands - lobby your MP..."
It's not an 'either/or' option. I can, and do, lobby my MP (bit of a waste of time, given it's Margaret Hodge, but still...) as well as posting and commenting about it.
Lobbying the MPs keeps it 'private' until they decide to do something about it.
Posting and comenting gets people thinking who might not have noticed it before...
So who wants to berate the Police for not breaking this one up before it got out of hand?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/
...l#ixzz0LpFZQKR6
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/st...000'/
article.do
Well, 15 30 year olds in a field grilling burgers ≠ rave
On the other hand, 17 year olds announcing Facebook party in residential street = big trouble
Rocket science, it isn't...
It might be more effective to find out when and where your MP's daughter is getting married, then advertise the event on the internet as an all night rave. Or do likewise with a range of other events, like the Masonic annual dinner, or the Friday prayers at your local mosque.
Eventually, the police might realise that any dork can advertise anything at all on the internet.
Commenting by HaloScan
