Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 56 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:53 pm Post subject:
Absolutely disgusting. Then again, if you're a thug and love beating on people, why not become a cop?
We are surrounded by pure evil these days. I can't see our police around the world acting any better unless there is a new system put into place. I have been led to believe that most cops, even in this country, hate the bureaucracies they work under and this is obviously how some of them let off steam. The law always protects those that administer it. Sometimes the people get justice, but we only have to look at the Diana thing to see how corrupt the legal system is and how it is there to protect real power. _________________ The promise of freedom will only come about when the last man to walk this earth lives out his days in dreadful solitude. Only then will we see the end of war.
Absolutely disgusting. Then again, if you're a thug and love beating on people, why not become a cop?
Excellent point.
Few people can grasp that police officers were once just civilians who have filled in a form, sat in a classroom and then wandered out onto the street wearing a uniform. I genuinely have no clue why it is expected that putting on a police uniform would change any predilection, bias, or leaning. This cannot be screened out at interview.
Power has always been abused in every century, occupation and part of the globe and the police force is no exception. Why are people surprised when it happens?
Having said that, the police officer in the video obviously isn’t very bright – bouncing a prisoner in the station isn’t exactly the type of location you can easily cover up your handiwork. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Few people can grasp that police officers were once just civilians
Police Officers are civilians.
Don't add to their ongoing militarisation by referring to them as anything but civilians.
Not quite - Police officers carry a warrant card - this document gives the police officer additional powers of arrest that non-warrant card carriers do not legally have.
This all involves 'arrestable' offences (one where you can be sentenced to at least five years' imprisonment), the right to arrest without additional warrant and the right to force entry on suspicion alone.
We could all get lost in the semantic meandering of labels, but accept it or not, there is a very clear legal distinction between coppers and civilians. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 102 Location: NYC/Pennsylvania
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:27 am Post subject:
Busker wrote:
telecasterisation wrote:
Few people can grasp that police officers were once just civilians
Police Officers are civilians.
Don't add to their ongoing militarisation by referring to them as anything but civilians.
I have a lot of respect for cops in that they are supposed to run towards situations the rest of us run away from... but this whole idea that they are somehow subject to different rules and laws than the people they *serve* is disgusting. _________________ The answer to 1984 is 1776!
Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 374 Location: North East
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:21 am Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Not quite - Police officers carry a warrant card - this document gives the police officer additional powers of arrest that non-warrant card carriers do not legally have.
This all involves 'arrestable' offences (one where you can be sentenced to at least five years' imprisonment), the right to arrest without additional warrant and the right to force entry on suspicion alone.
We could all get lost in the semantic meandering of labels, but accept it or not, there is a very clear legal distinction between coppers and civilians.
No you are wrong on this one TC.
In the UK, holders of the Office of Constable (ie. all police officers regardless of rank, or administrative grade if you are including special constables as well) are civilians.
They are not military, therefore they are civilians.
A lot of the powers they exercise derive from common law and are powers available to non-warrant card carrying people.
Assuming you are not a warranted holder of the Office of Constable, you too have the power of arrest, though for the most part I would not recommend you use it.
You are also a little behind the times when it comes to your definition of arrestable offences, as all offences are now arrestable offences, (They do have a DNA database to build you know?), I can't remember the legislation that changed that off the top of my head, but I'll dig out the reference to it if you like. I think that changed in the last couple of years.
Holders of the Office of Constable need to be reminded they can only police with the consent of the public and part of that consent is they do not regard themselves as a different breed from the rest of the public.
Not quite - Police officers carry a warrant card - this document gives the police officer additional powers of arrest that non-warrant card carriers do not legally have.
This all involves 'arrestable' offences (one where you can be sentenced to at least five years' imprisonment), the right to arrest without additional warrant and the right to force entry on suspicion alone.
We could all get lost in the semantic meandering of labels, but accept it or not, there is a very clear legal distinction between coppers and civilians.
No you are wrong on this one TC.
In the UK, holders of the Office of Constable (ie. all police officers regardless of rank, or administrative grade if you are including special constables as well) are civilians.
They are not military, therefore they are civilians.
A lot of the powers they exercise derive from common law and are powers available to non-warrant card carrying people.
Assuming you are not a warranted holder of the Office of Constable, you too have the power of arrest, though for the most part I would not recommend you use it.
You are also a little behind the times when it comes to your definition of arrestable offences, as all offences are now arrestable offences, (They do have a DNA database to build you know?), I can't remember the legislation that changed that off the top of my head, but I'll dig out the reference to it if you like. I think that changed in the last couple of years.
Holders of the Office of Constable need to be reminded they can only police with the consent of the public and part of that consent is they do not regard themselves as a different breed from the rest of the public.
B
I can appreciate your confusion as to why you have this view;
Having been a serving police officer, from within, the concept of labels was intrinsic to 'us' and 'them'. Read this;
'The term 'civilian' is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies.'
This was exactly the status quo, there were police officers and civilians - i.e. those not members of the force. In fact, those working within the force in admin (non-police) were/are known as the 'civvy-side'.
You are looking at it from a layman's perspective by adding the 'military' aspect, not wrong, just another way of looking at the same issue.
As I opened with in my original post, police officers are ex-civilians, which stands from the perspective of police forces across the board.
You appear somewhat confused though as to powers of arrest and how far they extend for non-warrant card carriers to which I refer.
As for;
Quote:
You are also a little behind the times when it comes to your definition of arrestable offences, as all offences are now arrestable offences.
The definition is as clear and pertinent today as it was 'then'. If you refer to the impact PACE has had, then this extends the powers of arrest for police in circumstances such as false address, potential criminal damage or assault etc - but this does not alter the definition, it merely add options which is not relevant to what was being discussed. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 374 Location: North East
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Having been a serving police officer, from within, the concept of labels was intrinsic to 'us' and 'them'. Read this;
'The term 'civilian' is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies.'
Ok a couple of questions. What rank were you? How long have you been 'out'? (Not asking for force / area / collar number or anything that would identify you as an individual.)
Source for the quote you provide?
telecasterisation wrote:
This was exactly the status quo, there were police officers and civilians - i.e. those not members of the force. In fact, those working within the force in admin (non-police) were/are known as the 'civvy-side'.
The way admin workers are perceived / referred to as civvy workers doesn't really change the legal status of warranted constables.
telecasterisation wrote:
As I opened with in my original post, police officers are ex-civilians, which stands from the perspective of police forces across the board.
You appear somewhat confused though as to powers of arrest and how far they extend for non-warrant card carriers to which I refer.
Still disagree with the ex-civilian tag. Unless ex-civilian has a specific legal definition I'm not aware of? You go on to mention "perspective" in the next breath.
telecasterisation wrote:
As for;
Quote:
You are also a little behind the times when it comes to your definition of arrestable offences, as all offences are now arrestable offences.
The definition is as clear and pertinent today as it was 'then'. If you refer to the impact PACE has had, then this extends the powers of arrest for police in circumstances such as false address, potential criminal damage or assault etc - but this does not alter the definition, it merely add options which is not relevant to what was being discussed.
Ok,
On this one take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestable_offence#_ref-0 You will find that Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 replaced S24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which defined "Arrestable Offence". (There is a bounce through link to the actual text of the act rather than relying on a publicly editable wiki)
I'll let you ponder that one, but come back at me if you still disagree.
Ok a couple of questions. What rank were you? How long have you been 'out'? (Not asking for force / area / collar number or anything that would identify you as an individual.)
Source for the quote you provide?
That is surprising, but perhaps you don’t realise that simply by copying the first line of anything you want sourced into a search engine will find that sequence of words, usually from the original source. Try typing ‘'The term 'civilian' is also often used colloquially to refer to people' into Yahoo and it will take you straight to, in this case - Wiki. I see this time and time again - people ask for sources and they could find them easily and in seconds.
I joined the force in 1974 as a cadet. Training school in 1976 – Hendon. Came out in 1990 still as a constable, although for the last seven years I was a specialist.
Quote:
The way admin workers are perceived / referred to as civvy workers doesn't really change the legal status of warranted constables.
Change the legal status? I have no clue why you mention that? In addition, I checked two force websites and both list their non-police vacancies as ‘civilian staff’.
Quote:
Still disagree with the ex-civilian tag. Unless ex-civilian has a specific legal definition I'm not aware of? You go on to mention "perspective" in the next breath.
I was very clear that police forces use the expression ‘civilian’ as opposed to ‘members of the public’ or ‘private citizen’ – ‘civvy’ trips off the tongue much easier and has no militaristic connotations unless you add them. Following the second world war, many soldiers joined the various forces and the term ‘civvy street’ was carried over by them – used to differentiate life as a copper to that outside the job. It is completely harmless and was in everyday use even at the training school back in the 70’s. No doubt this will be perceived as some early indoctrination though.
Perspective refers to the way the same thing is perceived by different people and that is exactly what I mean - it has no bearing on 'legal' definitions whatsoever, instead something that many thousands of serving police officers and many other people use every day all over the world.
As for;
Quote:
You are also a little ............ back at me if you still disagree.
It isn’t a case of disagreeing and I understand now why you keep labouring the point. I was referring to the powers of arrest of civ…, sorry, private citizens and how this differs to that of police officers, you are focusing on PACE.
Those without a warrant card (those prepared to actually deprive someone of their freedom) can differentiate offences within their 'jurisdiction' with little effort - hence the definition of 'arrestable offence' encompasses those which fall within those parentheses. Obviously PACE is an addition aimed at serving police officers - consequently thise does not give additional powers of arrest to civilians/members of the public.
You have also said ‘all offences are now arrestable offences’ which is simply incorrect. The ‘extra powers’ given by virtue of PACE do not allow powers of arrest for the offence, instead they refer to the fact that (example) the name and address cannot be verified. This does not make the offence arrestable - popular misconception. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
WTF?! I know cops are pretty invested in putting in their 20 years no matter what and getting that early retirement package.... but how could NONE of these people have enough common human respect for another human being to know this is wrong, walk out, and get another f***ing job? Disgusting. _________________ The answer to 1984 is 1776!
Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 374 Location: North East
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:58 am Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
You have also said ‘all offences are now arrestable offences’ which is simply incorrect. The ‘extra powers’ given by virtue of PACE do not allow powers of arrest for the offence, instead they refer to the fact that (example) the name and address cannot be verified. This does not make the offence arrestable - popular misconception.
Ok from the brief career details you gave you got proper training, rather than the modern modular stuff.
I think you are still overlooking the impact SOCPA 2005 had on PACE 1984. Your definition was correct prior to 1st Jan 2006. (Hence my question about when did you come out of the job.) After that there was a fundamental change. Leaving names and addresses to one side, do you agree you could end up being arrested for any offence if the constable deems it necessary? Is that wording any better or do you feel that is still wrong?
I think it best if we agree to differ on the 'civvy' status or take it to PM?
I think you are still overlooking the impact SOCPA 2005 had on PACE 1984. Your definition was correct prior to 1st Jan 2006. (Hence my question about when did you come out of the job.) After that there was a fundamental change. Leaving names and addresses to one side, do you agree you could end up being arrested for any offence if the constable deems it necessary? Is that wording any better or do you feel that is still wrong?
I think it best if we agree to differ on the 'civvy' status or take it to PM?
No, I do not agree you could end up being arrested for any offence if the constable deems it necessary.
If you are arrested under PACE for a non-arrestable offence, you are not being arrested for the offence, you are being arrested to either stop a further offence being committed, or you have been unable to fully satisfy the requested conditions of proving identity. I realise that this may seem picky but that is why the offence itself still remains non-arrestable – so you cannot be arrested for it alone. Having said that, I can fully appreciate how it appears that the reverse is true.
As for the civvy status, I am a bit unsure as to why you are pursuing this;
I have clearly demonstrated that the expression ‘civilian’ is widely in use by police forces, so I am not sure if you are challenging that as being factual or the fact it is ‘wrong’? If the latter is true, then I agree that many sources will quote the military connection, however, you have seen that ‘civilian’ is also used in a context that you disagree with because it makes you feel uncomfortable for some reason. It was there when I joined and has perpetuated as an easy to use, universally understood (within the force at least), expression to identify exactly who you mean.
It is currently half-term and I just heard my wife say to my youngest, please can you hoover the lounges. The expression ‘hoover’ refers to a brand name but this has become synonymous with using a vacuum cleaner – is it wrong to use ‘hoover’ in this context? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 04 Apr 2007 Posts: 733 Location: the worlds greatest leper colony usa
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject:
shes the white version of rodney king and one day i bet the whites dont riot but will watch tv ,sports and snicker at shows and get fat on Macdonald's fast food _________________ Puzzling Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RinF8BiDNaU
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 102 Location: NYC/Pennsylvania
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject:
festival of snickers wrote:
shes the white version of rodney king and one day i bet the whites dont riot but will watch tv ,sports and snicker at shows and get fat on Macdonald's fast food
But of course. Standing up for oneself and one's rights is for uncivilized n*****s and crazy people. Good Amurricans do what they are told.
</sarcasm> _________________ The answer to 1984 is 1776!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
