Jump to content

Do the Police need a warrant to search a boat?


FadeToScarlet

Featured Posts

 

Where ?

In post #89 you say

 

"It is the people or groups of people who choose not to abide by the laws of the land and conform to a way of life that most right minded people would find acceptable who have alienated themselves."

 

We were discussing the fact that coloured males feel alienated. That coupled with your words above suggested to me what I said.

 

If you meant otherwise that certainly wasn't clear to me. I could not interpret the statement you made coupled with what I was discussing in any other way. I am happy for you to explain what you did mean if I am misinterpreting you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First line of my post;

 

" I do not for one minute believe that the police have any intent to alienate anyone."

 

 

By which I mean any of the 60 million inhabitants of this country, of groups made up from any number of individuals. Regardless of race, colour, creed, or gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two points (with no political agenda hidden behind them):

 

1 Police in the UK can only function because of the tacit agreement of the general public;

2 If it comes to Court, a magistrate will tend to believe the police account rather than that of the defendant.

 

If you dunnit, it's probably best to plead guilty then provide mitigation.

 

 

 

(Edited because I hit the wrong button too soon)

Edited by Machpoint005
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always interested in the way that people perceive the police and the way that they conduct business. The police have a difficult job to do and its a job that most of us would not have the intestinal fortitude to consider. When we are under some sort of duress we welcome the cavalry arriving. When we do something wrong our defence is to criticise. When there is a serious incident its easy to see who are the mops and who are the cops their running in opposite directions. In our wider family are a few from inspectors all the way down to beat bobby. Some are retired and enjoying themselves. Some are still working for our benefit. One did not get the chance to retire, he did not enjoy a long career. It was cut short. If you feel that an officer has not given you the respect you expect make a complaint, his boss will soon ensure that his or her attitude will change. Its the extra paperwork it brings on the bosses desk.

 

For a long time I read the Police blog of NightJack. This was the blog of, a working policeman who would shine a light into the dark murky world of the modern copper's life. This fly on the wall blog won an Orwell Prize. NightJack's work was described by the Orwell Prize judges as taking readers "to the heart of what a policeman has to do". NightJack is no more. The Night Jack home page simply says that the author has deleted the blog's contents. It's all thanks to that great champion of free speech, Mr Justice Eady. He ruled in the High Court that the author of a blog could be named. Now for obvious reasons NightJack needed the anonymity if he was to publish such a blog. How on earth Mr Justice Edith could say that it was in the Public Interest to name NightJack will confound me forever.

 

But there is a sting in the tail of this sordid tale. Its a long story and a Google of "Nightjack" will bring up the sordid trail of his outing by The Times. Some of Nightjacks blog postings have been saved and an archive created Here By way of a personal protest, I have committed myself to never read The Times. A bit like the people of Liverpool have done with the Sun, after all the lies published about Hillsborough. The Times editor James Harding and News International chief executive Tom Mockridge have both given evidence to the Levinson Inquiry acknowledging that a reporter at the newspaper had admitted hacking an email. The reporter was later named as 28-year-old Patrick Foster, who accessed the email account of Police Officer Richard Horton, a police officer who blogged under the name Nightjack.

 

James Harding, editor of The Times wrote to the Leveson Inquiry admitting for the first time that the newspaper had failed to tell the High Court (Mr Justice Eady) they knew about the hacking before challenging the injunction. When Mr Harding appeared before the inquiry earlier in January he only admitted that managers knew about an incident of email hacking but did not name Mr Foster or give details of the story. Following his evidence The Times published an article admitting that Mr Foster had admitted hacking Mr Horton's email account.

 

Mr Watson’s letter to the Metropolitan Police, which was also sent to the Attorney General, said: “It is clear that a crime has been committed – illicit hacking of personal emails. A journalist and unnamed managers failed to report the crime to their proprietor or the police. I must ask that you investigate computer hacking at The Times. In so doing you will also be able to establish whether perjury or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice have also occurred.”

 

The proprietor who knew nothing - Stand up Mr Rupert Murdoch and News International.

 

The Metropolitan Police has set up Operation Tuleta to examine allegations of email hacking by journalists. The investigation is separate to Operation Weeting which is looking into allegations of phone hacking. I hope when Tuleta and Weeting finally hit the courts the perpetrators don't come up before Mr Justice Eady, otherwise they will all get lifetime achievement awards. As a sort of a legacy to NightJack here is one of his more inspiring posts.

 

"A Survival Guide For Decent Folk"

 

In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.

 

Complain First

Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops right away and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.

 

Make a counter allegation

Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis. This is particularly good where there are no independent witnesses. When it boils down to one word against another and nobody is ‘fessing up, CPS run a mile and you, my friend, are definitely on a walk out.

 

Never explain to the Police

If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves, they think that they can talk their way out. Wrong.

 

Admit Nothing

To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword.

 

So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing. No confession and CPS are on the back foot already. They foresee a trial. They fear a trial. They are looking for any excuse to send you home free.

 

Keep your mouth shut

Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest of the time, say nothing.

 

Claim Suicidal Thoughts

A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every move.

 

Always always always have a solicitor

Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They certainly do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops or CPS laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side.

 

Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a big gold Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you. I wouldn’t do it and I interview people for a living.

 

Actively complain about every officer and everything they do

Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers. Nothing like a complaint to muddy the waters and suggest that you are only in court because the vindictive Cops have a grudge against you. Far fetched? Wait until your solicitor spins it in court and you come over as Ghandi.

 

Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it

You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted.

 

Remember to fake a drink problem

If you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

 

No voluntary statements.

No co-operation beyond providing any documentation that you happen to have to hand. No admissions of anything, and never ever accept a caution to “end the matter”. (cautions go on your record) Insist on being charged or released: in other words, do nothing to help make their job any easier, because their interests and yours are not aligned.

 

So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and straightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys, its what they do for a living.

 

Mind how you go!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my mind, the central issue is this.

 

Somebody is sitting in their narrowboat smoking some cannabis.

 

To own a narrowboat in the first place, they are almost certainly a decent person who has worked hard for several decades.

 

They aren't harming their fellow citizens by smoking cannabis.

 

So what business of the Police is it that their chosen pastime is smoking cannabis?

 

If the argument is that they are harming themselves, why don't the Police set up patrols outside McDonalds and arrest every fatty as they waddle out of the door?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you arrive at a British port, the police (or HMRC) can routinely board. This is to check passports, for duty free, illegal immigrants, drugs etc.

Unlikely to have come via Sangatte camp, France on your narrowboat on the Thames.

 

If you arrive at a British port, the police (or HMRC) can routinely board. This is to check passports, for duty free, illegal immigrants, drugs etc.

Unlikely to have come via Sangatte camp, France on your narrowboat on the Thames.

 

no shit,,,

 

(a truck driver writes)

 

 

 

 

Who checkes before embarkation. With a simple invitation. Get of my truck, or I'll sort you out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the argument is that they are harming themselves, why don't the Police set up patrols outside McDonalds and arrest every fatty as they waddle out of the door?

 

Because being obese isn't a crime

 

 

 

 

 

yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my mind, the central issue is this.

 

Somebody is sitting in their narrowboat smoking some cannabis.

 

To own a narrowboat in the first place, they are almost certainly a decent person who has worked hard for several decades.

 

They aren't harming their fellow citizens by smoking cannabis.

 

So what business of the Police is it that their chosen pastime is smoking cannabis?

 

If the argument is that they are harming themselves, why don't the Police set up patrols outside McDonalds and arrest every fatty as they waddle out of the door?

But a burger isn't illegal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my mind, the central issue is this.

 

Somebody is sitting in their narrowboat smoking some cannabis.

 

To own a narrowboat in the first place, they are almost certainly a decent person who has worked hard for several decades.

 

They aren't harming their fellow citizens by smoking cannabis.

 

So what business of the Police is it that their chosen pastime is smoking cannabis?

 

If the argument is that they are harming themselves, why don't the Police set up patrols outside McDonalds and arrest every fatty as they waddle out of the door?

Hmm interesting, so only decent people own narrow boats. I expect using your critieria only poor people commit crime.

Hmm interesting, so only decent people own narrow boats. I expect using your critieria only poor people commit crime.

Just an after thought. Many self employed or company directors I knew when I was in business fiddled something somewhere along the line. Not anything major but the odd purchase for personal use put down to the business or a little cash in hand not declared. No less a crime than the guy on benefits smoking a bit of weed.

But a burger isn't illegal.

It is if the person selling it has not complied with the trade descriptions act

Edited by Simon clarke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm interesting, so only decent people own narrow boats. I expect using your critieria only poor people commit crime.

 

Just an after thought. Many self employed or company directors I knew when I was in business fiddled something somewhere along the line. Not anything major but the odd purchase for personal use put down to the business or a little cash in hand not declared. No less a crime than the guy on benefits smoking a bit of weed.

 

It is if the person selling it has not complied with the trade descriptions act

Sorry, not with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From personal experience - I wouldn't trust a cop as far as I could throw them!

I think the essential point to grasp is that the Police don't exist to protect ordinary people from crime, the main purpose of their existence is to protect the landowner/ rentier/ aristocracy class from a re-run of the French Revolution, chopping heads off in Parliament Square etc.

 

As this doesn't happen very often, they have to fill time by bothering the hoi-polloi when they are driving 5 mph over the speed limit, smoking a joint, watching a television without a licence etc etc etc...

Edited by Southern Star
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the essential point to grasp is that the Police don't exist to protect ordinary people from crime, the main purpose of their existence is to protect the landowner/ rentier/ aristocracy class from a re-run of the French Revolution, chopping heads off in Parliament Square etc.

 

As this doesn't happen very often, they have to fill time by bothering the hoi-polloi when they are driving 5 mph over the speed limit, smoking a joint, watching a television without a licence etc etc etc.

You don't really believe that do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From personal experience - I wouldn't trust a cop as far as I could throw them!

 

Seconded !

 

The law is whatever the policeman says it is, they are all better than most criminals at bending the law to suit themselves.

 

Every school bully goes on to become a police officer, the job attracts exactly the type of person who gets a kick out of bullying and intimidating people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seconded !

 

The law is whatever the policeman says it is, they are all better than most criminals at bending the law to suit themselves.

 

Every school bully goes on to become a police officer, the job attracts exactly the type of person who gets a kick out of bullying and intimidating people.

That's strange. I could have sworn the last man I arrested before I retired had just raped a young girl (he got 7 years, not enough).

 

Obviously I am just a bully. I should have comforted him and given him a pound out of the poor box.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's strange. I could have sworn the last man I arrested before I retired had just raped a young girl (he got 7 years, not enough).

 

Obviously I am just a bully. I should have comforted him and given him a pound out of the poor box.

I think there is a fundamental problem, when discussing the actions of the police.

 

The vast majority of the police do a difficult, pretty thankless job and do it well (or far better than I could).

 

There is also an element of bullying, institutional prejudice and heavy handedness in the police force that is far more notable and newsworthy than a Bobby on the beat apprehending a criminal.

 

There is also an element of society that will not recognise the good police officers and the good they do.

 

I have concerns about the element of the force that displays the bad side of the job but, on balance, I think we are loads better off with them than without.

 

One thing I do know however is that all rapists, without exception, are bad people.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can confuse police men & women with police officers - the former are there to uphold common law; whilst officers are there to uphold statutes & acts of Parliament. Unfortunately; the officers give men a bad name - look at the change in attitude & body language between those wearing full body armour (TAU/riot squad) and your 'beat policeman' ; having faced both; I know which I prefer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can confuse police men & women with police officers - the former are there to uphold common law; whilst officers are there to uphold statutes & acts of Parliament. Unfortunately; the officers give men a bad name - look at the change in attitude & body language between those wearing full body armour (TAU/riot squad) and your 'beat policeman' ; having faced both; I know which I prefer

They are one and the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.