And during these 30+ times no one thought to ask what they'd be arrested for? What offence(s) they were suspected of committing?
Eh, I think you'd be surprised how powerful the effect of a police uniform can be and how many people either just assume they have to do whatever the police say or take Imps view that doing what they want is just easier. There's also the question of how the police word things they say to suggest they have the power to do things they can't. Recently a video went around social media of two women officers entering someone's home to seize a child's phone. The video below is from the barrister who's now representing the homeowner pro bono. It appears the police have not behaved very well to say the least. Those two officers may now be in some trouble. I doubt this is the only case where something similar has happened.
Yeah that ridiculously edited video, given a "legal commentary" by a man who, even before this incident, was playing to a very specific gallery. Now I'd expect any barrister worth his salt to start muddying the waters to help his clients, however that doesn't mean what those officers have done is remotely unlawful.* I've argued for a very long time that citizens of this country are badly let down in education about the law and specifically what police can and can't do. That doesn't stop every man and his dog adding his expert opinion on social media though. The thing is, it's not a secret. The law and police powers and policies are 99% open and easily checked, no one ever bothers though. *not saying it is in this case either. There's not enough information, because there can't be. If any investigation is still ongoing then the police aren't allowed to.
The gallery he's playing to really isn't that relevant. He's involved in the case now so will have to be very careful about what he says publicly or he's not going to be a barrister much longer. He also shows a section of the video I hadn't seen before where the woman very clearly tells the police they're not allowed in as they enter the house. You're absolutely right people don't know what the police can and can't do. That's exactly my point. They see the uniform and in many cases just do whatever the person in the uniform says. I'm reasonably sure some police also don't know (or perhaps don't care) what they are and aren't allowed to do.
It doesn't matter if the woman tells the police they're not allowed in, whether she tells them very clearly or not. If there's powers available, which although I am not conversant with the full facts, there seems to be, then the police can enter. From WMPs public statement I can see more than one lawful reason for the entry and seizure of property. Now, I could be totally wrong and in that specific case they didn't have lawful reason to act as they did but it's not that black and white. Especially as the mother already lied in the video about the investigation being for "viewing a social media post"
Which powers? I've seen several lawyers say police have very limited powers to your property without permission. These basically boil down to when they have a search warrant, if they believe there's an immediate threat of violence within the property, if they want to arrest someone in the property for certain offences or if they want to search the property after arresting someone. It doesn't appear there was a warrant or any threat of violence and it doesn't appear anyone was arrested so it's hard to see how any of these powers could possibly apply. I also note the statement from the police doesn't say anything like "the officers entered the property in exercise of their powers under section X of Act Y" In terms of the mother lying, that's not really the point and I wouldn't be surprised if she's just misunderstood what's going on. She talks about looking at a social media post several times in the bits of the original video I've seen.
Maybe you prefer the hard option. Me? I refer to take the easy option. give my name and address, get on with my life. I have never been in a cell, never been arrested. Only been in a police station twice, once as a witness to a crime and the other to report a stolen bike. And I am 50! As for people knowing their rights, I knew then and I know now that I don't have to hand over my details with there being no reason for them to stop me but your point is? That I should stand my ground, have an argument, resist and turn a 5 minute stop and wait into longer? Better things in life. give name and address, wait for check to complete, move on with life.
It’s a few years since The Arctic Monkeys sang Riot Van. It was clearly a message to young people not to get gobby even if you’d done nothing. When I was a kid I can recall a group of us just chatting on a street corner before we broke up and went our various ways. Two coppers with a dog came by. One of them, hardly any older than us clearly wanted to wade in, but older guy with the dog simply said ‘You won’t be here when we come back, lads, will you?’ We took the hint. I often contrast this with the over-bearing manner of police officers giving my sons grief when they were late-teens about the time that lot from Sheffield were releasing the aforementioned song. Policing a City Centre at night must be scary. But over-zealous stop and search increases tensions.
