Old bill in doing their job shocker

Don't forget to always ask for a receipt too!

And you are meant to trust the police. If you feel you can't thats fine. But its also fine to trust them. only a small minority are corrupt.

This is silly.

We are not discussing personality, we are discussion our system of application of common law and statutes. There is nothing - nothing - laid out in either to suggest that talking to a policeman is a beneficial move - even the most cursory reading of common law / statutes would inform you that co-operating with the police at any level can never be of any benefit to a citizen, nor does the law instruct you to do so.

There need be no corruption, even the most officious - petty - 'by-the-book' officer is - by his remit - instructed to use what you say against you - always.

And what might "And you are meant to trust the police" mean ? Did you read this in a magazine or book, or was it simply told to you, I have never heard that anyone is meant to 'trust the police'.

"Any information, all information will be used against you - always."

In what way exactly? I'm heartened to see a lot of the posts in this thread are on-side with police and can only surmise that you've had a particlarly unpleasant experience of them.

Yes, there is a 'Stops Database' in which details of people stopped/searched are inputted. However this is used only when needed to search on people already arrested or of particular interest to police in order to check out previous address/names given etc. (and when it is used, that fact is recorded) If you're a normal everyday person who rarely comes into contact with police and doesn't get arrested on a regular basis or for serious crimes (most people here I'm guessing) then you really have nothing to worry about.

There really isn't enough time in the day for the police to go looking up random people's details and using them for their own unspecified nefarious ends....

"Kids, never speak to an officer, if they ask you for your details, politely decline."

Yes, you don't need to give your details merely if you've been stopped. We'll wonder why though as most people tend to give their details. Most innocent people anyway. Case in point, I stopped a chap at about 0200 hours sitting on a bike. Lots of bike theft in the area. 'Let's have a word' thinks I. Gets a bit arsey about being stopped, refuses details, gets searched, has driving licence, name checked, matey's wanted.

Doesn't always happen like this granted but a nice example I think :)

And not speaking to an officer, or indeed anyone, is just quite rude. Even most naughty street kids are quite happy to chat away with us unless they're holding, in which case they just run!

Yes, I'm po-po. This is also me first post. Hello!

These two (A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney - and a serving police officer) - layout the basics.

Don't talk to police officers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

There really isn't enough time in the day for the police to go looking up random people's details and using them for their own unspecified nefarious ends....

Silly straw man argument.

"Kids, never speak to an officer, if they ask you for your details, politely decline."

Always - every time. Decline and continue with your business.

And not speaking to an officer, or indeed anyone, is just quite rude.

Chin up, I am sure you can simply move on and carry on with your work even after someone has decided they would rather not hand over their personal details.

That actually looks like an interesting video, but from the few minutes I watched appears to be about the right not to self-incriminate. That's a completely different matter to merely co-operating with the police in a simple stop and account procedure!

I apologise if there's more on the vid I haven't seen which is pertinent to this thread but it's nearly an hour long ferchrissakes!

Silly straw man argument.

Well could you quantify your argument that 'all information will be used against you'?!

Chin up, I am sure you can simply move on and carry on with your work even after someone has decided they would rather not hand over their personal details.

With a heavy heart, I do...

That actually looks like an interesting video, but from the few minutes I watched appears to be about the right not to self-incriminate.

You might need to watch the whole video - it is, of course, aimed at an American audience, but the basic points remain regardless of the jurisdiction - as both the lawyer and the officer make clear, yes you have to be a little bit silly to co-operate with the police (here by co-operate I mean - speak with - supply information and so on).

With a heavy heart, I do...

hi-PER'tro-fe ?

Your attitude is encouraging to say the least, the more officers realise the limits of their powers the better - it's not uncommon for some officers to allow their personal feelings to seep into situations where they have no place - when an officer is told to mind his or her own business (or simply asked to fuck off) while attempting to intimidate or demand personal details from members of the public - then - where the law is on the side of the public - they, the police officers, should do just that.

haha, i have a bike or atleast a frame strapped to my back every other day and surprisingly i haven't been stopped once by police on suspicion. Although the cambridge police over 'ere are more relaxed; or shit to what the statistics say.

But I've had people shout "fucking nick dat bike didn't ya?" to me many times.

...the more officers realise the limits of their powers the better - it's not uncommon for some officers to allow their personal feelings to seep into situations where they have no place - when an officer is told to mind his or her own business (or simply asked to fuck off) while attempting to intimidate or demand personal details from members of the public - then - where the law is on the side of the public - they, the police officers, should do just that.

Yes.

Yes, you don't need to give your details merely if you've been stopped. We'll wonder why though as most people tend to give their details. Most innocent people anyway.

People should NOT give their details and it's irresponsible to encourage them to do so imo. Why would you want them to give details? You don't need to ask them just as they don't need to give them.

ben631, that's a pretty brave debut, arguing with tynan when he's talking about the po-po. There's a few people on here who seem to have had ridculous amounts of hassle from the old bill, so you may turn into a bit of a hate-mob lightning conductor -- but I'm sure a copper doesn't need warning about people not liking him ;)

For what it's worth, I never seem to get asked what my name is, so this isn't really a problem for me. I don't know why that is, maybe I should become a crim if I have this apparent rozzer-teflon.

Any powers given to the police are to be wielded with care, failure to do so will inevitably result in a loss of respect. In the 1900s, criminals who were wanted for hanging offences would "come along quietly", without cuffs! These days, after the intervening years in which the police have been caught with their pants down on numerous occasions (Birmingham / Guildford etc); any little scrote will fight and run. This vicious circle now means; drink driving -- cuffs. Frail old bloke -- forget common sense, and the fact that he's in a riot van -- cuffs. Somebody giving lip? Nick him for section 5, cuff him, let him spend a night in the cells, and even if sarge / CPS NFA him, it'll teach him a lesson.

I hope I exaggerate, and that any decent coppers reading are appalled at such policing. I know there may well be some other people reading who think "sounds about right" :(

ben631, that's a pretty brave debut, arguing with tynan when he's talking about the po-po.

why is it brave to argue with tynan? everyone is welcomed to share their opinion.

These days, after the intervening years in which the police have been caught with their pants down on numerous occasions (Birmingham / Guildford etc); any little scrote will fight and run. This vicious circle now means; drink driving -- cuffs. Frail old bloke -- forget common sense, and the fact that he's in a riot van -- cuffs. Somebody giving lip? Nick him for section 5, cuff him, let him spend a night in the cells, and even if sarge / CPS NFA him, it'll teach him a lesson.

I hope I exaggerate, and that any decent coppers reading are appalled at such policing.

i think it's also fair to say that these days where little scrotes as young as 13 carry knives with the intention to use them, coppers don't like taking chances, so they cuff them to be on the safe side for both parties involved, it's also should be noted that people are sometimes cuffed so that they don't hurt themselves when in the back of said riot van (which is very common).

I think the key thing here is that the second example isn't them being deliberately unhelpful, it's cock up and lack of communication.

It's just like in the wire when ziggy shoots the greeks and the other half of homicide don't find out. Cock up, not conspiracy.

Sometimes the police are helpful, sometimes they are pretty stupid:

Helpful example:
My mate got knocked down quite badly on his bike last week, police were on the scene within minutes, were dealing with the guy that hit him straight away, had determined what happened and charging the guy there and then, as they realized the severity of the situation (my friend was very lucky to not get killed by oncoming traffic).

Unhelpful example:
3 times within the space of 2 months last year I got pulled over because I matched the description of a wanted gang member in the area apparently, the first time I was helpful because I respect they are doing their job etc.
When it got to the second time I actually said "Are you serious, I had this a few weeks ago, and got asked exactly the same questions and told exactly the same thing".
When it got to the third time I really lost my patience and said something along the lines of "are you taking the piss, this is the 3rd bloody time in 2 months, do you guys not communicate with each other or something?!". This time instead of being held for 10 minutes or so worth of questions, after a minute or two once they checked the plate against my name, I actually got an apology and then went on my way, annoying much!

i was pointing out reasons for cuffing and personal safety, i never wrote or implied knife wielding is a recent thing.

why is it brave to argue with tynan? everyone is welcomed to share their opinion.
Of course they are welcome to share their opinion. I for one appreciate a bit of balance, so it's nice to have a copper on the forum. I was just pointing out that this is a pretty robust forum, and diving straight into such a topic is a little unusual. Never mind, brave wasn't the right word anyway.

i think it's also fair to say that these days where little scrotes as young as 13 carry knives with the intention to use them, coppers don't like taking chances, so they cuff them to be on the safe side for both parties involved, it's also should be noted that people are sometimes cuffed so that they don't hurt themselves when in the back of said riot van (which is very common).
Like I said, it's a vicious circle. Crims aren't willing to come quietly any more. Can you imagine anyone "coming quietly" for anything these days? So the police cuff evryone as a matter of course. Lack of respect on both sides means it's getting worse.

The point is that there is no longer a concept of simple cooperation with the police. Bureaucracy, targets, commoditisation, among others, have led to a situation where the individual policeman, no matter what his or her motivation, is fettered by forms, and is incapable of exercising discretion.
please read the op again.

One example of where recording details for stop and accounts is a bad thing might be where an entirely innocent individual is stopped twice in one night for doing no more than being slightly too scruffy.

A simple check on the database of Stop and Accounts will then tell the second officer that this is an individual that may require further investigation. Because, of course, the database will not have the context of the first stop. Nor of the second, third and fourth stops.

This may lead to an arrest. Maybe for a Section 5 when the person says "WFT?". Nothing may come of the arrest, and it may be NFA'd within minutes.
i highly doubt that and i have never heard of aanyone being arrested for saying 'wtf', i'm sure it would be followed by 'i've just been stopped twice before and i haven't done anyhing wrong, can you please check'. please read crazyjames' account.

Until they try to obtain a visa to the US, or get a job requiring an enhanced CRB check.

Now I'm sure that there are checks and measures in place to ensure that this type of snafu doesn't happen, but I would rather not put my faith in the system that fucked up to be the one to sort out the fuck up.

Any interaction between individual and state, where the balance of power is in favour of the state, puts the individual at a permanent disadvantage.
have some faith, humanity still exists and stop watching 'enemy of the state'.

I'd say from Saturdays shenanigans, the police did a good job in both getting so many statements, looking after our bikes and doing their best to get the cnuts

I don't understand your point.
in the op, it was clear that the officer was not fettered by forms, he used discretion which according to you they apparently they are not capable of having.

"It can happen". Not "It always happens". Just because something has not happened within your own experience, it does not mean that that something does not happen elsewhere. by the same token, you cannot extrapolate from James's experience, nor can you discount other experiences on that basis.
i agree, but i can only comment on what i have experienced and from other's first hand accounts, nor did i discount anyone's experience on this thread. james presented an experience and i quoted that as a prime example of being stopped and the fact that he was not arrested for being pissed off. like i said i have been stopped many times in the past, outside my door, singled out while walking with friends, or because i was alone in the street at 4am etc, etc.

anyway this discussion is going in circles and in a negative direction, the op was pleased with the reason for being stopped and had no issues with giving his details. it's amazing how much it has derailed towards a negative attitude although he thought it was a good thing. jamesiw posted a positive experience with police and that was ignored within the context of this thread, no doubt clouded by conspiracy theories.
i had a chat with veevee yesterday at the bright times do and she mentioned we (westerners) spend too much time thinking negative thoughts, and i totally agree.

As a point of interest, in the Sunday time article featured in the thread "get off your bike" there's a response on the linked webpage from a police officer saying as a cyclist himself, he has realised that strictly obeying the road rules on a bike is not always the safest option, and henceforth has stated that so long as a cyclist is not directly endangering anybody, he would not issue any fines or make any arrests against cyclist disobeying road rules... I thought that was a great dose of realism out of the police force, which often times is known for carrying out the letter of the law with no regard to it's original intent. Check it out

ben631, that's a pretty brave debut, arguing with tynan when he's talking about the po-po. There's a few people on here who seem to have had ridculous amounts of hassle from the old bill, so you may turn into a bit of a hate-mob lightning conductor -- but I'm sure a copper doesn't need warning about people not liking him ;)

I find it strange that so many get hassled by 'us', I can honestly say that in nearly 5 years doing my job I've never had a go at, or indeed see my colleagues have a go at, any cyclist! The worst I've seen is a mumble of 'fucking idiot' when a cyclist does a particularly dangerous Red.

But then I have a friend who was ticketed (by City, not Met ;) )for going through on a completely clear junction. So I'll never deny there are some arseholes who enjoy the power and rarely use discretion!

But we're not all like that! And no-one's gonna agree on this thread so I'm now leaving it alone :)

i think it's also fair to say that these days where little scrotes as young as 13 carry knives with the intention to use them, coppers don't like taking chances, so they cuff them to be on the safe side for both parties involved, it's also should be noted that people are sometimes cuffed so that they don't hurt themselves when in the back of said riot van (which is very common).

ben perhaps you can update me, but from my reading of the police handbook (possibly not called that), people should only be handcuffed under extraordinary circumstances, where they pose a violent threat to themselves or others. empirical evidence suggests that anyone is cuffed for anything.

Well, it's a use of force and should therefore be justified. It'll depend on a myriad of factors in reality with preventing escape/harm to themselves and others being the most obvious. Unfortunately there does seem to be a culture of 'justify why you didn't cuff them rather than why you did' amongst some police.

Most of us use common sense though and I rarely cuff people if I can help it, but then I'm a relatively muscular 6ft, 14st and possibly take more chances than my smaller/unfit colleagues...

However, if I had arrested someone for carrying a knife/drugs then common sense would dictate that no matter their age/size I cuff them to restrict movement incase they are carrying more of the same in an intimate unsearched area and can thus discard/use said items.

I would not just cuff someone for the hell of it though, and nor do the majority of my colleagues!

I find it strange that so many get hassled by 'us', I can honestly say that in nearly 5 years doing my job I've never had a go at, or indeed see my colleagues have a go at, any cyclist! The worst I've seen is a mumble of 'fucking idiot' when a cyclist does a particularly dangerous Red.

But then I have a friend who was ticketed (by City, not Met ;) )for going through on a completely clear junction. So I'll never deny there are some arseholes who enjoy the power and rarely use discretion!

But we're not all like that! And no-one's gonna agree on this thread so I'm now leaving it alone :)
Ah, well city police, that explains a lot ;) The met don't have red light tickets any more do they? In fairness, I think the hassle is generalised late-night hassle, not cyclist-specific hassle. Discretion, used wisely, is a police officer's most useful tool. Glad to see it still prevails.

why is it brave to argue with tynan? everyone is welcomed to share their opinion.

I am sure it was a joke, all opinions welcome.