Britain - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

Because it's a short step to a totalitarian state if people are required to identify themselves to the police when going about their normal business. Especially when they are simply walking the street.

Refusing to identify yourself doesn't make you a suspect. That's even worse policing to assume that all citizens are suspect until proven otherwise.

Driving is a slightly different context, as driving is a privilege, not a right.

It's not quite a black and white issue. The police have a job to do. If they are looking for Joe because Joe just committed a crime, and you fit the description of Joe and are in the area and the police come across you, you have a couple of options. Exercise your right not to show your I.D. and there's a good possibility that the police won't just take you at your word that you're not Joe. They will do their job, attempt to protect the public, and place you into custody so they can determine you are not the suspect they are looking for. Total waste of time and resources for everyone involved and keeps them from looking for the actual Joe, who might go on to commit another offense while the police attempt to verify who you are. Or you could cooperate, provide your I.D., and hopefully be on your way in a few minutes and allow the police to continue their search quickly and efficiently. Option 2 seems the more logical choice given that my time is very valuable and I rarely have a few hours to waste. Your results may vary.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's not quite a black and white issue. The police have a job to do. If they are looking for Joe because Joe just committed a crime, and you fit the description of Joe and are in the area and the police come across you, you have a couple of options. Exercise your right not to show your I.D. and there's a good possibility that the police won't just take you at your word that you're not Joe. They will do their job, attempt to protect the public, and place you into custody so they can determine you are not the suspect they are looking for. Total waste of time and resources for everyone involved and keeps them from looking for the actual Joe, who might go on to commit another offense while the police attempt to verify who you are. Or you could cooperate, provide your I.D., and hopefully be on your way in a few minutes and allow the police to continue their search quickly and efficiently. Option 2 seems the more logical choice given that my time is very valuable and I rarely have a few hours to waste. Your results may vary.

It's actually very black and white if you consider the bolded part. If a crime has been committed, and a police have a description that closely matches yourself then they are within their rights to ask you to identify yourself, and as in the video if you fail to do so then British police have the power to arrest you until you provide ID or they are able to identify you (or consider you no longer a suspect).

However, if police simply have a description of "black man" then it is not acceptable for them to stop and arrest every black person with a 2 mile radius unless they ID themselves.

It's quite simple for a police officer to say that you have been stopped because you match the description (i.e. white male, 20-30, wearing double denim and a pink beany) and have that confirmed to you over the radio (i.e. they didn't just make it up by looking at you).

Police have a job to do, entirely agree. But lazy policing erodes freedoms. A good example of this is my local police force breathalysing 20,000 drivers over Xmas, and catching 200 drink drivers. That's not good policing.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Police have a job to do, entirely agree. But lazy policing erodes freedoms. A good example of this is my local police force breathalysing 20,000 drivers over Xmas, and catching 200 drink drivers. That's not good policing.

If they got away with it and led to an increase in drink-driving accidents would that also be bad policing?

 

[ExigeEvan]

If they got away with it and led to an increase in drink-driving accidents would that also be bad policing?

People get away with drink driving all the time and there's no evidence any of those arrested would have gone on to have an accident.

I don't support drink driving in the slightest.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wait, so the only reason you refused and inconvenienced them was because they were "only the police"?

They're just citizens the same as me, the inconvenience was as much mine as theirs.

Dedicating a short moment to let them know you're not the person they're looking for shouldn't be that difficult, unless you're genuinely in a rush. I don't think I'll ever understand people who decide to refrain for no good reason - you're only placing yourself on the suspect list at best by doing that.

It worries me that you think you're automatically a suspect. If you were a suspect on reasonable grounds then they would be able to detain you. They can't simply detain somebody for a look-and-see.

I'll be sure to identify myself next time I'm stopped for any reason, just to compensate for behavior like that.

Excellent. That's your right and I support your actions.

It's not quite a black and white issue. The police have a job to do. If they are looking for Joe because Joe just committed a crime, and you fit the description of Joe and are in the area and the police come across you, you have a couple of options. Exercise your right not to show your I.D. and there's a good possibility that the police won't just take you at your word that you're not Joe. They will do their job, attempt to protect the public, and place you into custody so they can determine you are not the suspect they are looking for.

Exactly this. If the police don't detain you (ie stop you moving from the spot where they have challenged you) then you are free to go unidentified (unless you're operating a motor vehicle, as noted).

The onus is on them to have information to reasonably link you to their suspicions. If it was otherwise and simply anybody could be stopped and forced to identify themselves then you'd have a police state.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

People get away with drink driving all the time and there's no evidence any of those arrested would have gone on to have an accident.

I don't support drink driving in the slightest.

I guess the ultimate litmus test would be strict enforcement of drink driving vs relaxed, if that will ever happen

 

[Famine]

It's not quite a black and white issue.

It's quite black and white. You are not obliged to identify yourself to the police in the UK unless you are being reported for an offence (and since not identifying yourself isn't an offence, you can't be reported for that).

In fact Avon and Somerset police, who tasered the chap in question, make note of this on their website:

You do not have to give your name, address or date of birth to the police if you're stopped and searched unless you are being reported for an offence.

And that is the letter of the law - as black and white as it gets. Moreover:

A police officer has powers to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying:
* illegal drugs
* a weapon
* stolen property
* something which could be used to commit a crime, eg a crowbar

You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer.

The police stopping this man were not senior police officers and were not stopping him on suspicion of carrying drugs, weapons, stolen goods or tools to commit a crime. They were stopping him because they thought he might be someone of interest - which they're entitled to, but it's not grounds for a stop and search. This is also black and white.


Now, there are right ways and wrong ways for the police to approach this, and there are right ways and wrong ways for the citizen to approach it too. On this occasion it seems that the citizen approached it the right way, by politely declining their request (as opposed to yelling "I don't answer to my legal name, I'm a freeman on the land!", which is a dickish way of declining their request) and the police approached it the wrong way by assuming without reasonable suspicion that he absolutely was the guy they were looking for because he declined to give any other identity and shooting him in the face with a taser.

Personally, I don't mind interacting with the police all that much and would probably make their lives easier by providing my details - but I'm not legally required to and they are not permitted to use force to extract them.

 

[xyloscissor]

Personally, I don't mind interacting with the police all that much and would probably make their lives easier by providing my details - but I'm not legally required to and they are not permitted to use force to extract them.

If you tell them no here in the u.s. they don't like it and usually request your SSN, you don't have to give that either, they can detain you while they ask a judge for a warrant but usually they won't.

I'm generally cooperative as well but you don't have to be and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Generally speaking I cannot recall a time I was asked for it when I was not doing something wrong of some sort lol.

Here is an instance where I did say no, me and a mate driving up a mountain to ski, lots of cars and out of nowhere roadblock! Lame, 1/2 up a bum no mans road right? To hell with that, everyone was pissed off. Cool thing was, the resort gave us all discounts for the delay. Many complaints were made after the fact and it was determined to be total tax collection attempt.

The official statement from the state police was something to the sort that they were looking for a drug trafficker. Of course because drug traffickers typically drive up a snowy mountain at 7am to do something...

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's actually very black and white if you consider the bolded part. If a crime has been committed, and a police have a description that closely matches yourself then they are within their rights to ask you to identify yourself, and as in the video if you fail to do so then British police have the power to arrest you until you provide ID or they are able to identify you (or consider you no longer a suspect).

However, if police simply have a description of "black man" then it is not acceptable for them to stop and arrest every black person with a 2 mile radius unless they ID themselves.

It's quite simple for a police officer to say that you have been stopped because you match the description (i.e. white male, 20-30, wearing double denim and a pink beany) and have that confirmed to you over the radio (i.e. they didn't just make it up by looking at you).

Police have a job to do, entirely agree. But lazy policing erodes freedoms. A good example of this is my local police force breathalysing 20,000 drivers over Xmas, and catching 200 drink drivers. That's not good policing.

Yes, because no one could ever take off a hat or change their shirt while running from the law. Things don't always fall into neat little compartments like suspects perfectly matching a description, leading to judgment being required in many situations.

It's quite black and white. You are not obliged to identify yourself to the police in the UK unless you are being reported for an offence (and since not identifying yourself isn't an offence, you can't be reported for that).

In fact Avon and Somerset police, who tasered the chap in question, make note of this on their website:And that is the letter of the law - as black and white as it gets. Moreover:The police stopping this man were not senior police officers and were not stopping him on suspicion of carrying drugs, weapons, stolen goods or tools to commit a crime. They were stopping him because they thought he might be someone of interest - which they're entitled to, but it's not grounds for a stop and search. This is also black and white.


Now, there are right ways and wrong ways for the police to approach this, and there are right ways and wrong ways for the citizen to approach it too. On this occasion it seems that the citizen approached it the right way, by politely declining their request (as opposed to yelling "I don't answer to my legal name, I'm a freeman on the land!", which is a dickish way of declining their request) and the police approached it the wrong way by assuming without reasonable suspicion that he absolutely was the guy they were looking for because he declined to give any other identity and shooting him in the face with a taser.

Personally, I don't mind interacting with the police all that much and would probably make their lives easier by providing my details - but I'm not legally required to and they are not permitted to use force to extract them.

The law is black and white - life is not. This incident went badly obviously and the outcome could have been avoided by different choices on both sides most likely. But there is always a choice even when the law is black and white, hence, it's not black and white.

 

[Famine]

But there is always a choice even when the law is black and white

In this instance the choice was not one legally available, where the police used force to obtain a man's identity without reasonable suspicion on the assumption of guilt...

 

[ExigeEvan]

Yes, because no one could ever take off a hat or change their shirt while running from the law. Things don't always fall into neat little compartments like suspects perfectly matching a description, leading to judgment being required in many situations.

I think you're vastly overestimating the average petty criminal.

Judgement is all well and good (for example a man seen leaving the crime scene in January with no coat is out of place) but stopping everyone that matches the most basic of the description (gender, race etc) isn't.

 

[Carbonox]

So once more on the subject of the cops... where exactly is the evidence that they only stopped the man because he was black?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think you're vastly overestimating the average petty criminal.

Judgement is all well and good (for example a man seen leaving the crime scene in January with no coat is out of place) but stopping everyone that matches the most basic of the description (gender, race etc) isn't.

I'm not overestimating anything. Anyone can take off a hat or a coat. Maybe they do or maybe they don't but do you really want the police to proceed only on the assumption that a criminal is so stupid they would never take off their bowler or throw off their old blue sweater?

 

[Touring Mars]

Apparently the UK's nuclear deterrent, Trident, isn't working and a 'scandal' is brewing the British press about the fact that the government apparently 'covered up' a failed missile test before voting to renew the system at a cost of £40bn. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but wouldn't it be a matter of national security to publicly announce that our nuclear deterrent was broken? Also, if it is broken, wouldn't it be a smart move to start renewing it? In this day and age, it would be foolish to try to conceal anything so massive, but I think the best idea is to publicly announce a Trident replacement, but then syphon off the cash and surreptitiously spend it on schools, hospitals etc. That way, opponents of Trident get what they want (to spend the cash on better things than nuclear weapons) and our 'enemies' still believe we are nuclear-armed when in fact we would not be...

 

[UKMikey]

So once more on the subject of the cops... where exactly is the evidence that they only stopped the man because he was black?

If they didn't then they have to provide the additional reason they stopped him. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop other people assuming the worst. It's not up to the man who was stopped or anyone else to prove that they only stopped him because he was black.

Perhaps it's the fact that UK cops aren't armed that causes people not to blindly follow their orders if they've done nothing wrong.

 

[Carbonox]

If they didn't then they have to provide the additional reason they stopped him. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop other people assuming the worst. It's not up to the man who was stopped or anyone else to prove that they only stopped him because he was black.

Perhaps it's the fact that UK cops aren't armed that causes people not to blindly follow their orders if they've done nothing wrong.

So, guilty until proven innocent is what you're saying?

 

[UKMikey]

So, guilty until proven innocent is what you're saying?

Quite the opposite in the case of the man who was arrested. Don't you believe the police need to show they have a good reason to arrest or detain someone?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Quite the opposite in the case of the man who was arrested. Don't you believe the police need to show they have a good reason to arrest or detain someone?

If asked in an official capacity, of course. Do they have to prove they aren't racists every time they arrest someone? No. If someone wants to fling around allegations like that, it's on them to prove it.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Apparently the UK's nuclear deterrent, Trident, isn't working and a 'scandal' is brewing the British press about the fact that the government apparently 'covered up' a failed missile test before voting to renew the system at a cost of £40bn. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but wouldn't it be a matter of national security to publicly announce that our nuclear deterrent was broken? Also, if it is broken, wouldn't it be a smart move to start renewing it? In this day and age, it would be foolish to try to conceal anything so massive, but I think the best idea is to publicly announce a Trident replacement, but then syphon off the cash and surreptitiously spend it on schools, hospitals etc. That way, opponents of Trident get what they want (to spend the cash on better things than nuclear weapons) and our 'enemies' still believe we are nuclear-armed when in fact we would not be...

Trident is the most reliable ICBM launch system in the world, fact.

There's also plenty of information in the public domain about what actually happened in this trial that explain everything.

Also, if this was actually a big deal then the Russians would have provided comment when it happened as they inevitably would have been observing the launch.

All that said, the Shadow Defence Minister was actually very level headed about it on Radio 4 this morning, unlike her party colleagues.

 

[UKMikey]

If asked in an official capacity, of course. Do they have to prove they aren't racists every time they arrest someone? No. If someone wants to fling around allegations like that, it's on them to prove it.

I don't think people are flinging around allegations but they surely have a right to know why they were targeted.

[EDIT] The charges againt Adunbi have been dropped. http://www.inquisitr.com/3907783/ju...e-afro-caribbean-community-relations-adviser/

 

[Touring Mars]

Trident is the most reliable ICBM launch system in the world, fact.

There's also plenty of information in the public domain about what actually happened in this trial that explain everything.

Also, if this was actually a big deal then the Russians would have provided comment when it happened as they inevitably would have been observing the launch.

All that said, the Shadow Defence Minister was actually very level headed about it on Radio 4 this morning, unlike her party colleagues.

Speaking of Shadow Ministers, did you happen to catch Diane Abbott on the Sunday Politics show on, erm, Sunday? I literally wanted to smash my television every time she opened her mouth, but stopped short because I quite like my television, but I digress. Instead of answering questions on Labour's position on Brexit (which she said was 'absolutely clear'*), she insisted on criticising Theresa May's position on Brexit and, bizarrely, appeared more concerned about what Nissan think.... seriously!

* Labour's position on Brexit is, apparently, that the referendum result 'must be respected' and therefore we must leave the EU, but coming out of the single market is bad so we should stay in that, which means keeping all the stuff that leave voters voted against (free movement of people, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ etc.). So, in other words, Labour want to 'respect the result' of the referendum, but ignore the point/spirit of it. The only thing that came across as 'clear' to me was that Labour's position on Brexit is whatever is most popular with the general public - granted, that also seems to be the Conservative position.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Apparently the UK's nuclear deterrent, Trident, isn't working and a 'scandal' is brewing the British press about the fact that the government apparently 'covered up' a failed missile test before voting to renew the system at a cost of £40bn. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but wouldn't it be a matter of national security to publicly announce that our nuclear deterrent was broken? Also, if it is broken, wouldn't it be a smart move to start renewing it? In this day and age, it would be foolish to try to conceal anything so massive, but I think the best idea is to publicly announce a Trident replacement, but then syphon off the cash and surreptitiously spend it on schools, hospitals etc. That way, opponents of Trident get what they want (to spend the cash on better things than nuclear weapons) and our 'enemies' still believe we are nuclear-armed when in fact we would not be...

What national security issue? That someone might nuke us cos we can't nuke em back?

We had/have the Tornado IDS Strike/Attack aircraft. That is our nuclear delivery system. We do not need stupidity expensive submarines for that. Stupidity expensive aircraft do it just as well.

 

[ExigeEvan]

We had/have the Tornado IDS Strike/Attack aircraft. That is our nuclear delivery system.

No, we do not have a Tornado nuclear strike capability. We possess no aircraft launched nuclear weapons. The Tornado is also shortly due for retirement.

We do not need stupidity expensive submarines for that. Stupidity expensive aircraft do it just as well.

No, they don't. Aircraft are relatively easily intercepted. To date there is no known way to intercept a ICBM on entry with multiple warheads with any acceptable level of success.

 

[Tired Tyres]

No, we do not have a Tornado nuclear strike capability. We possess no aircraft launched nuclear weapons. The Tornado is also shortly due for retirement.


No, they don't. Aircraft are relatively easily intercepted. To date there is no known way to intercept a ICBM on entry with multiple warheads with any acceptable level of success.

Look up the meaning of Strike in this context.

Maybe not now, but the IDS was designed to fly at near ground level at over 900 mph to deliver nuclear payloads to targets their crews where trained to attack in the most densely protected airspace outside of the USA.

You can't change your mind with missiles. You sure as hell can with bombers.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Look up the meaning of Strike in this context.

Maybe not now, but the IDS was designed to fly at near ground level at over 900 mph to deliver nuclear payloads to targets their crews where trained to attack in the most densely protected airspace outside of the USA.

You can't change your mind with missiles. You sure as hell can with bombers.

Check the success rate of Tornado aircraft in GW1. It wasn't great.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Check the success rate of Tornado aircraft in GW1. It wasn't great.

Roll you eyes all you like mate. I don't care. You've got your view I've got mine. Neither of us is going to change our views.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We had/have the Tornado IDS Strike/Attack aircraft. That is our nuclear delivery system. We do not need stupidity expensive submarines for that. Stupidity expensive aircraft do it just as well.

Theoretically, yes. We have no nuclear munitions to fit it, we also have the problem that unless we place them at vulnerable FOBs all our on-alert-strikes would come out of the same small island.

That's before you even get to the ongoing decommissioning of our GR4s.

You can't change your mind with missiles. You sure as hell can with bombers.

No, you can't. Once you launch to strike it's a one-way mission, it's too complex a procedure to authenticate a stand-down.

Neither of us is going to change our views.

In this case it's about the facts, no?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Theoretically, yes. We have no nuclear munitions to fit it, we also have the problem that unless we place them at vulnerable FOBs all our on-alert-strikes would come out of the same small island.

That's before you even get to the ongoing decommissioning of our GR4s.



No, you can't. Once you launch to strike it's a one-way mission, it's too complex a procedure to authenticate a stand-down.



In this case it's about the facts, no?

As in what? One would work if we had the ordinance/political will whereas the other shoots its missile in the wrong direction? Some choice. As for storing them here. Isn't that what the Americans were doing anyway? Where is the quick strike option an enemy has that makes Trident better?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Roll you eyes all you like mate. I don't care. You've got your view I've got mine. Neither of us is going to change our views.

Is this now a post-truth discussion? Alternative facts?

You are advocating that we replace our reliable, successful and deployable (albeit expensive) with an imaginary, unsuccessful and vulnerable solution.

 

[xyloscissor]

Without a sound missile delivery system it's hard to consider a Country a nuclear power in all honesty.