Don't get caught littering in Britain....

Now you can be arrested for any offence By John Steele, Crime Correspondent (Filed: 29/12/2005) news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/29/narrest29.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/29/ixnewstop.html Police are to be given sweeping powers to arrest people for every offence, including dropping litter, failure to wear a seat belt and other minor misdemeanours. The measures, which come into force on Jan 1, are the biggest expansion in decades of police powers to deprive people of their liberty.   Hazel Blears At present, officers can generally arrest people if they suspect them of committing an offence which carries at least five years in prison. They will now have the discretion to detain someone if they suspect any offence and think that an arrest is "necessary". The civil liberties organisation Liberty said the change represented "a fundamental shift" in power from the public to the police and the state and was open to misuse. It pointed out that powers to stop people under anti-terrorist legislation, which the public had been reassured would be applied correctly and sparingly, were wrongly used against an elderly heckler at the Labour Party conference in the autumn. There are also worries that the new arrest laws will create major problems for constables, whose judgment on the "necessity" of an arrest is likely to be routinely challenged in the courts, particularly under human rights legislation. Officers will have to satisfy themselves of "a person's involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence" and that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that the person's arrest is necessary". They will also have the power to take digital photographs of suspects on the street when they have been arrested, detained or given a fixed penalty notice. The Home Office said the move would save time spent in taking suspects to a police station to be photographed and that it would "greatly reduce the ability of suspects to deny that they were the person in question". But many people fear that the move will create a vast database of photographs of innocent citizens which could be kept even if the police decide not to take any further action against them. The Government says that the existing legal framework on arrestable and non-arrestable offences has become "bewilderingly" complex and needs to be simplified. A Home Office spokesman said yesterday that arrests would not soar because, in addition to the necessity test, many offences would be covered by fixed penalty notices. Police chiefs have made clear that, although they were concerned about the current system, they did not ask for all offences to be arrestable. Liberty said that three years ago the Home Office and the Cabinet Office had advocated "a definitive list" of arrestable offences and enhanced training, not a move towards all offences being arrestable. Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Officers need firm guidance on how to use these new powers. Nobody wants to live in a society in which every offence results in people being dragged down to the police station." Edward Garnier, the Tories' spokesman on home affairs, said: "The effect of the new arrangements will need to be monitored closely." Like Liberty, he referred to the ejection from the Labour conference of Walter Wolfgang, 82, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a Labour Party member since 1948, and how a policeman citing the Terrorism Act detained him when he tried to get back into the hall. Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, said: "It is vital that the police are equipped with the powers they need to enable them to do their jobs properly and effectively. The powers need to be updated to reflect modern policing priorities and the changing nature of criminal activity. "We need to maintain the crucial balance between the powers of the police and an individual's rights. "The introduction of a single, rationalised power of arrest simplifies arrest powers and requires the police officer to consider the necessity of the arrest."

In before the "If you don't commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about!" crowd.

For the country that is supposed to be so much like the US this is pretty sad.

1984

remember, their strategy is to make everyone a criminal, even if they don't know it.

The next major step to be taken once your populace subjects have been disarmed.  

As long as it doesn't happen here......

Quoted: The next major step to be taken once your populace subjects have been disarmed.

Quoted: As long as it doesn't happen here......

A few JBT apologists on here had to just reach for some paper towels to clean themselves off...

Britain just keeps on being the perfect example of why

we must continually keep vigilant in protecting our freedoms

on all fronts.

GM

Quoted: The next major step to be taken once your populace subjects have been disarmed.

Yup.

They've been disarmed.

Almost any object can and will be classified as a weapon if it suits the State.

You are almost certain to be in as much or more trouble than your attacker if you defend yourself in such a way that harms the criminal in any way.

You are photographed and videotaped hundreds of times a day by CCTV and speed cameras.  That data will shortly be part of a system that will track ALL vehicles and retain that information for YEARS to come.

There has been a report of what can only be described as a "thought crime" being investigated by the police.

Now you may be arrested and photographed for literally ANY offense that the police have a whim to do so.

1984 showed up a little late and has more creature comforts than the squalor Orwell described but it's still here nonetheless.

Tag because I live there!

Edit:  And shit!  I got 15 guns! Disarmed my ass!

The only thing the Brits have left to lose is the right to vote.  And that is coming next.  The people will be deemed to stupid and dangerous to make such monumental decisions, like choosing their Gov representatives, and all elections will be canceled.  The people will not be able to do anything about it.  Since all the law abiding gun owners have been emasculated, no rebellion will be mounted.  Basically in 10 years the Brits will be living in a Stalinistic society.

Welcome to Communism 2006 style!!!

"Officers will have to satisfy themselves of "a person's involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence" and that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that the person's arrest is necessary"

Wow...  Nice standard of evidence.

Promises that these types of laws will 'never be abused' from politcians, should be a red flag to everyone in the UK.  It's a flat out admission that the potential is there.

Quoted: The only thing the Brits have left to lose is the right to vote.  And that is coming next.  The people will be deemed to stupid and dangerous to make such monumental decisions, like choosing their Gov representatives, and all elections will be canceled.  The people will not be able to do anything about it.  Since all the law abiding gun owners have been emasculated, no rebellion will be mounted.  Basically in 10 years the Brits will be living in a Stalinistic society. Welcome to Communism 2006 style!!!

Nice screenie, but I am one happy multiple gun owning Brit thanks!

And as for Stalin, I often wondered why no one made a V Bull of him?

Total number of Police in England and Wales; @145,000

Population of England & Wales: 52,000,000

Let's see, 52 million divided by, uh, 145 thou, carry the two...

358 people can take on each cop, and take their country back.  


No, they can't even fight back against criminals.

Quoted: Total number of Police in England and Wales; @145,000 Population of England & Wales: 52,000,000 Let's see, 52 million divided by, uh, 145 thou, carry the two... 358 people can take on each cop, and take their country back.   No, they can't even fight back against criminals.

.... The frog was in pot of tepid water before the fire was lit under it.

There was a US Supreme Court case recently which held that the cops could arrest and handcuff a woman for not wearing her seatbelt.  They took her to jail and booked her.  In Texas I believe.  No drugs were involved, the cops just wanted to give her a hard time because they thought she was a bitch.  So it is legal to take someone to jail here too, even if the 'crime' could not be punished by jail time.

Read it and weep:  Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.

Quoted: Quoted: Tag because I live there! Edit:  And shit!  I got 15 guns! Disarmed my ass! Yes, we must be thankfull for our free cousins telling us what we disarmed 'subjects' are in for....

Quoted: Don't get caught littering in Britain.... Now you can be arrested for any offence By John Steele, Crime Correspondent (Filed: 29/12/2005) news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/29/narrest29.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/29/ixnewstop.html Police are to be given sweeping powers to arrest people for every offence, including dropping litter, failure to wear a seat belt and other minor misdemeanours. The measures, which come into force on Jan 1, are the biggest expansion in decades of police powers to deprive people of their liberty. news.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/12/29/narrest29.jpg   Hazel Blears At present, officers can generally arrest people if they suspect them of committing an offence which carries at least five years in prison. They will now have the discretion to detain someone if they suspect any offence and think that an arrest is "necessary". The civil liberties organisation Liberty said the change represented "a fundamental shift" in power from the public to the police and the state and was open to misuse. It pointed out that powers to stop people under anti-terrorist legislation, which the public had been reassured would be applied correctly and sparingly, were wrongly used against an elderly heckler at the Labour Party conference in the autumn. There are also worries that the new arrest laws will create major problems for constables, whose judgment on the "necessity" of an arrest is likely to be routinely challenged in the courts, particularly under human rights legislation. Officers will have to satisfy themselves of "a person's involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence" and that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that the person's arrest is necessary". They will also have the power to take digital photographs of suspects on the street when they have been arrested, detained or given a fixed penalty notice. The Home Office said the move would save time spent in taking suspects to a police station to be photographed and that it would "greatly reduce the ability of suspects to deny that they were the person in question". But many people fear that the move will create a vast database of photographs of innocent citizens which could be kept even if the police decide not to take any further action against them. The Government says that the existing legal framework on arrestable and non-arrestable offences has become "bewilderingly" complex and needs to be simplified. A Home Office spokesman said yesterday that arrests would not soar because, in addition to the necessity test, many offences would be covered by fixed penalty notices. Police chiefs have made clear that, although they were concerned about the current system, they did not ask for all offences to be arrestable. Liberty said that three years ago the Home Office and the Cabinet Office had advocated "a definitive list" of arrestable offences and enhanced training, not a move towards all offences being arrestable. Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Officers need firm guidance on how to use these new powers. Nobody wants to live in a society in which every offence results in people being dragged down to the police station." Edward Garnier, the Tories' spokesman on home affairs, said: "The effect of the new arrangements will need to be monitored closely." Like Liberty, he referred to the ejection from the Labour conference of Walter Wolfgang, 82, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a Labour Party member since 1948, and how a policeman citing the Terrorism Act detained him when he tried to get back into the hall. Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, said: "It is vital that the police are equipped with the powers they need to enable them to do their jobs properly and effectively. The powers need to be updated to reflect modern policing priorities and the changing nature of criminal activity. "We need to maintain the crucial balance between the powers of the police and an individual's rights. "The introduction of a single, rationalised power of arrest simplifies arrest powers and requires the police officer to consider the necessity of the arrest."

Heck, here in the USA you can be arrested for speeding, 'disturbing the peace', 'disorderly conduct', and such...

We even have laws REQUIRING an arrest for any domestic disturbance call in some areas...

What's the diff?

Quoted: There was a US Supreme Court case recently which held that the cops could arrest and handcuff a woman for not wearing her seatbelt.  They took her to jail and booked her.  In Texas I believe.  No drugs were involved, the cops just wanted to give her a hard time because they thought she was a bitch.  So it is legal to take someone to jail here too, even if the 'crime' could not be punished by jail time. Read it and weep:  Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.

Would that not also be obstruction of justice? ETA: also, in some states signing off on the ticket is promising to appear in court for said charge. Did she decide she'd play the old"I'm not signing shit!" card? If so, she's held until she promises to appear.

I bet is some bitch gave an ARFCOMMER a hard time at a car wash the only response to the thread would be 200 "You shoulda drawn down!"s.

Quoted: Quoted: There was a US Supreme Court case recently which held that the cops could arrest and handcuff a woman for not wearing her seatbelt.  They took her to jail and booked her.  In Texas I believe.  No drugs were involved, the cops just wanted to give her a hard time because they thought she was a bitch.  So it is legal to take someone to jail here too, even if the 'crime' could not be punished by jail time. Read it and weep:  Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408. Would that not also be obstruction of justice? ETA: also, in some states signing off on the ticket is promising to appear in court for said charge. Did she decide she'd play the old"I'm not signing shit!" card? If so, she's held until she promises to appear.

No.  All she was arrested for was failure to wear a setabelt.  Under TX law, a person can be arrested for any traffic offence except speeding.  Justice Souter held that "If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender."

It looks like Britain is just following our lead in this regard.

Quoted: The next major step to be taken after once your populace subjects have been disarmed.

The only thing the Brits have left to lose is the right to vote.

Which is already taken since if they protest against gun legislation, they are automatically regarded as criminals and, then, automatically disbarred from gun ownership. The ATF JBT's are changing their panties at this point.

Farewell Britannica!!

wganz

I don't see how this is different than the US.

For example:  Cop doesn't like the way someone looks.  He examines their car closely for a reason to make a stop......brake light, tail light, license plate light, rear tags, wheel wobbling (public safety) cracked windshield, rearview mirrors, anything.  Runs the tags for outstanding warrents or traffic tickets.  Suddenly he sees suspicious driver spit his gum out the window.  There is the reason for the stop.

If the guy doesn't stop soon enough, gets a little mouthy, or is just plain uncooperative will any charges be brought?


I think it is more of a tool to detain those who make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

SRM

Quoted: As long as it doesn't happen here......

It depends on what state you lve in. In ga, you can be arrested for just about anything. Only a couple of years ago the law was changed to NOT allow an officer to arrest you for any traffic infraction. up until then, if he stopped you and you got a case of the ass, he could take you straight to jail and if you resisted you would be charged with obstruction.

You can be arrested for not having a fishing license on your person, no boat registration, littering, or just about anything else.  Not that it is done frequently.

GR

You guys aren't even allowed trusted to cross the road in some states without walking to a pedestrian crossing (jay walking?)

Can you get arrested for that ?

I hate to break it to you guys but this IS already here! If you think the cops can't arrest you cause "they feel like it" you are sadly mistaken. Maybe just maybe the charges will be later dropped becuase it was a BS arrest, but so what? You still got photo'd and finger printed and cuffed and other pleasant things. Basically the cops know the so called "law" and know how to use it to get what they want and that's about it. They use general "catch all" offences that are left to the descretion of the LEO to nab people for whatever the reason. The biggest "net" they use is "disorderly conduct" basically a BS charge that they can bring to get you arrested. It can range from mouthing off to failing to obey instructions to whatever. The other greatest hits are "loitering", "tresspassing" and "public intoxication". Suppose you "think" (yeah right comrade) that you can walk about the USA without ID, Then some cop approaches you and demands you show I.D. , he does'nt do it for resonable suspicion or a description of a suspect in the vacinity he just dont like your face! and you refuse to ID yourself, will you get away with it? If you think yes , you are a fool. If you think the cops "need a reason" to arrest you, you are also a fool.

Quoted: Question for you guys over there, I like stargazing and regularly walk down to the local park in the small hours to look up at the sky. Last year I was walking back from the Park @3am when a Police car pulled up by me. The two officers got out of the car and asked me if I minded telling them what I was doing; Cop: Can you tell us what you're up to sir? Me: Walking and minding my own business... Cop: No need for that attitude sir we're just doing our job, where were you walking from? Me:(points over shoulder), Back there Cop: And were were you walking to? Me: Home Cop: And were is home? Me: (points down the road in the direction I was headed), Down there. Cop: You're not being very helpful are you sir? Me: I'm cold and my bed is calling, can I go now? Cop: OK sir, goodnight What would happen if I reponded like that to a US cop if I was stopped at 3am walking in a residential area? ANdy

Not much different, depends on the cop and his asshole quotient.  Actually you had it better before this law they are proposing.  In some states you can be arrested for even very minor offenses and certainly anything that carries any jail time as a punishment you could be arrested for.  It sure as hell doesn't need to carry a 5 year sentence.

Putting the GBR vs. US crap aside for a moment, is this something you feel happy about or something you'd prefer not to see?

Quoted: Question for you guys over there, I like stargazing and regularly walk down to the local park in the small hours to look up at the sky. Last year I was walking back from the Park @3am when a Police car pulled up by me. The two officers got out of the car and asked me if I minded telling them what I was doing; Cop: Can you tell us what you're up to sir? Me: Walking and minding my own business... Cop: No need for that attitude sir we're just doing our job, where were you walking from? Me:(points over shoulder), Back there Cop: And were were you walking to? Me: Home Cop: And were is home? Me: (points down the road in the direction I was headed), Down there. Cop: You're not being very helpful are you sir? Me: I'm cold and my bed is calling, can I go now? Cop: OK sir, goodnight What would happen if I reponded like that to a US cop if I was stopped at 3am walking in a residential area? ANdy

In my town, unless you looked like a minor, I doubt they'd even stop. But if they did, it would probably go about just like you described.

Quoted: Population of Havant and surrounding area @ 200, 000 and roughly 10 miles by 14 miles of urban area. Number of Police on patrol duty on any given night...6! Total available if they close both stations to deal with a major incident, 12! Total number of Police in England and Wales; @145,000 Population of England & Wales: 52,000,000 So much for a 'Police State'...

IIRC, there are @40,000 Police in just New York City, Pop. @8,000,000 ANdy

The GeStaPo never had more than about 3500 members total. Therefore Nazi Germany was never a police state.

ZERO TOLERANCE

Doncaster, UK

HUNDREDS of people have landed themselves fines for littering Doncaster under tough new
measures to clean up the borough.

Under a council zero tolerance campaign introduced last year, 506 on-the-spot charges of £50
have been issued by Community First wardens.  Mayor Martin Winter said £3 million pounds was
spent each year on cleaning rubbish from the streets - "a massive and costly job".

"The message is quite simple - if you don't want a fine don't drop litter," he commented.  A
programme is run in local secondary schools to make children aware that they are not exempt from
fines although no figures are available as to how many of the notices were issued to under-16s.

Some parents have complained that children are being unfairly targeted by wardens. This week mum
Julia Hargeaves criticised a decision to fine her son David Dyas, aged 11, claiming he accidentally
dropped an apple core.  She said the litter fell from the Edlington School pupil's pocket as he was
running and he had done an about-turn to go and pick it up when he was collared.

She commented: "I agree with fining people for dropping litter but I believe my son. He knows my
financial circumstances - I'm a single mum with two children - and he wouldn't have done this
deliberately.

"He's been crying about it and saying he'll spend £35 he's saved up from his pocket money on
paying but you can't expect an 11-year-old to pay £50.

"I really think the fines should be staggered for children. The first time they should get a warning,
then the second time a £10 fine." Ms Hargeaves, of St John's Road, Edlington, plans to appeal
against the charge.

I've traveled to Europe three times, through eleven different countries (including England) and have found the police to be both polite and professional.  Maybe its different for the locals but everything seemed fine by me.  

Quoted: As long as it doesn't happen here......

We are 3 Presidential election terms away

I think we need to invade England and free them from their oppression!

Wheres William Wallace when you need him?  Somebody send Mel Gibson over there to play the sequel to Braveheart, only without the cameras this time.

Quoted: Bogus analogy, the Getsapo were equivalent to the FBI. Care to post the number of Kripo's? ANdy

Large numbers of police do not make the definition of a police state. What makes a police state a police state is what the cops do and what powers they are granted.

The Nazi Police State
 
The Nazi Police State was to ensure that everybody did as they were told - or paid the price. The Nazi Police were controlled by Heinrich Himmler and his feared secret police - the Gestapo - did as it pleased in Nazi Germany. Children’s loyalty could be developed with a policy of indoctrination via education and the Hitler Youth movement. Time and planning spent in these areas would bring a suitable reward for Hitler.

Adults were a different proposition. Some adults clearly supported Hitler - as the March 1933 election showed. But the same election clearly showed that a substantial number of Germans did not support Hitler and the Nazis. These people were likely to be a constant thorn for Hitler unless they were dealt with. For these people, the Nazis developed a policy of intimidation. Fear became a by-word for those who did not support Hitler. The wrong comment overheard by a Nazi official could have very serious consequences.

Hitler’s police state worked on the rule that if you said nothing, no harm, could come to you. If you had doubts about the way the country was going, you kept them to yourself - or paid the price. As nearly 17 million people had not voted for either the Nazis or the Nationalist in March 1933, a large and visible police force was required to keep this sizeable group under observation and control.

In Nazi Germany the police were allowed to arrest people on suspicion that they were about to do wrong. This gave the police huge powers. All local police units had to draw up a list of people in their locality who might be suspected of being "Enemies of the State". This list was given to the Gestapo - the Secret Police. The Gestapo had the power to do as it liked. Its leader - Reinhard Heydrich - was one of the most feared man in Nazi Germany. His immediate chief was Heinrich Himmler. Both men ran their respective branches with ruthless efficiency.

Those arrested by either the police or the Gestapo had less than three minutes to pack clothing and say their goodbyes. Once arrested, they were sent to the nearest police cell. Those in custody were told to sign Form D-11; this was an "Order For Protective Custody". By signing this, you agreed to go to prison. Those who did not sign it were beaten until they did or officers simply forged their signature. Once a D-11 was signed, you were sent to a concentration camp. How long you stayed here depended on the authorities. The usual rule of thumb was whether it was felt that you had learned your lesson (even if there had not been one to learn) and would behave in an acceptable manner once outside of prison.

The concentration camps were deliberately barbaric. Before 1939, deaths in them occurred but they were not common. The idea was that anybody who had been in one, once released, would ‘advertise’ the fact that they were not places where people wanted to go. This was another way of ensuring that people kept their ideas to themselves.

The concentration camps were run by men who could disguise their violent nature simply because they wore a uniform. The flogging of inmates was common -25 strokes was common practice - and the amenities were very basic and sparse. At Buchenwald, 480 men had one water tap between them which could only be used for 15 minutes on getting up. Any abuse of this rule would lead to 25 lashes. Any arrested Jew would get 60 lashes - a personal order from Hitler. Soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes etc were unheard of in camps such as Buchenwald (which held 8000 prisoners) and Dachau. Food and drink were minimal and the Jews had half the rations of other prisoners

Who would get arrested?

The list was intentionally expansive. Anybody considered to be a political threat was arrested;

those who made jokes about the Nazi Party were also arrested (jokes about Hitler were punished with death);
the "work shy" were also arrested (this fitted in exactly with Hitler’s plan to reduce unemployment as an unemployed person would be offered work at a Labour Exchange and if they refused it as too menial for them, they would be arrested as work shy. As no-one in concentration camps counted as unemployed, the figures for unemployment had to come down;
"Bibelforscher’s" were also arrested (these were people who would only seek guidance from the Bible and rejected all Nazi ideas and they also refused to do military service);
homosexuals were also arrested and the SS used this as a common tactic to discredit someone.
habitual criminals were also arrested.
In 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves. This non-uniformed branch of the SS became justifiably feared just as the visible presence of the black uniformed SS men did. Himmler's view on the SS was simple. In 1943 he said:

"We have always selected the highest and abandoned the lowest. As long as we maintain this principle, the Order (the SS) will remain healthy. After the war, we shall really build up our Order......it will provide Germany with an elite. This elite will provide leaders to industry, agriculture and politics and the activities of the mind."

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm

Quoted: There was a US Supreme Court case recently which held that the cops could arrest and handcuff a woman for not wearing her seatbelt.  They took her to jail and booked her.  In Texas I believe.  No drugs were involved, the cops just wanted to give her a hard time because they thought she was a bitch.  So it is legal to take someone to jail here too, even if the 'crime' could not be punished by jail time. Read it and weep:  Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.

I had to read that because I know an Atwater and we have friends in Lago Vista. Wrong Atwater. If it had been Trisha, the cop would not have stood a chance. She is 5'1" and meaner'n'hell.

Quoted: Question for you guys over there, I like stargazing and regularly walk down to the local park in the small hours to look up at the sky. Last year I was walking back from the Park @3am when a Police car pulled up by me. The two officers got out of the car and asked me if I minded telling them what I was doing; Cop: Can you tell us what you're up to sir? Me: Walking and minding my own business... Cop: No need for that attitude sir we're just doing our job, where were you walking from? Me:(points over shoulder), Back there Cop: And were were you walking to? Me: Home Cop: And were is home? Me: (points down the road in the direction I was headed), Down there. Cop: You're not being very helpful are you sir? Me: I'm cold and my bed is calling, can I go now? Cop: OK sir, goodnight What would happen if I reponded like that to a US cop if I was stopped at 3am walking in a residential area? ANdy

I am a Brit and live in the US I can tell you that no self respecting American would ever find themselves walking such a long distance in any circumstance but life or death and then maybe.

I believe something similiar was passed here last year.