Met shops self to IPCC over terror toddlers The Met Police was today taking a firm line with, er, the Met Police as it referred itself to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) over allegations of misuse of its powers. Today’s referral follows an incident claimed to have taken place on the morning of Wednesday 29 July 2009 when two men approached a 43-year- …
How ironic that the powers that be have granted these powers to prevent "terrorism" and to "protect civilians" when overseas the UK and it's allies have managed to kill hundreds of civillians and they don't brand that "terrorism".
...and all it does is increase the chances that someone will get ultra-pissed-off and decide that revenge is on the cards. (It's most often not 6 year-old or 11 year-old girls!)
The fact that searches can be carried out on a whim and property seized without reasonable cause, is of itself outrageous. How did we let it get to this, that an unelected career officer can act as judge and jury?
As for searching the kids - if that happened to mine I'd be lodging a complaint of child molestation against the officer. I'm not having some cop sticking his hand down my daughter's top to "search for bombs". Yeah, right.
By the way, I presume that all police officers will need to be certified by the new ISA now since they undoubtedly come into contact with children more than three times a month. And since they're doing it officially, they'll have to pay £64 each. Or will the HO give itself an exemption to its own laws? I wonder...
"...This investigation will look at whether the use of these powers in this case was lawful, reasonable and correctly carried out."
Lawful? - possibly so, under NuLab's plethora of ill-thought out oppressive anti-personal freedom laws, although their precious Human Rights Act might be used to oppose this.
Reasonable? - never in a million years. This would only seem reasonable to a totally paranoid, power-crazed "official" - almost certainly as compensation for being under-endowed in the "appendage" department.
Correctly carried out? - something unreasonable cannot be correctly carried out since being unreasonable SHOULD preclude it from occurring.
How the hell did my country ever get into such a state?
Along similar lines, Johnson states that the recent pop-bottle bomber convictions "..prove that our presence in Afghanistan is necessary..."
Run that past me again - a plot carried out by people from East London (& probably Bradford), said plot being hatched/masterminded in Pakistan, said perpetrators being trained/briefed in Pakistan. So to prevent this, our troops are being killed in Afghanistan.
Either NuLab are lousy at geography, can't read maps, or are totally useless at everything. Even their sophistry is singularly unconvincing. A plague on their houses!
Do we even know for a fact that these were real coppers yet? Because this whole incident sounds to me a lot more like a mugging crossed with a con-trick than it does an actual genuine police stop-and-search. "stand in front of a CCTV camera in order to have his photograph taken"? That's just... I dunno, wrong somehow, it doesn't fit. Would set off all my subconscious alarm bells ringing, anyway.
(Of course that doesn't exclude the possibility that the people who robbed him actually were coppers, as well as thieves. It's not unheard-of.)
They continue to alienate themselves from the general public, more powder to the keg. It would be interesting to know why the person was stopped, where they "ethnics" Or is it just plod on a power trip? From what I can remember, only uniformed officers can undertake searches.
I sincerely look forward to the day when the general public has enough of this type of behaviour and starts to congregate around such officers when they are conducting these activities to remind them that they are outnumbered and best behave themselves. The day will come soon when these jerks overstep the mark with someone and get a good kicking, the public will just look on.
Getting fed up with this Government and its hired thugs! Roll on the revolution and republic!
Searched? In the street? Plain-clothed coppers? Luckily, not in the woods. (Note to self: Print a couple of fake Met Police ID cards, so me and my mate can have a quick grope of some nippers whenever the urge takes us).
Bloody kiddie-fiddlers. Hope those "London's Finest" find their DNA on the sex-offenders database. Now, THAT would be justice...
Beggars belief! Are we sure they were Plods, and not a couple of crims just after nicking a few personal items? Has he checked his wallet?
for a while now
I have no idea what an official police ID card looks like. How do I check the plain clothes officer is genuine?
If plain clothes police have the power to take away your things like this, then how easy would it be to impersonate a plain clothes police officer and basically mug people.
Same with unmarked cars, if I fail to stop because I believe I will be car jacked they would do their nut! But again, someone with criminal intent could fit some blue radiator lights and be able to stop you with very little risk of them ever being spotted or caught.
I hope the plain-clothes "policeman" showed some form of ID that the stoppee was able to independently verify as legitimate.
I smell a nice mobile-phone and ID theft opportunity for people who could pass themselves off as plain-clothes "policemen".
And with an optional sideline in touching up young kids in the street.
I hope these policemen have passed their CRB checks.
Searching a young child maybe less about fighting terrorism more about getting a thrill and a free grope!
The way the Police are driving the Public's opinion of them into the mud isn't right. Who am I supposed to tell my children to go to if they get lost or need help?
Anon. Obviously
"There is little doubt that the police may use section 44 powers in this way."
There is plenty of doubt - to me at least; from your link to the act
"An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable *in uniform* "
"The complainant claims that one of the men identified himself as a *plain clothes police officer* and carried out a stop and search of all three individuals,"
I have no doubt that the IPCC will take this *very* seriously - and if the officers are found to be breaking the law they will be reminded to think of a better excuse for harrasing people in the future.
Lots of tourists but no terrorists.
And that's just the abuse of the laws that we see. I bet nutter Smith gave them permission under RIPA to monitor all internet communications. Betcha. It's always easier to abuse powers in private, so if they're abusing powers in public then the abuse in private will be much bigger.
Fair enough that coppers may have their suspicions raised and seek to settle the matter, but in the Good Old Days (TM), that used to involve a few quick questions and often an offensive and accusatory, "Okay, sir, on your way, but don't do it again", even when you'd done nothing wrong, but at least that was the end of it.
Nowadays an early opening line ( watch any of the 'police nicking people' TV shows ) is, "Got any ID ? No, that's not a good start is it". Even though ID is not compulsory its absence is often taken as a bad indicator. Guilty until proven innocent attitudes kick in from the start.
In the heyday of Suss Laws at least it was only harassment, these days it's far worse. Personal items can be seized for no real good reason and entirely innocent people put through no end of hassle and inconvenience.
Not all coppers are bastards, but the legislation leads to many coming over that way. The paranoia that everyone is a suspected terrorist, paedophile or ne'er do well is systemic and comes from the top. It suits authoritarian jobsworths who seemingly enjoy hassling people and treating all others as second class citizens, and that's becoming all-pervasive. Of course, it's all for our own good.
I'm torn though - On one hand, this has got to stop, on the other, wider application of such abuse of power ( no matter it's legally granted by Government Dictatorship ) would soon show those who think there isn't a problem, the 'I have nothing to hide, nothing to fear' groups who have their heads stuck up their arses, what the reality of an oppressive police state looks like. Most people only realise how bad things are when it happens to them and they need the wake-up call.
Unsatisfactory policing has been going on for years, only when Jean Charles de Menezes gets shot and the abuses at G20 get a public airing do the wider public get to realise. Most times it's hidden by police and government behind a smokescreen of 'anarchists', 'violent minority intent on causing trouble' ( old joke : 'yes, the police' ) and most people assume because it never affected them it's not a problem. The Met's referral to the IPCC in this case is as likely driven by reassuring the gullible public that there are 'checks and balances' to allow what they do to continue as much as anything else. The police want their abuses to be kept as quiet as a tree falling in a forest. While they can get away with it they will keep on doing it. When the public says 'it's all right by me' they are giving a green light for such behaviour to continue.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", or not to realise that evil is slowly triumphing in the first place.
This must be dark comedy, the Police were forced to pay more respect to childrens' sovereignty, but conveniently ignore the fact that stop and search, without reasonable cause, is unlawful for any UK national, despite what this government says!
Blanket 'law' like this can easily become an instrument of dictatorship, and would rarely ever be useful for honest keeping of the Peace, if we had not allowed huge numbers of people, from less civilised populations, to get into this country, settle in this country, and disrespect our way of life!
This comment is not racism, or any other manipulative and deceptive Marxist label, it is plain common sense from one who want to live a free life without growing interference from a Socialist Corporatist state and aliens.
In future the police would be justified to check that he had an ISA licence to be in charge of children. If not then they could fine him. He could have been a child kidnapping terrorists, you just don't know unless the person can present a valid licence to prove otherwise.
Jacked being searched for anything that could help incriminate the person.
It may seem clever at the time, but it sure as hell doesn't look good with hindsight. The Met really seem to have outdone themselves on this one - it's hard to see how these stories can get any more embarrassing. Much as I feel for the guy who was harassed, these incidents only hasten the day some politician develops enough spine to give the police the political rogering they deserve.
Respect? I think not.
What is the difference between the plain-clothes officer stopping this man and children and how it was done in true totalitarian states? It is a difference only of degree. The slippery slope we are now on to a fully blown police state gets steeper and steeper - we are sliding down it and cannot, apparently, help ourselves. We even still have people saying "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Finally, hopefully, voters are waking up and will throw out the New Labour authoritarians at the next opportunity. Thereafter, David Cameron has promised root and branch reform of the British police and this is well overdue, as too much power has gone to their heads, as suggested by a leading barrister yesterday.
how we know they were plain clothes police and not a pair of rather cunning and daring thieves?
However if they were members of the filth I'm little suprised, they just like to push people around, bunch of animals when they arn't actually working on solving crimes. leave the dogs to run wild and they will.
"By the way, I presume that all police officers will need to be certified by the new ISA now since they undoubtedly come into contact with children more than three times a month. And since they're doing it officially, they'll have to pay £64 each. Or will the HO give itself an exemption to its own laws? I wonder..."
The funniest thing about this is the revealation that "soft intelligence" (i.e. "gossip") MUST be taken into account when the ISA vetting is carried out.
So it's relatively trivial to anonymously suggest a police officer may have "inappropriate thoughts" about children, and they would FAIL an ISA check ...
Or an MP, come to that ... oh hang on, MPs are exempted ...
Yup dead right, they have to be in uniform.
If they were real does the resulant assault and removel of property with the implied threat of violence constitute robbery, an arestable offence for which any person or groups of people may in some circumstances arrest them using reasonable force. Now there's an idea?
..becomes Dixon in the dock. What's happened to England, my England. I weep when I read this kind of stuff. I loved my country, but not anymore. Glad I left.
Of course, if the '43-year-old' geezer has got his "I've passed my stop-and-search" police-issued boy scout certificate, as must be issued by the plods, then it'll probably pass muster as them being real plods (in every sense of the word).
Oh, yes, did the two lassies get a "girl guide" version, too?
But, no uniform? EPIC FAIL.
Some interesting questions being raised on this thread. Here are some official answers (the first two confirmed by the HO: the third from past chats with the ISA).
1. Of course police can arrest in plain clothes...so long as they identify themselves. Just need to show a warrant card, and that's it. Otherwise, imagine the scene: two undercover cops watch a drugs shipment about to leave the warehouse forever. Waiting for the uniform branch, stuck in traffic ten minutes away. Ooops...better let them get away because we can't arrest. Nah!
2. Police also retain the powers of a police constable when off duty. Reason, therefore, not to wind up your police next door neighbour. That is significant when it comes to arrests, as a citizen's arrest is a very dangerous thing - for the arresting citizen. Get it wrong and you're facing a charge of false imprisonment. In one case, an individual who arrested a citizen's arrest and beat up the citizen was exonerated in court since it was held that an improper arrest was simple assault - and that to resist was self-defence.
Police powers of arrest are far wider and therefore very few let-outs.
3. Police will certainly be on the ISA base when it goes live...and possibly a few more besides. The ISA base is about regulating the activities of those working with "vulnerable" groups - not just children - and it makes sense, within the logic of the scheme, to include police in it.
Will the Tories roll back the emerging police state where criminals can run free, but ordinary members of public will fear to step out of the house because they'll be stopped by some officious little community support oik? I very much doubt it. The Tories make the right noises about the surveillance state, but there has been no large scale promise to restore the liberties of the British people. I don't know what the UK will look like in 10 years, but I'll bet you'll be CCTV with facial recognition as standard on every corner. I personally will never vote again for a mainstream party as they're all out of touch.
It does seem quite possible, from the accounts, that these were fake cops.
Which is a pretty serious extra crime.
I've heard plenty of stories about fake social workers.
Is this going to end with our super-duper, all-solving, biometric ID cards having to change whenever we change employer? There's a huge amount of temporary employment out there.
"1. Of course police can arrest in plain clothes...so long as they identify themselves. Just need to show a warrant card, and that's it"
Surely the question raised is actually:
Doody:
"An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable *in uniform* "
Rented:
"Apart from the other obvious abuses, your article suggests that the S44 searches were carried out by officers in plain clothes. My understanding is that this is not legal. S44 allows only officers in uniform to perform searches."
J21
"The link provided states quite clearly that Section 44 authorises officers "in uniform" to perform a stop and search, it makes no reference to plain clothed officers..."
An assorted AC:
"Yup dead right, they have to be in uniform."
According to the link you provided it does indeed specify "in uniform".
I accept that I may have misread something here, but it seems to me that a number of people have questioned the legality of an s.44 S&S on the basis of the officers not being in uniform - as stated in the link provided. You appear to then be inferring we are a bit thick for assuming a non-uniform copper cannot make an arrest.
Please can you either clarify why we have all jumped to the wrong conclusion (a conclusion based on your article and your links) or I think you owe an apology
"He could have been a child kidnapping terrorists"
I hate to niggle... OK no I don't
I assume you mean "child-kidnapping terrorist", a terrorist who kidnaps children, not a "child kidnapping terrorists", a child who is kidnapping terrorists.
also: @John Ozimek RE: "Of course police can arrest in plain clothes...so long as they identify themselves."
The comment above by doody relates SPECIFICALLY to Section 44 stop & search powers.
Quoting from Section 44 "(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search..."
You note it specifically specifies "any constable ***in uniform***", so if a plain-clothes officer stopped them, it was not covered by Section 44. This is a wise part of this stupid law, as otherwise people could easily be robbed by people pretending to be cops. It needs to be publicised.
It's actually quite an interesting idea, people have reached such a level of fear and paranoia that they are unwilling to confront someone they think maybe a police officer, let's face it how many of us could tell fake police id from real police id?
So infact the swell of new law, fear and, paranoia make it easy for criminals to impersonate an undercover police officer.
Exciting, I wonder how many people have been done over and not reported it? I wonder how many actual plain close police officers have used the trick to nick stuff? I recon there'll be more people done over by such acts then the new vetting of 11million people will find real peadophiles/dangerous people.
<<You appear to then be inferring we are a bit thick for assuming a non-uniform copper cannot make an arrest>>
Stop-and-seach isn't an arrest.* Therein lies the problem. stop 'n' search needs uniform, else it'd be easy to use that excuse for a series of muggings. However, a non-unifirmed copper _can_ make an arrest. I learnt that years ago from the Sweeny. Plus, from my Panda (union) Police pocket book, which stated:-
"A Constable is a citizen, locally appointed but having authority under the Crown for the protection of life and property, the prevention and detection of crime, the maintenance of order and the prosecution of offenders against the peace".
I learned that by heart, 35 years ago, as a trainee bobbie when even our whistles were inspected for being polished (Noo, Finbarr, Nooo!!!). Never forgotten it, BUT it puts the emphasis on Citizen, not uniform.
I believe, unless the law has changed, that anyone can make a citizens arrest, within guidelines - mainly common sense. It's stronger here in Finland, where it's illegal to ignore a threat, if you can reasonably deal with it. For example, driving, spot a fallen tree branch in the road, you absolutely MUST stop and move it if able. If not physically able, ensure the authorities are there before you leave. Another: See a drunk lying in the snow, you absolutely must offer assistance (even just call the cops) - it's not an option. You can't walk by. Nick his wallet first, natch. "Services Rendered".
(Still waiting delivery of the Feisty wife, Lee. Sadly no photos - Kodak don't make Kodachrome any more, and I never did get the hang of these digi - diga - battery operated pinhole cameras).
*From the Home Office site "if you’re carrying something illegal, such as a weapon, or the police believe you’ve committed a crime, you may be arrested". So, if you _may_ be arrested, then you haven't already been.
Site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/stop-and-search/
Never mind the arrest/didn't arrest issue - what about the seizure?!?
Supposing they were uniformed officers, and performed an 'authorised' stop and search under section 44. Can they seize items without arrest? Right there on the street? WTF??
The only thing more disturbing than the authoritarian powers NuLab have granted to the state to persecute citizens is the ignorance (and I include mine) about the limited rights they have deigned to leave us with.
So what is the law with regard to their powers of seizure? Come on Reg ...fill us in (before the pigs do).
@AC - "Unlawful for all, and not just kids"
<quote>if we had not allowed huge numbers of people, from less civilised populations, to get into this country, settle in this country, and disrespect our way of life!</quote>
That's no way to talk about our Scottish overlords, is it? I, for one, welcome them....
"Concerns have been raised also at the way in which section 44 powers have been used against children. Official Met figures suggest 2,331 children aged 15 or under were stopped in 2008 – and of these, 58 were under 10."
How many?!?
"2,331" children molested by the Met?!?!?
Stopping and searching children, especially children under 10, in the name of anti-terror policing simply doesn't work. To say it's just not credible is to understate it. It's just an utterly blatant abuse of power.
But why even bother? Why stop and search children, including children under 10? Unless you're a paedophile...
Oh wait, I get it. So basically, the Met is one of the biggest paedophile rings in the country.
But seriously, what other reason would there be for abusing anti-terror powers to stop and search young children?
Seems like someone at the MET has woken up to the fact that there is misuse of the many intrusive regulations given to them by Gordon Brown's government. It is begining to seem that the UK is becoming more and more like certain countries that had the Gestapo, or KGB and is using tactics like those.
I wonder how long it will be before people go "missing".
Seig Heil
First, I am intrigued at how many people on here talk about the police having "reasonable" grounds to search. Under s.44, provided the stop/search takes place in a designated area, they do NOT need reasonable grounds. This is an intriguing difference in respect of s.44 by comparison with almost ANY other piece of legislation on the books.
Read the Act carefully, and you will find that s.43 allows a stop/search/seizure by ANY Police Officer providing reasonable grounds are present: s.44 allows a stop/search ONLY by an officer in uniform. The difference, I suspect but am not absolutely sure, is that parliament may have felt that because the powers being exercised under s44 were so extreme, they wished not to give them to plain clothes police.
Which brings on to what the citizen in question should do in response. An unlawful arrest - and probably also stop - is possibly false imprisonment and some form of kidnap. Therefore, a citizen's arrest MIGHT be a valid response. The issue with that is that one would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the arrest was unlawful in the first place.
The complainant in this story alleges that they were unlawfully stopped because the police claimed to be doing the stop under s44. If those facts were proven and provable subsequently, fine.
However, my suspicion is that IF said citizen turned round and attempted to carry out a citizen's arrest, by the time they all got back to the station (with him in cuffs and allegations of having assaulted police officers) they would have changed their story to either that the stop was under s43 OR that they didn't quote a statute at all...merely stopped him casually...and then had to arrest him when he became unreasonable/violent.
Difficult. Very difficult.
One's heart wishes that there was an instant on-street remedy. One's head suggests otherwise.
For another tale of police changing their story when actually challenged in respect of what they are alleged to have said:
http://www.ligali.org/pdf/Correspondence%20between%20Toyin%20Agbetu%20and%20Leroy%20Logan%20re%20Stop%20and%20Search%20in%20Hackney.pdf (pdf)
<<...to carry USB sticks and a CD when you're out for a stroll with the kids?>>
First, yes, as an unemployed dude I carry 2 sticks around my neck, totalling 10GB - 8+2. All my certificates, work records, etc, have been scanned on them, so when I go to the employment office (faster computers and free printing) I can upload (yep, allowed if you ask nicely and they know/trust me) my docs to the few-and-far-between jobs I see to prospective HAHAHA employers. Don't trust the 'cloud'. Just look out of the window to see it's gone. Saves firing up the puuter, and waking the missus with the "UBUNTU!!!" sound..
Second, what CD/DVD? Blank? Rental? Kiddie-porn? Windows Vista? If the latter, then he's bang-to-rights IMHO.
But, he must've been grassed up by someone for having them. There's your perp/perv!!
Education, education, edu - frigging - cation.
I carry a digital copy of PACE on my ipod touch and take the time to study and memorise my rights as a citizen and the various powers of my keepers, err .... the authorities.
As soon as I read that story I knew that the militia, err... police had acted outwith their authority.
With the ineternet available to pretty much all (or in the library if not available at home) it is imperative that the people empower themselves with the knowledge to fight back.
If the victim, err suspect had been in a position to ask under what authority the thugs, err officers were stopping him, and then pointed out that that s44 was only exercisable within a designated locale and by uniformed officers, they may have thought twice.
Or they may have just shot him in the head!
I'd rather die on my feet with a bullet in my chest, than die on my knees with a bullet in my back!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
