louisecbrooks wrote: It does feel a little bit mean posting all of this on here about her without her knowing about it.
Imagine how the victim of the 'little stabbing' or his/her family and friends feel should they read her tweet. when posting in a public forum about a violent assault it is best not to post something that could be seen by others (and reported in newspapers) that certainly appears to be trivialising the incident.
I don't think I really meant to make it personal, but I feel that if people post on Twitter, other have a right to respond, and the initial poster can then respond directly (unlike on here, which she might not even know about).
This is somebody who cares about #personalbranding on #socialmedia and should be aware the way that such comments can be associated with your 'personal brand' on social media - for better or for worse.
The police described this incident as a "cut" which may perhaps explain why someone who does not have English as a first language described it as a "little" stabbing!
louisecbrooks wrote: It does feel a little bit mean posting all of this on here about her without her knowing about it.
Imagine how the victim of the 'little stabbing' or his/her family and friends feel should they read her tweet. when posting in a public forum about a violent assault it is best not to post something that could be seen by others (and reported in newspapers) that certainly appears to be trivialising the incident.
I don't think I really meant to make it personal, but I feel that if people post on Twitter, other have a right to respond, and the initial poster can then respond directly (unlike on here, which she might not even know about).
This is somebody who cares about #personalbranding on #socialmedia and should be aware the way that such comments can be associated with your 'personal brand' on social media - for better or for worse.
As a general point about what you let yourself in for when you use Twitter, have your own web site, etc., then Michael is quite right. And I know I can be aggressive towards some people, but it also feels to me that Michael is misjuding things a bit. Maybe some slightly drier irony would have been in order?
I'm sure statistically knife crime has increased since the reduction of stop and search since
The macpherson report . I'm a parent I wouldn't care and how many times was searched if I knew it would bring knife crime down amongst teenagers . If teenagers knew they were likely to be searched then they wouldn't carry knives .
I don't understand why anyone would object to stop and search. If you have nothing to hide then it's a few minutes of your life taken up, but the next few minutes of someone else's life taken up by being searched could have saved yours another day.
My son is in his early 30's and since mid 90's when he was a teenager he's been searched several times. The last time being prior to Xmas. He has no problem with this at all, he has nothing to hide and if the person who tried to mug him with a screwdriver at his throat a few years ago had been searched, then maybe that incident wouldn't have happened. My son thinks searches should happen more often not less.
coldand wrote:I'm sure statistically knife crime has increased since the reduction of stop and search since
The macpherson report . I'm a parent I wouldn't care and how many times was searched if I knew it would bring knife crime down amongst teenagers . If teenagers knew they were likely to be searched then they wouldn't carry knives .
You know what the problem is with this country? It's not so much liberals, but people who aren't statistically sure about things, and waste time looking at numbers, obsessing about evidence, and fussing about how much policies cost. I mean, look what's happened to Teresa May
The home secretary, Theresa May, is to introduce a "comprehensive package" reforming the use of police stop-and-search powers after telling MPs that as many as a quarter of a million street searches last year were probably carried out illegally.
The home secretary said she wanted the battery of revised codes, best practice schemes and new methods of accountability to lead to a significant reduction in the use of stop and search, more intelligence-led targeted operations, and better arrest ratios.
Black people are still seven times more likely to be stopped by the police than white people, with only about one in 10 of those stops leading to an arrest.
Good that David Cameron is still in charge at No 10 to inject a modicum of political reality:
But during a Commons statement on Wednesday it became clear that May has lost her battle to persuade Downing Street that legislation to curb the use of stop and search should be included in this summer's Queen's speech – the annual legislative programme – the last before next year's general election.
I really don't get the public discourse around "stop and search". The law allows a police officer to stop and search someone who he has "reasonable grounds to suspect" a given person may have a prohibited item on them.
Is there anyone out there at all that believes that if a police officer has "reasonable grounds to suspect" that someone has something illegal on them that they shouldn't be allowed to search them?
Naturally, if there is no such grounds to search then the search is unlawful and a complaint and/or legal action against the police can be filed. Is there any evidence to suggest that there are lots of upheld complaints and successful legal proceedings against police in this regard?
The only time an officer does not need "reasonable grounds to suspect" is when there is specific intelligence to suggest that in a specific area and at a specific time there may be serious violence/disorder (an example might be at a football match where hooligans are believed to be planning a fight). And that, too, can be subject to judicial review.
"Reasonable grounds to suspect" are pretty clear words in the English Language. They mean what they mean in the dictionary. In essence if a police officer suspects someone of carrying something illegal because of objectively definable reasons then he can search them for said item. I don't understand what you mean when you say "Quota system" though... no officer can be ordered to stop and search anyone to fulfill some kind of quote - that would be illegal.
How else do we measure dissatisfaction, or satisfaction, with the power if we can't look at numbers of complaints (upheld or otherwise) and/or through the judicial mechanisms used to oversee the process? (and with regards to people "not being able to afford to sue the police - there are plenty of firms that specialise in such litigation that will work on a "no win, no fee" basis.)
The bottom line is the public ultimately will get the police they want: if they want a police service to be entirely reactive, then they will get it. They generally already have.
The Police have a terrible job trying to keep us safe. Surely something should be done to stop people carrying weapons . Regular searches will soon do then trick.
One person saved from a stabbing is surely worth it.
bensonby wrote:"Reasonable grounds to suspect" are pretty clear words in the English Language. They mean what they mean in the dictionary. In essence if a police officer suspects someone of carrying something illegal because of objectively definable reasons then he can search them for said item.
Like what? Give me some examples of 'objectively definable' reasons - humour me.
Because for the life of me 'there's been a burglary by someone fitting your description' doesn't quite cut it for me; it seems to be used a lot - when it was used on me I was wearing a tie! As far as I can tell that particular excuse for an s&s can be used to cover every possible eventuality.
How close does the description have to be: is skin colour and gender enough?
Ultimately that is a matter for the courts to determine. It would be absurd to sit here and go through dozens of example. I will, however, address your specific example:
Someone has called in a report of a suspect having just committed a burglary. The description is a "black male wearing dark clothing".
Would that give an officer grounds to stop and search any black man wearing dark clothing in the area? Probably not. At least, not in Lewisham in the middle of the day when there are probably lots of black men wearing dark clothing about. The description is clearly too vague.
However, if the burglary had occured in the middle of the night when there is no-one about then I would have thought that it was reasonable for any black man wearing dark clothing to be stopped.
bensonby wrote:"Reasonable grounds to suspect" are pretty clear words in the English Language. They mean what they mean in the dictionary. In essence if a police officer suspects someone of carrying something illegal because of objectively definable reasons then he can search them for said item.
Like what? Give me some examples of 'objectively definable' reasons - humour me.
Because for the life of me 'there's been a burglary by someone fitting your description' doesn't quite cut it for me; it seems to be used a lot - when it was used on me I was wearing a tie! As far as I can tell that particular excuse for an s&s can be used to cover every possible eventuality.
How close does the description have to be: is skin colour and gender enough?
Ultimately that is a matter for the courts to determine. It would be absurd to sit here and go through dozens of example. I will, however, address your specific example:
Someone has called in a report of a suspect having just committed a burglary. The description is a "black male wearing dark clothing".
Would that give an officer grounds to stop and search any black man wearing dark clothing in the area? Probably not. At least, not in Lewisham in the middle of the day when there are probably lots of black men wearing dark clothing about. The description is clearly too vague.
However, if the burglary had occured in the middle of the night when there is no-one about then I would have thought that it was reasonable for any black man wearing dark clothing to be stopped.
I was stopped as a teenager in Aberdeen as a robbery had been committed at knife point by "a white youth in black clothing". You could pretty much remove the white bit at that time in Aberdeen. I don't hold any grudges: I matched the description so was stopped.
Hang on, it's 3 in the morning, There is no-one about, a burglary happens where a suspect is fleetingly seen in the dark, a policeman is in the vicinity when the call comes out and sees a man matching that description who is within easy travelling time to the location of the offence.
Isn't it clear that (1) we do have to allow policemen some discretion to exercise their judgement, and (2) that a significant number of policemen don't exercise that judgement properly?
It may be true that in "a large number of cases the reasonable grounds for suspicion were not there", but that doesn't necessarily mean you stop the police using their judgement in the probably larger number of cases where it is.
It's to do with police training, and police culture. I think everyone, bar die-hards in the Police Federation, knows there's a problem with current police culture. I think most serving police officers know they have a problem, thanks to the attitudes of some other officers (more than just a few rotten apples), although it's not so easy for them to say so. But undermining the self respect of that majority by attacking the discretion they must exercise in the normal course of their duties is not sensible.
I think you're right Tim: however, I'd have expressed it slightly differently. There is a problem when the experiences, values, thought processes and culture of the police is markedly different to society at large. The simple fact is that the police live in something if a different world to the rest of the population: the population-at-large does not routinely encounter casual violence, theft and people compulsively lying. That experience impacts on a world-view. The public on the other hand seem to hold unrealistic expectations and values that lead to unreasonable expectations: "why didn't they shoot the gun out of his hand?!" "Why were there 5 policemen holding him down? - that's unfair/brutal".
I think the police are absolutely terrible at explaining themselves and therefore create even more issues for themselves: be that to the public at large, to bystanders at an incident, or even to the person being stopped and searched.
Tim Lund wrote:But undermining the self respect of that majority by attacking the discretion they must exercise in the normal course of their duties is not sensible.
I'm not, I'm calling for change - a reform of stop & search through an amendment of the criminal justice and public order act so that the test for the power's use is 'necessary' and 'expedient', for example serious violence.
I appreciate that that is not your intent, but there's a judgement to be made as to whether adding more detail to legislation such as PACE is the way to go to get the police to use their judgement better. The risk is that they become either more rule bound, or more used to evading rules. That's why here I think the focus should be on the somewhat hazier notion of police culture. The letter kills, but the spirits gives life.
