If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
never
and you can honestly tell by the way their tone shifts when you mention your name and address, they turn into complete condescending bastards
same thing happened to me a few weeks back and i got a caution on the spot eh! :chin:
I've come across many dead on one's in my time, even had a bit of banter with them.
But the hateful one's really are hateful like!
On what grounds did they lie. You think that they didn't have a "suspicion" that you "might" be carrying.
They don't have to lie, the law is a de facto stop and search and has been for years.
Erm.. ever considered that it could be you who is showing discrimination here?
You got a caution - how is that "harsh"?
Sorry, a tired old excuse. playing the victim card, used to justify the fact that you don't like the fact that you got caught. "Is it cos I is catholic" - to misquote Ali G. No, it's cos you are worth going over because you are a criminal.
Erm... aren't you contradicting yourself there?
Unless a knife is on show then it is concealed and by definition the police would have to have x-ray vision to see it - hence why they wanted to search. They couldn;t see it but had a "suspicion" that there might be one.
Point is with this "excuse" for stopping people is that they need a suspicion, not evidence.
Someone who just happened to be committing a crime at the time. Strike one for the boys in blue.
If they'd stopped them for suspicion of drugs I'd be more likely to think it wasn't a made up excuse. If I point the finger at someone at random and said "He's abusing his wife!" and it turned out he hadn't, but had been cheating on her, you wouldn't think I stroke a point.
Yeh and the "excuse" is a cover for an ulterior motive. Reasons given above.
Committing a crime? What crime would this be now? Please don't say "possession of marijuana"?
Hardly. The point about concealed weapons is that they are hidden. i defy you to say for certainty that someone isn;t carrying just by looking at them.
I may be wrong, but suspicion of possession isn't enough for stop and search.
All important word here is "suspicion".
That's just a lie to get to do something that they wouldn't have the right to do otherwise, if that's the case.
The excuse is cover for the fact that they suspect that he might be doing something else. You can get stopped for walking around town at 3am with in darl clothing and carrying a holdall - possibly tooled up for burglary.
Again, the all important word is "suspicion" here.
We could get into a debate about the rights and wrong of stop and search and you will get a different response from me, but the police were acting within the law and during the course of a legal search found him breaking the law. End of story.
Again, you think that possession is legal?
Illegal substances are illegal substances. Whether you think that they should be legal or not is irrelevant, they aren't.
Nope. Smoking isn't the crime, possession is.
Are you trying to say that the OP isn't cute?
Who says it was bullshit reasons....oh wait the OP who was actually committing a crime anyway.
fuck off. the crime of carrying a knife? purlease... grow up and smell the scum.
- The police thought they might have a knife
- The law allows them to stop someone for suspicion of a knife
Then the police did well to stop them. They were doing their job.But if:
- They police thought they might have drugs
- The law does not allow them to stop someone for suspicion of drugs
- The police stopped them for a fake suspicion
Then, even if they were right about the drugs, by law they had no right to stop them. This is abuse of the law.No, I;m suggesting that there might have been an elemnt of doubt in their mind which is why they asked.
personally I have never been stopped on suspicion of carrying a knife. I have, however, be stopped and asked why I had holdall etc at 3am - I was waiting for my pick-up to go to work.
Point is that what I was doing aroused questions in their minds and they have the right to follow that up.
Had I actually been in possession then that's just my tough shit. bang to rights, guv.
When I was younger I was 'picked on' by the local old bill simply because of some of the people I used to know. One month I was pulled over and given producer slips four times. I used to get it constantly for about two years. I'd never commited a driving offence ({or any other at the time) and they knew this. They just wanted to relay messages to the people I knew - along the lines of "Tell Charlie we're watching him' or something.
Only after my mother put in several complaints did it stop. But since then I've been mistreated by the polive on a handful of occasions - one last year when I was seriously assaulted by 4 blokes in a pub and then arrested by their mate, a pissed up, off duty copper. They offered me a deal where if I dropped the serious complaint about the copper's behaviour they would go after the blokes who broke my ribs. They lied. Nothing came of it and I can honestly say that every copper I dealt with in regards to that situation was a complete and utter cunts.
I know we need them, and the police do and important job but that doesn't change the fact that many of them are lying, rude, egotistical cunts.
This isn't going to stop z doing drugs I'm sure. You think it's going to stop others?
So what has it achieved other than waste time and money (ours and z's), and put a black mark against an otherwise law abiding individual, for nothing more than a little bit of smoke?
What a load of shit.,
Possession of small amounts a non arrestable offence* until Jan 2006. I didn't know they done a U-turn so I stand corrected.
Still, that's not something I care too much in this debate. I agree he has broke the law, it's the reasons why he was seen as being "suspcious" and accussed of carrying a knife. You don't get accussed of carrying a knife out of the blue.
*Sorry for getting my terminology wrong.
Except that he isn't.
That's like saying that Iam Huntley was "otherwise law abiding" except for when he murdered two children.
NB I am not suggetsing that the magnitude of crime is the same.
Liek I said, debate about the rights and wrong of drug laws/stop and search if you like but it doesn't detract from the point that he was breaking the law.
Well said. :thumb:
And our argument is that the laws an arse and coppers are often awkward twats.
I think this situation prooves that.
The law isn't the final word for me. Generally for the law to change for the better people often have to break it.
No, it was still illegal it just wasn;t treated as such. It never came off the statute books.
No. He must have been doing something else. It could be attitude, it could be the people he was with, it could be that the policemen involved have seen him previously, it could be time/place. there a hundreds of reasons why they might have "suspicion".
The problem here is that he was doing something illegal and it is entirely possible that his body language gave that away. We don't know because we weren't there.
You really are bonkers!
And you are saying the two are comparable by using that analogy.
That's a shift. The argument up to now has been that he shouldn;t have been stopped.
Indeed.
Argue that the law should be changed, that's fine. But not that he got caught, or that the police used the law to catch him. You won't win the argument like that.
In so far as they are both crimes. Not the magnitude of the crime.
We're all "otherwise law abiding" until we commit a crime. It's a crap excuse to let someone off.
My point is what did it actually achieve? And go further than simply saying 'He was committing a crime and was punished'.
I think we all know what was achieved when Huntley was locked up.
Fuck, thats awful. I have sympathy with you there, why would anyone trust or like the police when this is your experience of them.
I know you mentioned it, but please remeber not all police officers are like that. I havent had much dealing with the police, on the odd occasion I have felt they havent done much. However i still respect the poilce.
At the end of the day, if someone breaks into my house with a gun, the police would be the first people I would call, and I would be dam grateful they would act on my call.
:thumb:
Why do I need to go further?
The law was administered in the way it was written. Don't ask me to defend those laws because I would be agreeing with you. I think that the war on drugs is a monumental waste of effort.
Problem is, for the OP, that those laws exist. He knows they exist. He breaks them. You cannot complain then if those laws are enforced. Even if it is inconvenient for you to attend according to you bail notice.
Because it's what the law stated should happen. He didn't get treated lightly, or differently, because he was "otherwise law abiding".