EFifty wrote:

Andy wrote:

That gobbledygook reminds me off Freeman on the land

Exactly what I thought as I started reading it. They spout that shite. Free men / freemen of the land / sovereign citizens. Morons, each and every one. They are the walking embodiments of the phrase ‘little knowledge is a dangerous thing’. Example: they’ve read that the Police forces in the UK and elsewhere, ‘police by consent’. This means that the Police operate with the general consent of the public; the public would generally like somebody to prevent and detect crime, and they’d generally like it to be the Police. Freemen think this means that the Police need the consent of each suspect to act. That’s why you see people shouting, “I DO NOT CONSENT,” over and over as they are detained/arrested/tasered for failing to comply with lawful orders. They also generally completely misinterpret the phrase ‘public servant’. This means that the Police serve the public interest. They think it means that a Police officer has to do everything they ask. They love to stop cops walking down the street to quiz them on the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’. They also like to ask, “Have you taken your oath today?” When an officer explains that a) Police officers don’t take an oath every day, they do it once when they’re sworn in, and b) many make an attestation rather than an oath, the freemen have no comeback but to repeatedly shout, “BUT HAVE YOU TAKEN YOUR OATH TODAY?” When asked their name, they usually spout the kind of nonsense you read in that link. Often, they then get detained or arrested for failing to provide their name. I’ve lost count of how many are going to get the cop sacked once they got out. Sorry, slight derail there. Arseholes, to a (free) man.

You're right that they don't need the consent of every suspect, but they do require consent from citizens. A cop can't walk down the street and ask someone to provide their name for no good reason. 

They do, but they have no authority to do so unless they're a suspect/witness.

I give my consent for Andy to troll smart-arse morons. And ask for their name. Problem solved.

I do not consent.

I'm pulling on your handle.

Hmmm all this is totally unfamiliar to me. Sounds like a right crock of shit.

EFifty wrote:

You're right that they don't need the consent of every suspect, but they do require consent from citizens. A cop can't walk down the street and ask someone to provide their name for no good reason. 

They do, but they have no authority to do so unless they're a suspect/witness.

Well, you’re right and you’re wrong. Anybody has the right to ask anybody else who they are and what they’re doing. As for having the authority, Police very much have that, and that’s what they have over Joe Bloggs doing the same thing. The Police are charged with preventing crime over detecting it, so that involves occasionally asking people who they are and what they’re up to. They can’t always require them to provide the information, but there’s nothing to stop the asking. Generally, the public like the Police to get in about those who have caught their attention.

It all hinges on ‘no good reason’. I don’t know any cops who ask random punters walking down the street who they are and what they’re up to for no good reason. I don’t know anybody who’s got the time to do it. (I have heard horror stories from other parts of Scotland, though.) You’re right that to do so would be wrong, but the other difficulty is that people’s perceptions of ‘good reason’ varies.

Police are also charged with keeping the peace, and that means tackling anti-social behaviour that isn’t necessarily criminal. The expectation of the general public has remained the same, while Police hands are increasingly tied by a growing belief amongst many that, unless a crime is being committed, there’s nothing the Police can do. And there is little the Police can do; you can politely ask someone to refrain, you can strongly advise someone to refrain, but if they’re just being a dick and not actually breaking the law, what then?

Apologies that I’m wandering slightly from the point. It may surprise you that I’m a huge supporters of people’s civil liberties. Stop & Search has just had a massive overhaul in Scotland, with a shift in focus to address that. It’s unfortunate that in a Venn diagram of people up to no good, and vocal supporters of civil liberties, there’s a substantial overlap, because the shift has made it significantly harder to detect crime.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there’s not a problem. The fact that stop/search in Scotland needed an overhaul is testament to that. But that's also got a lot to do with tuning some cops in to properly building and, crucially, articulating their grounds for suspicion.

It’s a complex issue, and I’d be wary of making statements that sit too far on either side of the line.

Andy wrote:

Well, you’re right and you’re wrong. Anybody has the right to ask anybody else who they are and what they’re doing. As for having the authority, Police very much have that, and that’s what they have over Joe Bloggs doing the same thing. The Police are charged with preventing crime over detecting it, so that involves occasionally asking people who they are and what they’re up to. They can’t always require them to provide the information, but there’s nothing to stop the asking. Generally, the public like the Police to get in about those who have caught their attention. It all hinges on ‘no good reason’. I don’t know any cops who ask random punters walking down the street who they are and what they’re up to for no good reason. I don’t know anybody who’s got the time to do it. (I have heard horror stories from other parts of Scotland, though.) You’re right that to do so would be wrong, but the other difficulty is that people’s perceptions of ‘good reason’ varies. Police are also charged with keeping the peace, and that means tackling anti-social behaviour that isn’t necessarily criminal. The expectation of the general public has remained the same, while Police hands are increasingly tied by a growing belief amongst many that, unless a crime is being committed, there’s nothing the Police can do. And there is little the Police can do; you can politely ask someone to refrain, you can strongly advise someone to refrain, but if they’re just being a dick and not actually breaking the law, what then? Apologies that I’m wandering slightly from the point. It may surprise you that I’m a huge supporters of people’s civil liberties. Stop & Search has just had a massive overhaul in Scotland, with a shift in focus to address that. It’s unfortunate that in a Venn diagram of people up to no good, and vocal supporters of civil liberties, there’s a substantial overlap, because the shift has made it significantly harder to detect crime. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there’s not a problem. The fact that stop/search in Scotland needed an overhaul is testament to that. But that's also got a lot to do with tuning some cops in to properly building and, crucially, articulating their grounds for suspicion. It’s a complex issue, and I’d be wary of making statements that sit too far on either side of the line.

You've explained it perfectly. I misunderstood your post and thought you meant generally anyone who challenges the Police when they ask for details is a moron. I know a PO who is of the belief that they have the authority to stop someone at any point and demand their details. 
 I've had several encounters with the police, some being my own fault (like thrown out of a pub) and I'll comply with no issue, others with no good reason. Long story short I've challenged the request before. On two occasions they were actually stunned and quoted a terrorist act and demanded to see the identity of the people I was with as they wanted to see if they were, 'known associates'. Known associates of who? Some dude walking down the street? 
 Anyway, it probably comes across as me having an issue with the Police, and being one of those idiots who shout about the oath. But only the idiot part is true. I know two officers very well and know that a lot of them are good, they're necessary and risk their lives to help others. But unfortunately there's some bad eggs who get to a position of power and abuse it. Obviously you'd prefer the prevention of crime, but at some point you have to stand up for yourself when you're actually doing nothing wrong and it's just someone being a dick. It does come into what you said about the overlap, criminals shouldn't have loopholes to escape detection, but people should still be educated about their rights. 
 A lot of people I know shit themselves and tell the Police everything as soon as they're asked, they don't understand they have rights, and it's partly because people with automatic rifles are intimidating, but definitely also to do with the fact that they were never educated properly on important stuff like this. I definitely wasn't, and obviously you know a lot more on the subject than I would.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Where do you live that the police have automatic rifles? My local bobby is armed with a mustache.

Well I live in Sydney now, but N. Ireland! The Police in the Republic are predominantly unarmed and I think it's the same in the rest of the UK.

Well, this is a bit fucking civil isn't it?
This is the internet, don't you know?

cockbeard wrote:

Would agree, kinda comes down to 'Don't be a dick' really A couple of horror stories when much younger left me slightly cynical even as an adult. Not to the point that I judge everyone in uniform, just that I'm wary about what information I choose to share. Though even last time I was arrested (around 2100), I was offered psych first thing in the morning which I refused, was then held for the full 24 hours and told that if I'd taken the psych in the morning they would have let me out straight afterwards. Which is crazy, I was no more a threat at 1000 than I was 2000 so it was just holding me for the sake of holding me. The polices job is not to punish it's to prevent and apprehend edit : Didn't see efiddy's posts (welcome back btw), so was agreeing with Andy (believe it or not), but also agree with EFifty as well

Cheers mate! Good to see a lot of familiar names on here.

It essentially comes down to their way or the hard way a lot of the time unfortunately. The incident I previously mentioned where they'd asked the people I was with for ID I was wearing a ROI football shirt on a 1916 remembrance day. I hadn't even realised the day and was just walking down the street, about to get some food and happened to be wearing it. The officers surrounded me, got my arm in a lock, I pulled out my phone to record what was happening, they forced me into a corner, snatched at my phone to try to stop the recording, then one of the officers stood in front of a friend of mine's camera to stop them recording too. Literally threatened to arrest me and told me I'd be in a cell until the morning unless I provided ID and told them my address. I asked them what law I'd broken/why they were attacking/questioning me, they then quoted that terrorist act. (Which basically is a get out of jail free card in N. Ireland to question anyone) and then asked the group for ID in case they were as previously mentioned, 'known associates'. You're right to be worried about information you share with certain individuals. I definitely didn't want these people knowing my address!

EFifty wrote:

I'd have really liked to have seen someone in 80's Belfast spout that citizen shit with the RUC. Just to see how hard they'd have been hit with the butt of a rifle.

I know, what fucking pricks they'd be standing up for themselves against an invasive, corrupt and murderous police force!

Depends on your point of view. I'm certainly glad they were there and were armed. They had dicks in their ranks of course, and it's a shame they were required, but there you go.

They had to be present at army checkpoints as the army were there assisting the police. The police could ask name, coming from , going to etc. I suspect those powers derived from an NI special case though - prevention of Terrorism Act or some such. 

I can remember the army asking me those questions too though - so not sure if there was something in place to allow that - or else there was a cop in attendance and wasn't in sight.

They were piggy in the middle too - nobody's darlin' as they say. Even though they were ostensibly recruited from one side of community. That probably engendered a siege mentality of the their own.

No doubt the job attracted a breed of head knocker and recruiters were probably under pressure to get the numbers up.  They were well paid and enjoyed incredible benefits too - though they did have to check under their car every morning. I suspect the stress involved only hardened the resolve of anyone with a violent leaning. I wouldn't have done it.

I agree. I was being flippant earlier. But self preservation would trump that. Have watched videos of those soverigen citizen idiots in the face of rather patient police and set in 80's Belfast the video would have been shorter....

davyK wrote:

I agree. I was being flippant earlier. But self preservation would trump that. Have watched videos of those soverigen citizen idiots in the face of rather patient police and set in 80's Belfast the video would have been shorter....

Aye, a lot of them are idiots, but it's good when you find someone who knows what they're talking about against a dickop. Definitely would've, but isn't it better to be an idiot than a violent sociopath?

transportation staff (conductors and revenue protection etc) are all getting them.

It's a rock.