James255 + 26 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 (edited) Edited October 1, 2016 by Fedster video embedded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedster + 1,307 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Why not just answer the officers questions, instead of being obnoxious? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensonby + 3,503 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Face. Palm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper 29 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 26 minutes ago, Fedster said: Why not just answer the officers questions, instead of being obnoxious? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. I'm struggling to see grounds for a section 1 search, surely having told him they suspect him of terrorism they should have search him under that legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clear Left! 41 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Jasper said: I'm struggling to see grounds for a section 1 search, surely having told him they suspect him of terrorism they should have search him under that legislation? It was more than likely said in error... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper 29 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Just now, Hotel Tango said: It was more than likely said in error... What that they thought him a terrorist or the section 1. I'm not at all sure they had grounds for either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clear Left! 41 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Just now, Jasper said: What that they thought him a terrorist or the section 1. I'm not at all sure they had grounds for either In my opinion the Section 1 rather than the relevant searching legislation under the terrorism act for Hostile Recon. I'd feel personally there would be sufficient grounds, heightened ct threat etc... S43 off the top of my head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remmy + 1,401 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jasper said: What that they thought him a terrorist or the section 1. I'm not at all sure they had grounds for either If they didn't then I'm sure they will make a complaint. However we really don't have enough information to make that judgement here do we? Once again if the person filming had been reasonable, when spoken to by the officer I am quite sure it would have avoided any use of force and distress caused to the child. The individual concerned appears to be an idiot to me, based on what I heard on this clip 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper 29 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, Hotel Tango said: In my opinion the Section 1 rather than the relevant searching legislation under the terrorism act for Hostile Recon. I'd feel personally there would be sufficient grounds, heightened ct threat etc... S43 off the top of my head? They should surely have checked the recording then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clear Left! 41 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Jasper said: They should surely have checked the recording then? Well you could have tried doing that by consent however the customer didn't strike me as the most cooperative man. It's very clear from the off that powers would need to be used in order to achieve the above. In my opinion, he was recording to provoke a reaction. Probably what I'd use if necessary >> Subsection 4 (s43) - A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. Edited October 1, 2016 by Hotel Tango Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper 29 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, Hotel Tango said: Well you could have tried doing that by consent however the customer didn't strike me as the most cooperative man. It's very clear from the off that powers would need to be used in order to achieve the above. In my opinion, he was recording to provoke a reaction. Subsection 4 (s43) - A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. I think you are right , but I also don't think the PC thought him a terrorist. Isn't there a power of arrest for not giving yourdetails under the legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clear Left! 41 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Just now, Jasper said: I think you are right , but I also don't think the PC thought him a terrorist. Isn't there a power of arrest for not giving yourdetails under the legislation? It's hard to say... I probably would have looked at that before leaving the station which is what it appeared that officer did (no vest! or old sweat). I don't know without looking to be honest, it would seem logical or I'm sure some other legislation could assist you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCFPA 79 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 What strikes me more is the officer appears to be an inspector, an officer in such a critical role that should know these powers and legislation like the back of his hand. There were sufficient grounds for the terrorism search aggravated by the males demeanour.Sent from my iPhone using Police Community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike88 + 257 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) I thought that a search under the Terrorism Act could only be done in a designated area for a designated amount of time, the inspector probably wouldn't be able to use those powers outside the station I doubt the area would fall into that category. Edited October 2, 2016 by mike88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper 29 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 11 minutes ago, mike88 said: I thought that a search under the Terrorism Act could only be done in a designated area for a designated amount of time, the inspector probably wouldn't be able to use those powers outside the station I doubt the area would fall into that category. Not quite. A search with reasonable grounds for suspicion that you are a terrorist can be carried out anywhere any time s43. A search with out reasonable grounds can only be carried out as you describe s47a So the question is did they have reasonable grounds to suspect he was a terrorist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now