So how close were we to guns pulled yesterday?

IE, if a copper comes and says ‘I’m arresting you for Xcrime’ which you know (and can prove) you haven’t committed, then I spose you have the right to resist arrest. Proving the copper lacked ‘reasonable grounds’ for arresting you would be another, pretty complicated matter I’d imagine.

load of rubbish, policeman can arrest you if he has reasonable grounds, you have to comply with his request to acompany him to the station where you will be processed and have access to legal representation.

It’s not “no I didn’t” and smack him 🙄

Find me the list of permitted weapons that UK police carry/can use. And the definition of ‘proportionate and reasonable force’.

There isn’t – the Police can use anything and everything they need to do the job, one of the reasons they, as officers of the crown, are not subject to firearms law!

As for the definition of reasonable and proportionate force, this could only be settled in a court of law with the test being that of plain language and in the opinion of the man on the Clapham Omnibus!

Next please Bonaparte 😉

edit:

However, ‘self-defence’ would only be appropriate in a situation where the copper is acting unlawfully,

True!

or you believe their actions to be unlawful.

False!

You have the right to resist unlawful arrest.

True!

IE, if a copper comes and says ‘I’m arresting you for Xcrime’ which you know (and can prove) you haven’t committed, then I spose you have the right to resist arrest.

False!

Proving the copper lacked ‘reasonable grounds’ for arresting you would be another, pretty complicated matter I’d imagine.

True!

Elfinsafety – Member

Actually Labby; here’s a little task for you:

Find me the list of permitted weapons that UK police carry/can use

Well, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are equipped with GPMG:
http://tinyurl.com/3x82nqt

That might have livened up the demo a little.

Aw come on
Am I Is someone allowed to chin a rozzer or what? You’re killing me here.

Elfin – for avoidance of any doubt, the police have a duty and a legal authority to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the peace:

The basic rule, as conveniently stated by Hodgson J in the Divisional Court in Albert v Lavin [1982] AC 546, 553A, is that “a police officer, reasonably believing that a breach of the peace is about to take place, is entitled to take such steps as are necessary to prevent it, including the use of force.” In the past, at least, the same could be said of justices of the peace. Moreover, as Lord Diplock pointed out in the same case that the duty applies to ordinary citizens:
“every citizen in whose presence a breach of the peace is being, or reasonably appears to be about to be, committed has the right to take reasonable steps to make the person who is breaking or threatening to break the peace refrain from doing so; and those reasonable steps in appropriate cases will include detaining him against his will. At common law this is not only the right of every citizen, it is also his duty, although, except in the case of a citizen who is a constable, it is a duty of imperfect obligation.”

There isn’t – the Police can use anything and everything they need to do the job

Without limitation?

load of rubbish, policeman can arrest you if he has reasonable grounds,

Really? Hm, that’s strange, because I’ve actually had police officer have to let go of me after being told be a Legal Observer that he was in fact about to make a wrongful arrest. 😀

Happened at a demo some years back. Copper tried arresting me for taking pictures of him, not an illegal act. The Liberty LO who just happened to be nearby informed the copper that if he proceeded with the wrongful arrest, then he could be facing charges himself.

Sort of blows your claims out of the water, Labby. 😉

I’ve still got the pics of him somewhere. Was a fun-filled day.

Is someone allowed to chin a rozzer or what? You’re killing me here.

I’d steer away from chinning rozzers if I were you, just to be on the safe side! 😀

because I’ve actually had police officer have to let go of me after being told be a Legal Observer that he was in fact about to make a wrongful arrest.

Happened at a demo some years back. Copper tried arresting me for taking pictures of him, not an illegal act. The Liberty LO who just happened to be nearby informed the copper that if he proceeded with the wrongful arrest, then he could be facing charges himself.

but you didn’t have to smack him

if a copper comes and says ‘I’m arresting you for Xcrime’ which you know (and can prove) you haven’t committed, then I spose you have the right to resist arrest.

how did you resist?

Z 11 have you ever read the Dunciad by Alexander Pope?

No the police cannot do “anything and everything they like.” Like any other citizen can use reasonable force to secure their lawful objectives if they use unreasonable force they are not in the execution of their duty just as they are not if they try to arrest without reasonable grounds . Kettling, as any fool does know, has been held to be lawful in one specific instance as a reasonable force in that particular case, that does not make it’s application in other situations law full per se ( that case is also subject to on going appeal to a higher court)

The police are also subject to firearms law .

big and daft is right, a lawful arrest depends on the officers state of mind so your knowledge that you are innocent would not of it’s self entitle you to use force to resist. But to use an example from the Coopers program EDL man sore PC said swear again and I’ll arrest you EDL man muttered under breath and swore PC arrested him for sec 5 . There was no way that PC or any one around could have been caused Harassment alarm or distress buy the relatively mild swearing . The PC clearly lacked reasonable grounds to believe the offence in truth was made out. IF the EDL man had struck him it would not have been assault pc as he was not in the execution of his duty if a court thought that the blow may have been a reasonable and proportionate act to prevent the PC detaining him (which would be an assault and false imprisonment) then there would be no common assault offence either.

Best advise, if a police man arrests you go with him if he is wrong point it out politely on arrest and at the station if he is willfully wrong complain when you get to the station.

Why does it blow my claims out of the water Elfin?

Copper tried arresting me for taking pictures of him

Which he didn’t have the power to do, nobody would dispute that, you’re setting up a straw man

Now, if he’d arrested you to prevent an imminent breach of the peace, he would have been within his powers… nice and simple!

but you didn’t have to smack him

True, but I certainly felt like doing so.

how did you resist?

By trying to pull away from him. He was a big bloke with a strong grip. Other people tried to pull us apart too.

He tried to claim some Public Order offence, can’t remember. Thank God for the clued-up LO!

He din’t look too happy afterwards. I did though! 😀

The police are also subject to firearms law .

Go on… dig your own hole…

I suggest you go and read the 1968 Firearms act, S54, application of parts i and ii to crown servants 😉

To all the critics, read the quote below:

Teddy Roosevelt – To the Man in the Arena
It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly…who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

Thread closed.

IF the EDL man had struck him it would not have been assault pc as he was not in the execution of his duty if a court thought that the blow may have been a reasonable and proportionate act to prevent the PC detaining him (which would be an assault and false imprisonment) then there would be no common assault offence either.

sorry I disagree the EDL man could have waited until he got to the staion and insisted on due process and release. Policeman are allowed to arrest innocent people as only the courts can find you guilty (except cautions).

Just because you disagree with the grounds for the arrest you can’t justifiably resort to violence as you will always have access to due process and many ways to get redress. Violence is not required at any stage.

By trying to pull away from him. He was a big bloke with a strong grip. Other people tried to pull us apart too.

He tried to claim some Public Order offence, can’t remember. Thank God for the clued-up LO!

He din’t look too happy afterwards. I did though!
good case for retraining of the officer so he can come up wih the right offence to arrest you for 😉

but you didn’t have to smack him

True, but I certainly felt like doing so.

keyboard warrior at his xenith 😉

Well Z 11 I’m happy to play. The Police are subject to fire arms law their power to arm certain officers with certain wepons is contained in section 55 of the Fire Arms Act 1968 and elsewhere but they still subject to the law and have to comply with it’s requirements as to what is issued and who is armed.

edit sec 54 FAA 1968 thanks google

Yeah whatever BnD. Whatever.

I’m bored of this now anyway. Cuppa, anyone?

Big and daft re read what i said. I think in princiole we agree. In the Coppers example there is no way the officer could argue he had reasonable grounds for a belief that an arrest was lawful hence he is not in the execution of his duty so no crime of “assault pc” potentialy it is common assault but it is arguable that self defence would arrise (and in some cases it clearly does) in the Coppers scenario I and you think the answer is to go along with the “false” arrest and complian later.

Which one is our elfin friend?

Well if I’ve learnt one thing from this thread, it’s that I want crankboy to be my lawyer should the need ever arise.

Are you cheap ?

Crankboy – sorry for the delay, been out doing other stuff – however sorry mate – heres the Email from the Home office that clarifies the position, which has been available for some time:

Worth Richard, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thank you for your e-mail of yesterday’s date about
the possession of prohibited weapons by Crown servants.

As a general rule of law, Acts of Parliament do not bin
the Crown or its servants unless specifically stated as
doing so. The Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997 therefore do
not apply to Crown servants in general.

In this respect, Section 54 of the Firearms Act 1968
does not exempt Crown servants from the general provisions
of the 1968 Act. Rather, they are already exempt, and if
Section 54 was not included they would continue to be
exempt. In particular, as Section 5 is not named in Section
54 it would not apply to Crown servants.

Rather, Section 54 applies a number of provisions to the
acquisition of firearms by Crown servants. Certificate
holders and dealers had to check and endorse a person’s
authority to acquire guns from them (eg filling in table 1
of a firearm certificate, so Section 54(2) provides that
written authorisation (generally from a senior officer)
would be sufficient proof for the vendor to transfer a gun
to the Crown servant concerned.

Section 54(3) specifically provides that members of police
forces are Crown servants for these purposes. I understand
that this was included because police constables are office
holders under the Crown rather than servants of the Crown
as such, a similar position to Justices of the Peace.
—

Like I said… do you want to carry on digging? I would suggest that if you want to dispute the fact that firearms laws do not apply to the Police, you go and take it up with the Home Office 😉

Soulboy, the argus speech! I love that speech! but it was penned for soldiers and servicemen rather than police and rather more than at crusties!
(No offence if you’re a crustie)

Zulu-Eleven – Member

“every citizen in whose presence a breach of the peace is being, or reasonably appears to be about to be, committed has the right to take reasonable steps to make the person who is breaking or threatening to break the peace refrain from doing so; and those reasonable steps in appropriate cases will include detaining him against his will. At common law this is not only the right of every citizen, it is also his duty, although, except in the case of a citizen who is a constable, it is a duty of imperfect obligation.”

Interesting. So how does apply to a citizen who sees, for example, a fellow protestor being assaulted by a police officer?

Nahh … just open up the AK47 to cull a few here as that will do the population good after all they should know the reason why certain people have armed bodyguard.

If you come close to Dear Leader you will be nuked.

So how does apply to a citizen who sees, for example, a fellow protestor being assaulted by a police officer?

Depends just how confident he is that the police officer is committing an “assault”, rather than a “lawful use of force” and whether he’s willing to risk his liberty in doing so…

Given the extent of police powers in a public order situation (as already discussed, and read it carefully: a police officer, reasonably believing that a breach of the peace is about to take place, is entitled to take such steps as are necessary to prevent it, including the use of force.) Then I’d be willing to put my monthly bike money on the citizen doing either lengthy prison sentence, or leaving with a headache 😉

Zulu-Eleven – Member
“Given the extent of police powers in a public order situation (as already discussed, and read it carefully: a police officer, reasonably believing that a breach of the peace is about to take place, is entitled to take such steps as are necessary to prevent it, including the use of force.) Then I’d be willing to put my monthly bike money on the citizen doing either lengthy prison sentence, or leaving with a headache”

So the officer’d have to be using force when it’s not neccesary, or using more force than is neccesary, or it’s not reasonable for him to believe that a breach of the peace is about to occur then.

Where does the burden of proof lie then? Still with the defendant I hope?

section 7 of said act states

7 Police permit
(1)A person who has obtained from the chief officer of police for the area in which he resides a permit for the purpose in the prescribed form may, without holding a certificate under this Act, have in his possession a firearm and ammunition in accordance with the terms of the permit.

which is also what you say above and is in the act.
Crown servant is a much broader category than Police officer FWIW

Anyone get the feeling that a fair number of coppers want locking up?

Anyone get the feeling that a fair number of coppers want locking up?

Anyone get the feeling that a fair number of STW’ers think the law only applies to other people – bit like speeding, wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone when driving innit?

I can see it now:

All the Students: The law dont apply to us, its, like, der polices fault coz they pushed us into it by opressin us, loike, innit”

All the speeders: “yeah, well, the law dont apply coz, like, der speed limit is stupid and too low, and I’m der best driver in der world so it dont apply to me”

All the burglars: “yeah, well, we’re entitled to burgle, coz der law is pushin us into it and der government does nuffink for us like”

All the Rapists “yeah, well, der law’s not fair, coz dem wimmin are all like out there innit, theyze all askin for it, and they pushed me into it, cos a mans only human like”

Etc…

I think that police officers should be more accountable; certainly it’s likely several broke laws last Thursday, judging by the accounts/images/injuries. The WPC without numbers should be sacked.

The Law also needs to be made to work more effectively; the death of Ian Tomlinson was a tragedy followed by a travesty; that no-one will ever face charges over his death is disgusting.

As an aside; how is police officers’ legal representation funded? By their force? Union? Or do they have to find their own defence? Maybe if they had to fund their own defence like the rest of us, they might act in a more responsible manner.

The police do a good job overall, imo. Not a great one, but not bad either. There’s a lot of room for improvement though.

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Anyone get the feeling that a fair number of STW’ers think the law only applies to other people – bit like speeding, wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone when driving innit?

I just want all the people working in the bank lock up … bloody customer service. Keep giving the excuse that “the computer says noooo”.

z 11 ta but i think you are proving my point fire arms law does apply to the police they are exempt from certain offenses if they have the specific consents and signed authority. Needing a lawful authority means you are subject to the law. I do concede that we are starting to dance on a head of a pin but to give you a practical example a police officer cannot lawfully deploy a fully automatic weapon or shotgun launched tazer even if they think it is necessary as they do not have home office consent to use these . The police are subject to fire arms laws just in a different way to many other citizens.

On your misquoting of the general law of breach of the peace if you want to google your quote your first hit should be the “Laporte vs chief constable of Gloucestershire” case in which the house of lords unanimously held that the police could not do whatever they felt necessary to prevent a breach of the peace. To explain the police were the respondents. The section below also nicely sums up the competing duties of the police in public order duties involving civil protest.
“I am very conscious of the difficulty facing police officers in making such decisions in constantly changing conditions, and bearing in mind the very great importance of ensuring that no incursion into the base took place. I would in such a case pay considerable respect to the judgment of the officer making decisions on the ground. I am also fully aware of the distortion of vision which hindsight may cause. The burden rests upon the respondents, however, to establish that the actions which they took were proportionate, in particular that they constituted the least restriction necessary of the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. In the light of this factor, accordingly, and not without some hesitation, I am impelled to the view that the respondents have not discharged that burden..” by the way in legal games 2006 House of Lords trumps 1982 Court of Appeal.

And yes I can guess what you are going to come back with.

Anyone get the feeling that a fair number of STW’ers think the law only applies to other people –

Yes it is like they think the police can do no wrong and are justified in everything the do
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8196630/Police-dragged-me-from-wheelchair-twice-during-protests-says-demonstrator.html

Some of these people think this is out of order well why was he there then eh ?
it is some way from defending students and the right to protest [even if violent] to defending a rapist because women are asking for it.
Personally I think they do a difficult job during these times but to think they [or the protestors] acquire some ability to do no wrong seems an overly simplified anlysis of some complicated events
can we just have slightly more sensible debate about what is appropraite and what is not appropriate for a police officer to do?

Oh and ernie_lynch I am cheap 90% of the time as I’m mostly funded by legal aid, about £49 to £70 an hour.

Elfinsafety I no longer defend police officers as a couple of local firms have cornered that market, their cases tend to be funded by the police federation ( police union) and charge out at about about £140 per hour.

Hourly rates are as charged by the firm to cover all overheads not direct to the back pocket.

I think Elfin has it.

That said if you get a chance to listen to the Radio Four interview with Boris and the police laddie the day after the C&C car incident, the police guy (Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Sir Paul Stephenson) sounds rattled, incompetent and prejudiced.

Some excellent quotes – complaining about students moving around and refusing to be kettled, taking about bring miscreants to justice (offences committed by criminal thugs will be investigated as will complaints against police officers).

The guy is out of his depth and wants relieving of his position.

Zulu-Eleven – Member

“Anyone get the feeling that a fair number of STW’ers think the law only applies to other people”

I think quite a lot of us think the law should apply to both sides, but since one side is made up of public servants paid and trained to uphold the law, it’s pretty reasonable to expect them to do their jobs. I’m not sure how controversial this is…

z 11 ta but i think you are proving my point fire arms law does apply to the police they are exempt from certain offenses

I agree that we’re dancing on the head of a pin somewhat, but you’ve got it the wrong way round, the police are exempt from firearms law in general, but are included in some offences – the law only applies to them where it specifically states they are included in statute, for anyone else (ie, a normal citizen), the law applies to them unless they are specifically excluded by statute. On your point regards home office authorisation, the recent case with Northumbria and the tazer shotguns would be a pointed example – it was illegal for him to supply them, however it was not illegal for the police to buy them, nor the police officers to possess them, as they were not subject to the law.

Regard Laporte – the judgement was clear that the police were able to do whatever they needed to to prevent an imminent breach and as long as the threat continued, however they breached that in forcing the buses all the way back to london – plus that has to be read in conjunction with the HOL judgement in Austin 🙂

Actually can I just point out that all the coppers I’ve met round here, and I used to play rugby with quite a few, have been fine.
The Met scare me though and just for colour my ex-Crown Prosecutor father-in-law reckons the Met to be the least competent bunch of police he’s dealt with.

Hourly rates are as charged by the firm to cover all overheads not direct to the back pocket.

I’m always happy to pay in pound notes………money straight into your back pocket.
No VAT of course…….I don’t need a receipt.

The Met and West Midlands. Plenty to be proud about.