copy of pace to download

[koekemoer]

woodman really i had you down as better than that. i direct you to sec 5.1 of the same document, and when cut & pasting for a debate please read the whole section, the phonecall can be delayed if necessary, you have no right to an automatic phonecall.

furthermore if your demeanour is in anyway violent or threatening you will find police will put you in a cell till you calm down as they have a duty of care to other "customers" to make sure that they do not get hurt and the police sued.

if you are unfortunate enough to be arrested remain calm.

[holy vehm]

it can only be delayed or denied by an inspector or above and on certain conditions.
Someone protesting their innocence while being man handled is not one of them.
demanding a copy of pace is not one of them.
under protest and duress is not one of them.
in fact there are alot of reasons why that call should not be delayed or denied.

to deny the call is control, there is a need to control the situation and the 'customer'.

hv

[koekemoer]

so we do agree that there is no automatic right to a phonecall?

[strawmansarah]

PACE is for PERSONS. Read line 1....

I'm not a PERSON.

Are you???

To a Sovereign, kidnap is kidnap, assault is assault etc etc etc.

They will always dishonour, of course. They're wankers who care more about their own paycheque than humanity. THAT's the sort of 'humans' we're talking about. Despicable, pathetic, lowlife pond scum.

As for Rights - to phonecalls etc. I am Sovereign. My RIGHTS are UNLIMITED. The LAW says so. And I say so. Period.

Still.. its a bit like the people who want to tattoo paedo's to identify them in the streets. POLICYofficer are all in glow-in-the-dark uniforms. At least their clothes are bright

[holy vehm]

so we do agree that there is no automatic right to a phonecall?

game of chess

from a freeman perspective strawmansarah is correct

:police: PACE is for PERSONS. Read line 1.... I'm not a PERSON. Are you???

But most customers are not freemen, so is there an automatic right to a call for the average joe?
I would say yes as the request is not put to an inspector who then may or may not grant the call.
There will be certain charges/situations where a procedure takes place.
The risk that the person in the custody suite may attempt to contact another person who may be a suspect is really the only one outside of the anti-terrorism act.
Most customers are entitled to make a phone call themselves upon request and this in most circumstances should be granted.
The reality is that almost all people are denied this right even when there is no outside risk.
The person who makes this decision will be in most cases the custody sergeant who has no authority to do so.
If that officer should make such a decision with no outside risk then the customer should demand that an inspector or above be informed of the officers decision.

hv

[koekemoer]

so we do agree that there is no automatic right to a phonecall?

game of chess

from a freeman perspective strawmansarah is correct

:police: PACE is for PERSONS. Read line 1.... I'm not a PERSON. Are you???

But most customers are not freemen, so is there an automatic right to a call for the average joe?
I would say yes as the request is not put to an inspector who then may or may not grant the call.
There will be certain charges/situations where a procedure takes place.
The risk that the person in the custody suite may attempt to contact another person who may be a suspect is really the only one outside of the anti-terrorism act.
Most customers are entitled to make a phone call themselves upon request and this in most circumstances should be granted.
The reality is that almost all people are denied this right even when there is no outside risk.
The person who makes this decision will be in most cases the custody sergeant who has no authority to do so.
If that officer should make such a decision with no outside risk then the customer should demand that an inspector or above be informed of the officers decision.

hv

you too have knowledge of the workings of a custody suite. how many is most? 50%, 60%? if you have figures bring them to the table. i think you would find it is very few who have the right denied/delayed and the desicision is justified when doing so.

the descision to hold a person incommunicado is always recorded on the custody record as well as who made the desicions and the reason for doing so. It may be that a phone call is put into a Inspector who may be miles away dealing with an incident and he will authorise that calls are witheld. that desision may have been made before the prisoner arrived at the station as the arresting officer fears that the detainee will call an acomplice to destroy evidence prior to any search being done of home addresses.

[strawmansarah]

But most customers are not freemen,

... then we need to educate MOST customers.

There's a maxim in law that says (and I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to look it up right now), "He who would be deceived - let him". That's the one those scumbags rely on, I guess. Grrrr

[treeman]

Welcome , from a customer

[strawmansarah]

Of course, if we WERE customers we'd shop elsewhere. Well, at least I would....

[woodman]

I absolutely agree with that both hv and sarah have said.

From my personal experience of being unlawfully arrested twice, on both occasions on asking for my right to a phone call AND pointing out PACE, I was told twice that I was not allowed to speak to anyone and that they would inform someone of the circumstances and that was that.

At no time did an inspector or above have any involvement in making that decision, it was the general belief of those custody sgts and it's a general belief of most Police Officers that there is no right of a phone call whatsoever, when PACE (the Police's own rule book) dictates otherwise.

There is no record on both custody sheets of the fact that I was held incommunicado.

PACE Code C Annex B
A phone call can be delayed if officer of inspector rank or above has reasonable grounds for believing their exercise will:
(i) lead to:
• interference with, or harm to, evidence connected with an indictable offence; or
• interference with, or physical harm to, other people; or
(ii) lead to alerting other people suspected of having committed an indictable offence but not yet arrested for it; or
(iii) hinder the recovery of property obtained in consequence of the commission of such an offence.
2. These rights may also be delayed if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that:
(i) the person detained for an indictable offence has benefited from their criminal conduct (decided in accordance with Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002); and
(ii) the recovery of the value of the property constituting that benefit will be hindered by the exercise of either right.

I was arrested for disordely behaviour, taking into account all of the above, legally speaking, yes I had an automatic right to a phone call, lawfully speaking, I shouldnt have even been there.