FOI - Police confusion

FOI - Police confusion

Postby woodman » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:02 pm

With regard to what happened to me and the fact that I was stopped unlawfully and then arrested for asking why, I put an FOI request asking How many people were stopped under Section 60 powers (bearing in mind that there was no Section 60 order in place on that night).

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/stop_and_searches_huyton_area#incoming-51601

After waiting a long time and the Information Bureau needing further permission to release this simple information, I finally got the answer that 40 people were stopped on that night in Huyton, but none were stopped under Section 60 powers.

Knowing that I and a few others were stopped under this non existing power, I queried the fact that this information was incorrect and could they explain why this was so.

I got a response back with different answers to my original question. Out of the 40 stopped, its seems that 19 people and not 0 people, had been stopped under Section 60 Powers that were not in place.

Seems to me that you only get the proper answers if you persist :thinks:
‘Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds’- Robert Nesta Marley (1945 - 1981)

‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing’ - Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
User avatar
woodman
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Two Dogs Fightin'

Re: FOI - Police confusion

Postby emmanualgoldstein » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:15 pm

section 60 of what act?
emmanualgoldstein
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: FOI - Police confusion

Postby emmanualgoldstein » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:25 pm

If its section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 you should be able to find out at least the shoulder number of the superintendant or chief inspector who issued the authorisation and if that order was created within a six hour period of the stop and search taking place. If not then the stop and search must be accepted as being unlawful, to which compensation will be due to you. This might take a bit more waiting for replies, but it might yield a result.
emmanualgoldstein
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: FOI - Police confusion

Postby kevin » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:55 pm

isn't it a crime to lie when releasing info under the FOI act?
kevin
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: FOI - Police confusion

Postby Freeman-B » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:33 pm

kevin wrote:isn't it a crime to lie when releasing info under the FOI act?


Whether it is a crime or not (I honestly don't know), it is CLEARLY a breach of due diligence and quite probably negligence, potentially equivalent to fraud.

Although they will quite likely try to brush it under the carpet, this is a very serious issue and raises severe concern about the validity and veracity of the FOI process.

I sincerely hope you take this further Woody and congrats for all your efforts so far.

:peace: :love:
B
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. Einstein
Banking doesn’t “involve” fraud...banking IS fraud. Tim Madden
Freeman-B
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:04 pm
Location: Scotland/France

Re: FOI - Police confusion

Postby woodman » Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:19 pm

I got a response to this today. Here it is
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
‘Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds’- Robert Nesta Marley (1945 - 1981)

‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing’ - Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
User avatar
woodman
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Two Dogs Fightin'

Re: FOI - Police confusion

Postby emmanualgoldstein » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:20 am

Okay so they are saying that more than half of the stop and searches carried out where not authorised and they are explaining to you why they lied as if the fact that lack of authorisation to stop and search was a good reason for them to lie to you?

Is it just the way Im reading this:
"Un beknownst to the officer at the time, the section 60 authorisation had expired".

So he stops and searches someone without authorisation, then when he realises he doesnt have the authority ... after he commits the crime of harrassing his victim, he changes the reasons for stopping and searching to something else ... after?

Why dont we just shoot some police officers in the foot in the belief they would do it themselves, then when they tell us that they were trained in firearms, we change the reason to self defence against harrassment?
emmanualgoldstein
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: FOI - Police confusion

Postby woodman » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:51 pm

A bit of a mess isnt it and they make it worse in my opinion, always coming up with some garbled explanation as to why they are not at fault.

For me, How can they, when specifically asked a) How many searches were there and b) how many of those were under Section 60 orders? answer 40 searches and 0 were carried out under Section 60 and then........................and ONLY after I had pointed out I knew of people who were stopped under Section 60 and I asked for a review, an "independent" reviewer stated that in fact, 19 not 0 people, were searched under a Section 60 order, that was not in place.

Makes me wonder that if I hadn't of knew of people who had been stopped under Section 60 on that night and pointed it out, I would still be under the illusion that no one was stopped under Section 60 (as there wasn't one in place) and that 40 people (a lot) in my area were reasonably suspected of commiting a crime by Police and were searched for that reason.

:peace:
‘Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds’- Robert Nesta Marley (1945 - 1981)

‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing’ - Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
User avatar
woodman
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Two Dogs Fightin'

Re: FOI - Police confusion

Postby the trojan » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:33 pm

oh this cannot be.
That would suggest that the foi are lying.
And they would not do that .
would they ?
OF COURSE THEY WOULD.
the trojan
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:57 am

Re: FOI - Police confusion

Postby Arten » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:42 pm

You have it down in black and white that you were stopped and detained unlawfully time for you to sue the bastards.
Arten
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:19 pm

Next

Return to Freedom of Information only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests