copy of pace to download

[treeman]

Customer,client, consumer,contractor= prisoner( held ).

[holy vehm]

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.

i dont doubt that there are reasons for incommunicado but the average joe would not fall into this. Im not speaking to help rapists/burgalrs ect but those that are nicked for not playing the game at the roadside (not co-operating) or for refusing to allow a balliff to steal their car/property (breach of the peace) and so on.
If someone is nicked in a stolen car and only the driver is nicked that person will have their right to a call denied and i would agree, that could be my car.
But if i get stopped as per routine/bored and i refuse to get out my car/give more details other than name D.O.B and i am nicked on suspicion and down the nick my phone call is denied then that is against pace/statute law/unlawful.

Do i have figures to support the claim that most are denied their call. Yes. everyone i know that has visited a custody suite. Some on occasion fall into the catagory of outside risk but most dont and this decision was made by the custody sergeant and not the inspector.

An inspector may grant denial over the phone/from home or where ever but there has to be resonable grounds that the detainee poses an outside threat.
In alot of cases the person may only have been arrested and not even charged. They are helping the police with their enquiries and nothing should be denied to them.

hv

[koekemoer]

ok so everyone you know has had their right to a phonecall denied? how many people do you know? 10, 100, 1000? not exactly a scientific sample is it? is this in one force area? and what the demeanour of the arrested person? if he/she was violent/posing a risk to officer and others in the custody suite then they will go straight down the cell till they calm down hence the call is delayed.

the fact of the matter is the modern police are so over cautious of litigation they would have to have a lot of good reason to deny any rights to a detained person. custody sergeants are ussually the more experienced officers on the shift. they would not want to risk a 20 year carreer and pension without a very good reason.

you and i agree that burglars etc need to be arrested but you seem hung up on the matter of motorists being arrested for not having the correct doc etc. simply put you need a licence & insurance to drive a vehicle, and an MOT if applicable. if you lack any of those you are committing an offence. if stopped you will not be arrested if you can prove who you are and where you live. if you feel so strongly about not engaging with the law take the fine from the cop and go to Mags court and convince them of teh validity of your argument.

[woodman]

ok so everyone you know has had their right to a phonecall denied?

Oh. so there IS a right to a phone call now? make your mind up.

koekemoer, I quote the whole of PACE Annex B, which does not say anywhere, that there would be a case to DENY a detainee a phone call, it does say DELAYED, but not in the way you describe ie if he/she was violent/posing a risk to officer and others in the custody suite, a call can be DELAYED if the excerise of the right would cause interference with, or physical harm to, other people.

the fact of the matter is the modern police are so over cautious of litigation they would have to have a lot of good reason to deny any rights to a detained person. custody sergeants are ussually the more experienced officers on the shift. they would not want to risk a 20 year carreer and pension without a very good reason.

You conveniently ignore my comments and continue to talk shite, I give you TWO examples from my own personal experience, easily provable, no good reason, not recorded, in which two different custody Sgt's, simply put didn't know PACE. If they, and many other Police Officers (judging by my experience, comments from Police forums and your comments) don't even know their own PACE rules, then whats the chances of them knowing the LAW?

if you feel so strongly about not engaging with the law take the fine from the cop and go to Mags court and convince them of teh validity of your argument.

I did, and the CPS offered no evidence. But why should I have had to go through all of that simply because of Police Officers who don't know their own rules and who don't know the law?

Are you a Police Officer? Are you a Police Constable?

In my area, I constantly hear about Police Officers making mistakes through ignorance and incompetence, it’s a regular occurrence, blighting the lives of innocent people, making their lives a misery.I was awoken at 7.30am this morning by a loud knock on my door. My wife answered and it was a Police Officer, who demanded to know if she was Emma? (she is not Emma) she said No, he then wanted to know if she had two children (we do not) she said NO! After consulting his documents for a few moments, he said, “wrong address, sorry”. I know of many other similar incidents and it’s beyond a joke.

if stopped you will not be arrested if you can prove who you are and where you live.

If you want to live in an environment akin to Nazi Germany where those who abide by the law can be arrested for failing to show their papers, then good luck to you and your oppressive beliefs, but this forum is not the right place for you unless you are prepared to listen and learn. I personally will ignore you if you ignore facts put to you.

What I would like to see, is Police Constables (not Officers) who KNOW the law. Police Constables who arrest those who cause HARM or LOSS to others. Police Constables who protect and serve the law abiding amongst us. Police Constables with sensible discretion as well as common sense.

Sadly, we have many Police Officers who don''t know the law, cause trouble, terrify people, lie and assault people and this is the fact of the matter.

[kliff]

Here is the link to all the documents that are downloadable

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/

and

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/notice-of-rights/NOTICES_OF_RIGHTS_ENTITLEMEN.pdf?view=Binary

[holy vehm]

ok so everyone you know has had their right to a phonecall denied?

Everyone i know who has been detained in a custody suite and asked for their phone call.
If they ask they are told you have no right to a call but someone may be informed of your presence here.
Those that dont ask are simply asked if they wish anyone to be informed.

how many people do you know?

I know many, dont presume too much, i could for all you know work as a volunter at C.A.B or for the probation service.

10, 100, 1000? not exactly a scientific sample is it?

No it isnt, it is based on, experiance, opinion, the opinion of others and the experiances of others.

is this in one force area?

No, across the country, people far and wide.

what the demeanour of the arrested person?

Some have done themselves no favours at all and some nothing but be firm and polite.

if he/she was violent/posing a risk to officer and others in the custody suite then they will go straight down the cell till they calm down hence the call is delayed.

If you do yourself no favours then that is how it will be. Once the offender/arrested person has calmed down then there is no reason why a call should not be allowed providing there is no outside risk.

the fact of the matter is the modern police are so over cautious of litigation they would have to have a lot of good reason to deny any rights to a detained person. custody sergeants are ussually the more experienced officers on the shift. they would not want to risk a 20 year carreer and pension without a very good reason.

I agree and i would add that the police are over burdened with the relentless stream of crap the government of the day wants you to enforce. The role of the police was never intended as tax revenue collectors or policy enforcement or number crunchers.
For what ever reason, rights are being denied or put another way maybe they are not being informed of their rights. Lets face it most people dont so maybe the police play on peoples ignorance and when someone does know their rights its seen as arrogance/cocky attitude.

you and i agree that burglars etc need to be arrested but you seem hung up on the matter of motorists being arrested for not having the correct doc etc. simply put you need a licence & insurance to drive a vehicle, and an MOT if applicable.

We agree that common law crime is punished. theft/harm against others. Im not hung up on the matter of motorists, i just used them as the example. You say that you need the correct docs. You quote the docs but these apply to statute only and it is statute that you are trying to enforce (not common law)
Now if you spend some time and research what docs you actually do need and the process involved, actually read through all the relevant statutes ect you will see its not so black and white. It doesnt help the police at all when they are being asked to enforce an act of parliment when that very act is complicated and open to interpretation and thats what i do, interpret as do others on here. We have taken the time to study and research, does any officer do the same before enforcing it?
Any how in my example i refered to driving docs as though one is fully liceanced according to the relevant statute but does not have them on their person.
You say this is an offence, but is it. ID is to prove the person, but what constitutes ID, a forgable piece of paper? A witness? records on the police database?
The need to prove ID is to prove who owns the car and who is liable should there be a fine/endorsements.
A police officer can be informed if a car is insured/taxed/mot within minutes. So you will fine a person for not telling you what you already know?

if you feel so strongly about not engaging with the law take the fine from the cop and go to Mags court and convince them of teh validity of your argument.

I have no problem with engaging with the law and would do so more often if it was more common law/common sense.
The problem with just taking the fine ect is quite a long conversation suffice to say it is discussed in detail on here.

hv

[strawmansarah]

http://www.youtube.com/v/<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jv_6B77pfCQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jv_6B77pfCQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Just seemed appropriate

[koekemoer]

oh woodman sorry my apparently "oppresive" views can not be aired on your website. do you only accept input from people you like & agree with? unless I listen & learn your point of view am i persona non-grata? or could you accept that there is another side to the story?

honestly friend if you have these hordes of unfortunates who have had their rights denied in custody get them together and put together a case against police, if Mark Thomas can get 1200 quid for a 12 minute illegal search i dare say you lot will be quids in.

Link here

my views may be oppresive to your mind but they follow the law of the land.

the issue of "right" is one of proportionality and balance. is your right to a phonecall greater than that of the other prioners/solicitors/civilians etc in the custody suite to not be placed in harms way? can you imagine the uproar if an interpretter (as an example) was injured in a custody suite just so police could satisfy the rights of a violnet person to a phonecall after he has been threatening all & sundry in the custody suite? police have "a duty of care" to everyone they engage with.


http://www.youtube.com/v/<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SiyPTuek7mQ&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SiyPTuek7mQ&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

i post this vid just as an example of what can come thru custody doors

[holy vehm]

honestly friend if you have these hordes of unfortunates who have had their rights denied in custody get them together and put together a case against police, if Mark Thomas can get 1200 quid for a 12 minute illegal search i dare say you lot will be quids in.

This already happens on an individual level, the main problem is alot of people have no idea pace or any other rights exsist. Most will just comply with what they are being told. That is wrong.

my views may be oppresive to your mind but they follow the law of the land.

The law of the land you refer to is statute. So many laws that are enforced by the police are not laws of the land. It is corporate law.

the issue of "right" is one of proportionality and balance.

And who issues these rights? Common law is one of proportionality and balance.

is your right to a phonecall greater than that of the other prioners/solicitors/civilians etc in the custody suite to not be placed in harms way?

Someones rights should not be affected because the police cannot protect all in its custody. There is a duty of care and that applies to all. If an offender is violent and poses a risk then that offender must expect to be denied access to a call until they have calmed down, but once they have calmed down then they should be permited their call.
Im not trying to speak for those engaging in serious violent crime. There is a distinction between those who break common law and those who try to uphold it. The government of the day breaks common law and we try to uphold it while you enforce the will of government and not the will of the people. The moment the police change sides the sooner they will get the respect that a police man deserves.

[woodman]

oh woodman sorry my apparently "oppresive" views can not be aired on your website. do you only accept input from people you like & agree with? unless I listen & learn your point of view am i persona non-grata? or could you accept that there is another side to the story?

Pretty pointless responding to you isnt it, when you read my words and then interpret them wrongly. Good luck with your oppressive views is what I said. You can input what you like but I'll probably stop responding if you just ignore my points and keep on spouting shite.

honestly friend if you have these hordes of unfortunates who have had their rights denied in custody get them together and put together a case against police, if Mark Thomas can get 1200 quid for a 12 minute illegal search i dare say you lot will be quids in.

Indeed, I myself have already been made an offer of recompense. Am I correct in thinking that you believe that everyone who is detained is treated fairly and within their rights? because if you believe that, you most certainly live in cloud cuckoo land.

my views may be oppresive to your mind but they follow the law of the land.

as I said, living in cloud cuckoo land.

the issue of "right" is one of proportionality and balance. is your right to a phonecall greater than that of the other prioners/solicitors/civilians etc in the custody suite to not be placed in harms way?

Read PACE again, read my comments regarding annex b, copy and pasted in FULL just for you. You need to wobble your head mate and get some sense into it, how does a phone call harm another? do you have sharpened telephones or something? you are just trying to justify that fact that you as a Policeman was not aware of the right to a phone call.

You didn't post the vid correctly so Ive done it for you. I've seen that video before, and yes that prisoner is a dangerous and violent man who should be locked up. I would have no problem with hsi right to a phone call delayed, it is totally understandable, but I have been talking about my personal experiences as a calm, quiet spoken man, who was kidnapped by Police and denied my rights and I know many others of the same nature who have experienced the same. We are all examples that can come through a custody door and if you are going to deny everyone their rights based on the fact that some may be violent, then you are in the wrong job koekomoer Police Officer.