pabwrx

Hi everyone,
I have just purchased my first Scooby and live I in South Shields. I would like to gauge some reactions to an incident that happened in South Shields the other night. According to our local newspaper one of the sea front car parks was "raided by the police". All the lads where made to line up in the rain while there pride and joys where searched and they where questioned. Apparently the local residents have complained of speeding and loud music coming from cars at the beach. As you all know we all spend alot of money as well as blood sweat and tears getting our cars in tip top condition, why can't we show them off to other like minded people without being victimised.
If you where part of this "police circus" in South Shields please let me know because I think something should be done. Also if this is a problem in your area get in touch and let me know what you have done.

Thanks

mgcvk

Sounds fair enough. Whats the problem? Have they banged all the Chavs up in the slammer and crushed their Corsas?

dux_2002

but wouldnt you be glad if someone had stolen your car, and one of theese "raids" came accross it, the thief arrested and your car returned?

or wouldnt you be happy that the police found £1000 worth of coke on someone which could of easily ended up in your sons/daughters hands?

its not nice being searched by the police but nowadays its essential to cut down on all of the TWOCers and dealers to make this a better/safer place to live in. ive had a few cars stolen, one of which was returned after a "raid" and i was very gratefull.

its a minor inconvenience for a big gain.

GC8

The issue, for the hard of thinking; is whether the Police have the authority to force people do what they did.....

SteveScooby

iTrader: (2)

Yes, if they've got reasonable grounds to suspect an offence is/was being committed

dux_2002

true, but they need a warrent still if anything is locked, i.e. if you have a locked glovebox or boot, they cannot ask you to open it. and IIRC if your cars locked before they turn up they cant search it, but they CAN impound it while they get a warrent.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

They can also do you for mods on your car that are not declared on your insurance, basically do you for driving around uninsured.
They are doing their job, if there have been complaints due to fast driving at night (10pm say) and loud music it is annoying, especially for people with children who want them to stay asleep.

Tony

speye91

Try posting in here.

Coast Cruise Forums

Or here if your a local lad and own a Subaru.

TyneTeesScoobies

GC8

We dont live in a New Labour Police-state just yet. Which police power authorises officers to line people up in the rain?

StickyMicky

i heard they told the women who needed the toilet to go to the beach


but to be fair, the whole south shields thing was getting "raided" 11 years ago when i 1st passed my test, and had probably been going 10/11 years previous to that as well.

heard a few reports of this incident, but its all to be expected really

speye91

What about the Blockyards at Sunderland,now that was crazy.

Nido

Bit of a rant here, but I'm afraid most of those posts here reflect where, IMO, the UK is going up the swanny. "Why should", "what powers do the police have" etc.

If the police want to see whats going on, check you etc, then they should be able to. If you have nothing to hide then whats the problem? It just leeds down the path of questioning authority, and thats why the chavs etc have such a field day.

Here in Spain the police are respected much more - you **** with them and they shoot you, pretty simple really. A guy just down the road from where I live burgled a house the other day, the police turned up as he was leaving the scene - told him to stop. He didn't, tried to run, they shot him Better detterent than 3 months inside eh?

Respect for authority is what's needed.

speye91

That is exactly what we need.

StickyMicky

Still never stopped the bloke when he had the bright idea to burgle tho?

he must have known the risks, yet still took the chance......

John57

Wrong !

As an example (assuming not Scotland which may differ) if I thought someone was hiding in your car under a blanket who was wanted by a court or for questionning and the car was locked do you really think I need a warrant ? I would suggest you may want to open the car or watch it get opened for you

It may seem a simple example but serves to make the point.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 + the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 gives plenty of details I am not going to post here ...... but have a look at S1, S117, S17, 18 and 32 of 'PACE 1984' - all of which cover powers to search and enter - to a greater or lesser degree - etc without warrant.

These powers have changed slightly with the introduction of 'SOCPA 2005' but are in essence the same as they were for the purposes of this thread.

GC8

All Police powers have caveats though..... Im sure that Police officers have no authority whatsoever to line people up in the rain; whom they have no honest grounds to suspect of committing an offence. This applies equally to person and vehicle searches. Lying about justification is all well and good (and common-place) until someone takes it up with the IPCA and youre forced to substantiate the claims that youve made.

Simon

Nido

He knew the risk, he got shot. Might just put a few of his Morrocan friends of doing the same eh?

Actually no, because the camp where all the Morrocans were living was also hit by the police the other day. No screwing around, they knew they were doing all the crime in the area, so they just chucked the whole in jail. Result? Might not be to the letter of the Human rights act, but no more crime

Nido

Oh no they got wet, quick - call claims direct to sue for loss of earnings due to a cold.....

John57

OK then .... so the report says it so it's obviously true is it ????

As for lying in creating grounds ..... no it is not acceptable. Why would I risk losing my job to search someone I have invariably never met before. I don't think so thanks !

GC8

You have to presume that it is factually accurate in order to comment on the thread John. You may not do it; but you know that it happens dont you?

Simon

John57

You have to presume that it is factually accurate in order to comment on the thread John.

.... sorry, I have to disagree.


You may not do it; but you know that it happens dont you?

.... as I said, I don't do it but would be stupid to believe it doesn't ever happen - only the individuals will really know. I have certainly only ever seen people searched with grounds - often ones given by members of the public. Sometimes their reasons for talking to us may be dubious but we don't have a lie detector or crystal ball to help us make decisions on the street so have to do our best.

gogsie

I don't want to give Police officers a hard time as they have a diificult job but I think the poster has a valid question. If they do suspect everyone of the guys that were there of a crime is that reasonable? The odds of every guy there having commited a crime are very slim, so slim in fact I would say never going to happen so why search every car - of coarse unless they charge them with Loitering . Please improve clear up rates for burglaries then worry about some "possible" minor motoring offences!

Legal Eagle

They can also do you for mods on your car that are not declared on your insurance

How's that then? How do the police know that the insurance company has not been notified of modifications to the car and that they have refused to continue to indemnify the driver? I would have thought that scenario is only possible in the case of a claim being made and the Ins Co refusing to honour their obligations on the grounds that the contract of good faith has been breached by the Insured. Hardly something that can be done and proved by the police, in the rain, on the sea front, late at night, I would humbly submit...

GC8

Refusing to honour claims is a nonesense too. There are also strict guidelines enforced by the ombudsman with regard to undeclared modifications when claims are made on a non-third party element of a policy (they certainly cant use an undeclared alteration to refuse an otherwise legitimate claim).

Simon

GROWLER_GRRRR

searching of vehicles is covered in pace 1= people pace 2 is the searching of unattended vehicles .

Part 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) empowers any constable acting with reasonable grounds for suspicion to stop, detain and search you or your vehicle, or anything in or on your vehicle for certain items, which may be seized. The provisions of the Act are supplemented by a Code of Practice on stop and search. The contents of the Code must be observed by the police, although the remedy for failure to observe it is usually to make a police complaint - or if prosecuted to raise an objection in court - rather than to take legal proceedings against the police.

PACE also provides some safeguards for other well-used police powers of search. These might relate, for instance, to searches for drugs or firearms and so on. The safeguards also apply in a limited way to controversial powers of stop and search introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 when it is feared that an incident involving serious violence may take place.

The police do not have general powers, apart from those specified in a statute, to stop and search you, unless you consent. You should ask the police officer to explain on what basis they are searching you. If no search power exists you should be told that you do not have to consent and if you do not, you should not be searched.

NO SURRENDER

ScoobyDoo555

I think that the respect needs to be regained by the Authorites, but it is a VERY fine line between this and the Police state mentioned in previous posts.

IMHO, I think it's rather amusing, if the nature of the incident was to "knock em down a peg or two"........

I'm sure it's something that we've all wanted to do though - of course, without an accurate description of the events, we can yak about this for days (and knowing Scoobynet, we will!! plus the resulting my car's faster than yours bullsh1t )........

Dan

badgersport

If the police really had proper grounds to search everybody in the car park then they really do have a serious crime problem up there.

Let's get real it was a case of the Police throwing their weight around in an attempt to discourage people from making a nuisance of themselves in the car park. I don't have any objection to that, indeed I wish they'd do it in some of the car parks near where I live.

Unfortuantely the law doesn't seem to allow for that sort of policing anymore so we have to put up with this 'proper grounds' nonsense.

HOWY

Sounds fair enough to me having watched a recent program on TV of these cruisers/boy racers doing dangerous things in public places. If they want to play loud music and drive around like idiots suggest they do what other branches of legitimate motorsport do, i.e hire a proper private venue and keep problems off the roads and car parks

John57

We don't know what intelligence - or not - officers involved in this 'incident' had or didn't have.

I am not going to try and explain 'reasonable grounds' on here as many new officers even struggle to understand what it means. I have my own opinion and that will differ from others. At the end of the day it comes down to a subjective view on information available.

There may be quite simple information that leads to everyone being searched at this location, it may be more complex. If, for example, there is 'good' information drugs are being used randomly and dealt at this location by the users of the cars then everyone may well end up being searched - that is the way it is .... whether that information is accurate or comes from a disgruntled local is another matter. Only those involved or searched will know .... we never will.

GROWLER_GRRRR

gowise

grounds

object of the search

warrent card

identification

station where located .


entitlement (upto 12 month to obtain a copy of the search )

all the infomation they have should be explained to the detained person for the object of a search .