What is a PCSO?
Forums
About
FAQ
New Powers
Services
Dating
Interviews
Friends With
Articles
Archives
UNISON
Threads
Register
News
Chat Room
e-mail me

CRITICAL ISSUES

2008 PCSO POWERS HERE!


select tools DESKTOP

Now you can be arrested for any offence
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
(Filed: 29/12/2005)

Police are to be given sweeping powers to arrest people for every offence, including dropping litter, failure to wear a seat belt and other minor misdemeanours.

The measures, which come into force on Jan 1, are the biggest expansion in decades of police powers to deprive people of their liberty.

  
At present, officers can generally arrest people if they suspect them of committing an offence which carries at least five years in prison. They will now have the discretion to detain someone if they suspect any offence and think that an arrest is "necessary".

The civil liberties organisation Liberty said the change represented "a fundamental shift" in power from the public to the police and the state and was open to misuse.

It pointed out that powers to stop people under anti-terrorist legislation, which the public had been reassured would be applied correctly and sparingly, were wrongly used against an elderly heckler at the Labour Party conference in the autumn.

There are also worries that the new arrest laws will create major problems for constables, whose judgment on the "necessity" of an arrest is likely to be routinely challenged in the courts, particularly under human rights legislation.

Officers will have to satisfy themselves of "a person's involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence" and that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that the person's arrest is necessary".

They will also have the power to take digital photographs of suspects on the street when they have been arrested, detained or given a fixed penalty notice.

The Home Office said the move would save time spent in taking suspects to a police station to be photographed and that it would "greatly reduce the ability of suspects to deny that they were the person in question".

But many people fear that the move will create a vast database of photographs of innocent citizens which could be kept even if the police decide not to take any further action against them.

The Government says that the existing legal framework on arrestable and non-arrestable offences has become "bewilderingly" complex and needs to be simplified.

A Home Office spokesman said yesterday that arrests would not soar because, in addition to the necessity test, many offences would be covered by fixed penalty notices.

Police chiefs have made clear that, although they were concerned about the current system, they did not ask for all offences to be arrestable.

Liberty said that three years ago the Home Office and the Cabinet Office had advocated "a definitive list" of arrestable offences and enhanced training, not a move towards all offences being arrestable.

Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Officers need firm guidance on how to use these new powers. Nobody wants to live in a society in which every offence results in people being dragged down to the police station."

Edward Garnier, the Tories' spokesman on home affairs, said: "The effect of the new arrangements will need to be monitored closely."

Like Liberty, he referred to the ejection from the Labour conference of Walter Wolfgang, 82, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a Labour Party member since 1948, and how a policeman citing the Terrorism Act detained him when he tried to get back into the hall.

Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, said: "It is vital that the police are equipped with the powers they need to enable them to do their jobs properly and effectively. The powers need to be updated to reflect modern policing priorities and the changing nature of criminal activity.

"We need to maintain the crucial balance between the powers of the police and an individual's rights.

"The introduction of a single, rationalised power of arrest simplifies arrest powers and requires the police officer to consider the necessity of the arrest."           further info here


summary.jpg

SOCAP HAS ARRIVED

  • PCSOs must be up to date with the new SOCAP powers that have arrived!
  • The old "arrestable offences" of 2005 NO LONGER EXIST!

 

Sections 110 & 111 and Schedule 7 of SOCAP came into force on 1.1.06
New s.24A Other person power of arrest

  • Only for indictable offences
  • Must have reasonable grounds to believe the arrest is necessary for a specified reason
    AND
  • Not reasonably practicable for a constable to arrest



Any person – arrest reasons

  • Causing physical injury to himself/others
  • Suffering physical injury
  • Causing loss of or damage to property
  • Making off before a constable can assume responsibility

DOWNLOAD OUR GUIDE!

mbook.jpg

You should be fully aware of the new SOCAP details so DOWNLOAD our guide put together by top member "1985" right now!

The download is in .pdf format and is 177k in size

Just click on this line to download it


 

TOP SIX POLICE SITES IN THE UK TODAY
police could you Police999.com ncalt law and training resources off duty for police Police Specials UK police on line forums


Site visitor comment
 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Critical Issue

Having read the critical issues page of your web site I was quite surprised to see how negative it was I would like to point out that the Police have been able to arrest for all offences since PACE Act 1984.  The conditions under SOCPA which make it necessary to arrest for an offence are almost a direct lift of those sec 25 powers. SOCPA has simplified the countless conditional powers that police officers had making unlawful arrest easier to avoid. The simple fact is that SOCPA has actually reduced a lot of police powers particularly powers of search, and offences where officers did not really have to justify and arrest (such as Taking a vehicle without consent) now have to be fully justified. Surely this contradict the basic tone of the critical issue article?

Colin Towler (Hampshire Police)

 

Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:52 PM
Subject: Critical Issue

Reply from site admin

Hi Colin,

Thanks for writing in and I'm sorry the "CRITICAL ISSUES" page has given a negative impression. Actually that whole article posted at the top of the page, is a 'direct lift' from the Daily Telegraph, dated 29/12/2005 and if you click further info here on the bottom line, that links straight to the article in question. My fault, I guess I should have made it clearer that the article is not comment from this site, but an article that appeared last month in the Daily Telegraph.

I largely agree with what you say about the new powers of arrest - yes s25 PACE (which is now repealed) was extremely similar to what we see in place now as conditions and justifications to be met before an arrest under SOCAP can be made. However, the basic tone of the article you refer to is probably rather "sensational" more than "realistic" but what sells newspapers? Sensational or realistic? Also, the article probably makes pretty good reading - possibly luring you to check out other areas of the site I don't know.

The plain truth of the matter is, that it was easier to place that article from the Daily Telegraph than to dream up a comment of my own. I wanted to show some useful information on the new SOCAP powers but needed a kind of 'warm up piece' to set the background. I hope this explains everything to your satisfaction and thanks again for raising your observations - much appreciated.
 
Top regards ..............

     falkor
     administrator

 
 
phpBB2 forums are cutting edge communication LATEST TOPICS

__________________________________________________________

select for more information on this

__________________________________________________________


John O'Connor: POLICING TODAY

 

Let our police reclaim the streets
SELECT to view full storyBy John O'Connor
(Filed: 15/02/2006)

The casual way in which Pc Rachael Bown was gunned down in Nottingham raises disturbing questions about the level of armed crime in Britain. This was not a major armed robbery, or a shoot-out between drugs gangs. It appears to have been the work of two petty thieves, caught in the act of a fairly routine domestic burglary. Why should they have been carrying firearms? And why did they not hesitate to use them?

Understandably, the conclusion drawn by the public is that armed crime is out of control, that the police do not have the strategies to deal with it and that even small-time criminals do not fear the consequences of going equipped with a gun. Unfortunately, I think the public are right.

The outright ban on handguns since the Dunblane massacre has not had the desired effect. Illegal possession and use of firearms has rocketed and more firearms are in the hands of criminals than at any time in our history. Firearms amnesties and enforcing a largely irrelevant law against the law-abiding has had no appreciable effect on the problem.

The sociology of Britain is changing. Possession of guns and willingness to inflict violence is seen in some quarters as desirable, even heroic. Weapons are now available from a seemingly infinite range of sources.

Jamaican Yardie cocaine traffickers began the recent proliferation of sophisticated firearms in Britain in the late 1980s, importing semi-automatic pistols and Uzi submachine guns from America and the Caribbean.

The television presenter Jill Dando was probably assassinated with a converted replica handgun with a modified 9mm round, useless for accuracy but deadly at point-blank range. There are thousands of these guns available to criminals, who, thanks to word of mouth and the internet, have no difficulty in converting them from ornaments to lethal weapons.

Eastern Europe is also the source of much weaponry. Former Warsaw Pact guns form the bulk of recovered weapons in the United Kingdom. Drugs and guns go together, and the ability to smuggle large quantities of drugs is coupled with the ability to smuggle firearms. There is clearly an internet trade in firearms and HM Revenue and Customs cannot possibly monitor the vast number of parcels entering the country.

The gun problem is enormous and growing. The courts do their best and usually pass stiff custodial sentences on those convicted of possession. The trouble is that there are not enough criminals being convicted.

And what are the police doing? Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, talks of a "holistic" approach to policing and advocates the use of dedicated teams - each comprising perhaps a sergeant, two constables and two community support officers - to provide a visible policing presence and reassurance to the public. One has to question if that is the best they can do as a cutting edge against violent crime.

Sir Ian should remember it is not the number of police that matters, but what they actually do. Very few people would suggest that the community support scheme has been a success against real criminals. They are poorly trained and largely left to their own devices, and are defined by what they cannot do. They have been brought into the fray in order to reassure the public, rather than to combat crime.

There is nothing complicated about policing, but political interference and downright lies about crime figures confuse the issue. The simple solution is not to increase numbers of ineffective support officers, but to empower the professionals. There is insufficient incentive and reward given to those police who do try to attack the problem of lawlessness in a robust manner. Senior officers too often find it easier to stand back than to become involved in confrontation.

If policing is to meet the challenge posed by this new generation of hubristic armed criminals, the first priority must be to improve the quality of intelligence. This can be achieved - if the will is there - by providing more and better-trained detectives with strong leadership to encourage the development of informers. Senior officers have for years shied away from the informer and supergrass because of the potential accusations of corruption. They should remember that they are in the risk management business and it is their job to manage all informer-handling situations. They are police officers, not public relations executives or social workers.

A few years ago, Scotland Yard actually closed the world-renowned detective training school at Hendon. Thankfully it has since been reopened, but its closure showed the contempt in which the skills of the CID were held. The prejudice against detectives still exists and, until they are recognised for what they can achieve, it is doubtful whether any serious inroads can be made into the firearms problem.

A coherent approach is required. The reduction of gun crime should be a priority in all major conurbations. The lead agency should probably be the National Serious and Organised Crime Unit, with links to the intelligence-gathering throughout the country, including the security services. But real information is gathered on the streets and it is here that the intelligence gathering must start.

The physical danger to front- line or response officers is clear and the number of officers shot is the tip of the iceberg. There are many more officers who are shot at, threatened with firearms or knives, and one needs to analyse those figures to get a true perspective of what is happening on the streets of Britain today.

The debate about whether the police should be armed will continue to rage, but, even if the decision is eventually taken, a major project to arm the police would take years to implement, with major changes to recruitment and training being the starting point. In the meantime, the danger to unarmed officers will continue to increase and something must be done now.

SELECT to view full story

A storm is gathering and, if they are to weather it, the police must reclaim the streets. If they fail to do so, they will have many more Rachael Bowns on their conscience - and worse.

RESPONSE FROM MEMBERS OF OUR FORUMS TO THE ABOVE ARTICLE: FEBRUARY 2006
Jax
Registered Member
Registered Member



Joined: 09 Aug 2005

Sounds like the " ineffective support officers" are not considered professionals..

How are pcso's to gain respect with this being stated by people.

Sorry to show my ignorance but who is John O'Connor

I know the "Ill be back" John Connor from terminator . sorry folks
tim419
Committee Member
Committee Member


Joined: 04 Jul 2005

John O'Connor, ACPO-level guvnor of Flying Squad way back in the "good old days". Nice bloke and all that I'm sure, but a bit too 'old school' for my liking. He's been out of the Job for a LONG time now but has developed a nice little side-line as "Rent-a-Quote" for every Sky News, BBC News 24 or any other media goss programme when they need a police/security input.

I'm not knocking the bloke, I just think if they're really interested in finding out true facts, speaking to some grey haired overweight retired Guv from 'way back when' might not always be the most reliable source they could go for, ex-senior rank or not!