by STAR Voice » 18 Dec 2008 22:30
by rabidbee » 18 Dec 2008 22:57
by STAR Voice » 18 Dec 2008 23:35
by T.R.O.L.I. » 19 Dec 2008 00:06
by PieEater » 19 Dec 2008 14:21
by bobby1413 » 19 Dec 2008 15:09
PieEater The advice on that site seems a bit confusing. It says they have no power to make you sign anything, but the Stokie said he was told to sign it or get arrested. If someone did get arrested that would be an interesting court case.
by Dirk Gently » 19 Dec 2008 15:51
bobby1413PieEater The advice on that site seems a bit confusing. It says they have no power to make you sign anything, but the Stokie said he was told to sign it or get arrested. If someone did get arrested that would be an interesting court case.
I don't think anyone can be made to sign anything, the police write "Refused" instead of your signature in the box. You don't have to sign it, although you do unfortunately have to meet their conditions.
Section 27 gives the person an order to leave a designated area (see below) for a set period of time. It also states an exit route, e.g. down street A to street B.
The designated area is set in stone and you should be given a map of the area with the areas outlined.
Beware, if given a Section 27 ticket then the officer would notify CCTV who would monitor you. Failure to go the correct route, or re-enter the designated area may lead to more trouble.
by weybridgewanderer » 19 Dec 2008 17:11
rabidbee This is the rule whereby an entire pubload of Stokies were not only cleared out of the pub where they were drinking peaceably, but returned to Stoke by the police, regardless of whether or not that was where they had begun their original journey, isn't it? Given that football-related violence is going down, why are the police being so heavy-handed?
by weybridgewanderer » 19 Dec 2008 17:19
STAR Campaigns That'the one.
The police are being so heavy-handed because they can! It's policng by stereotype, pure and simple, and quite against the Home Office guidance from their docuement. But until someone stands up to them they'll get away with it.
This is also worth a read : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/18/civilliberties-humanrights
by Row Z Royal » 19 Dec 2008 21:06
by cheeryoleary » 23 Dec 2008 18:44
by Huntley & Palmer » 24 Dec 2008 13:40
by Ian Royal » 27 Dec 2008 18:01
by Dirk Gently » 27 Dec 2008 19:07
by Big Foot » 28 Dec 2008 01:09
by Big Foot » 28 Dec 2008 01:09
by Rex » 28 Dec 2008 02:11
by Dirk Gently » 28 Dec 2008 11:29
by bobby1413 » 28 Dec 2008 15:52
Dirk Gently I think the wording is that they need "reasonable suspicion" that there will be "alcohol related trouble."
That is a horribly-drawn law, completely open to interpretation. Interestingly, the Home Office guidance on this is more specific and includes safeguards - it's this document that is being utterly ignored by certain Police Forces!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests