Idiots on parade. "We are going to arrest you, but we don't know what for." How could you trust these guys to investigate when they don't know the law?
What do you expect from a country that has a corrupt government from top to bottom running the country. Un elected PM A tyrant home Secretary who consistently breaks the law. This is bound to treacle down to all public service departments.
I...What? This guy. This OFFICER does not know the laws to the best of his ability YET he will JUST arrest anyone because he THINKS they had done something wrong? Who on this planet trained him? There NEEDS to be an investigation into THAT right now. Such a failure cannot be allowed to continue. Plod please I implore you to find that out.
It was just to get information which is now stored on an intelligence database. They couldn’t care less about a bit of shoving and pushing or violation of rights.
@gregkasza1925 Not at all. Regardless, it should be stamped out and eradicated. Not only is it putting needless stress on their colleagues, our prisons, but most importantly, the public. It is an element where our taxation goes if we like it or not as well. Our taxes need to be spent wisely if our economy is going to be efficient. The reason I was shocked was because of how blatently obvious this officer admitted it to being. Usually, you have them saying "Its not my job to read you the law," or make up whatever other reason not to justify the reasons in your presence. Still Plod, please get on this if you haven't already. The post has had quite a few likes now. (which by the way thanks everyone.)
Wow threatening with arrest when your the person that's been assaulted ,then having to look it up what a embarrassing situation for the clown in uniform. When will they learn the law
Did you see the incident? Nope, you've only heard this guy's side to the story. The police officer wasn't there either. If allegations are made by both parties it has to be investigated. He can't take sides.
Nice work exposing these horrible people. It's beyond any sane, avergely educated person how some people think they can just touch people and then cry about someone defending them selves.
So here we are again. Everything in a rush. No dilligence. He wants to use power but has no sense of legal criteria. There is no consideration that his actions could ruin your life. You are standing there peacefully, yet it never crosses his mind not to criminalise you. Of course he has nothing to lose either way so he couldn't care less.
If allegations are made, it is his job to investigate. What do you want him to do? He can't just ignore it. Being arrested isn't criminalizing someone.
Despite claiming he was 100% sure, this fool was in a desperate rush for you to give your name and address ‘just for ease sake’ because he knew if you read the full text his BS would be exposed. Well done for standing your ground.
Mass Audit needed here. Home Office now exclusively employing foreign incomers as security, hope they checked their immigration status, not the first time the Home Office have made mistakes.
Exactly. It was about details to upload. I guarantee he went straight back and uploaded them on to the intelligence database. They weren’t interested in the assault. He admitted as much
Because it's not everyday that you come across a guy who knows the laws . people normally just bow down to you , that's the problem here . some people will think plod is just being arkward but there are so quick to quote the law themselves " aren't they in other circumstances .
We the public have a right to know under what section of what act we are being detained or arrested under. If that section is wrong or misused then we have the right to compensation. ALWAYS ask under what section of what act the tyrant pigs are using as we have a legal and lawful right to KNOW.
without camera they will just make something up then put in the right legislation in their report later. they often do this even with recording of it …
My understanding is that the police should first investigate any complaint, speaking to all parties involved and reviewing any evidence. On the basis of that investigation, they can then work out who is to be charged and it is then that powers to compel the individual concerned to provide their details kicks in. It appears they want to put cart before horse these days and know everybody's details before proceeding with any investigation.
Interesting that the police use powers without any knowledge whether they are legally entitled to or not. Does that mean they may actually be incorrect and misinterpreting the law on occasion? That guy with the glasses was a tyrant (I’m sure he thinks he isn’t) but came with the intention of getting Plod’s details. He asked dob and address not required. His subsequent talk showed he knew Plod wasn’t at fault. He just wants to upload his info onto an intelligence database. No charges will be made against those guys or Plod despite the footage and he knows it.
Top man for calling him out on the section and only giving the information you were legally required too. I think they all left more aware of how they should use the correct section and still not abuse your rights and access to your personal information. So many people would just fold in and get walked over. Great Audit fella
Never ever go voluntarily to a police station, if they had enough evidence in the first place they would have already arrested you. Make them come to you to arrest you if they want to take it further, don’t go to them. You can sue them for false arrest if they come to you but you go to them voluntarily then you have lost that right to do so.
This is excellent advice. NEVER attend a voluntary interview and NEVER accept a caution. These are just lazy ways the Police have to make you do their work for them with little to no recourse.
ALWAYS go for a voluntary interview. There’s nothing voluntary about actually attending a voluntary interview. It’s called voluntary because it’s at an agreed time and you walk in the front door unshackled. They’ll come and arrest you. You might as well go. To arrest you to go to interview cannot be wrong even if the underlying charges are ridiculous.
Stupidest post I’ve ever seen. If they offer you the chance to have a voluntary interview then it means that they are choosing that over arresting you and interviewing you.
The Indian woman probably considers herself to be of a higher caste to British people and therefore believes she is entitled to treat them and talk to them however she pleases.
@@Marius_vanderLubbe the cast system as it exists today is a direct result of British influence. The upper castes and their descendants benefitted massively.
Ok so there is a lot of knowledge needed to understand every little nuance of the law, but every aspect of PACE could and should be known to all police officers. It's like the idiots guide.
Basics would be a start. We don't expect them to know everything about every type of crime. But to threaten arrest for not giving details is a no no. They know that, they just hope you don't.
0:30 Refusing to give your details because of an allegation of assault does not mean you are liable to arrest. The cop needs more than Google. He needs to go back to training. The only time police can arrest for not giving ID is when driving or when suspected of a section 50 public order offence.
95% of people would have folded and given details on threat of arrest (myself included) these gang members make me 🤮🤮🤮 is it any wonder the public hate them so much. Great work 🎥🎥🎥 showing what type of criminals the government employ.
A 30.29 the copper with the glasses (who came on strong at the start) admits that the goons shouldn't have touched you and you were quite within your rights to push them away - so why all the threats because it's obvious they attacked you, and you defended yourself!!
I like and respect your ‘Raison d’etre’: Holding Public Servants to account, and not bothering ordinary citizens going about their day to day work. Other ‘auditors’ should take a leaf out of your book and thereby bring even more forces to the cause.
It's not. Someone as accused him of assault. They can either arrest him or take his details. That's perfectly lawful. That's the exact same options the security will of been given.
@@DaleSteel Then they should have arrested all those accused of assault and charged them to appear in court . Often these types of cases are sorted on the spot just by reviewing the footage . clearly the security should be arrested for mindlessly battering a member of the public .
The PC was at great pains to say he had collected all the names etc of the security guards, and thaf he needed yours as a suspect in an assault.... But never stated that any of the sec guards were also suspects in an assult...except to state "everyone is being treated the same".
Cops ended up ok (especially when they realised who you were!), but judging by the security people's attitude at the end it would appear little has been achieved here as far as they are concerned. 'Learn to do your job and be respectful'. Ha. More chance of me going to the moon.
“People don’t like being recorded!” Everywhere you go, every minute of every day etc., you will be recorded by some camera and these same people do not challenge them, possibly because they are faceless and you as an auditor is not hence someone to blame and complain to. Well done TPONTP, respect and stay safe……..so don’t revisit 😂
They are far too biased to be independent. If it comes out that they were the instigators of the assault you can be assured it will be insufficient evidence.
HNK Solicitors: .. (Do you have to tell police your name if you are arrested?) If you are arrested, you do not need to give your details to the police, either in public or at the station. This can delay your release; however, the police can only legally hold you for 24 hours unless further time has been authorised by either an officer at least the rank as a superintendent or a Magistrate/Justice of the Peace. After which you must be either charged or released, regardless of them gaining your details. If you do decide to give your details, you only need to give your name, address and date of birth. But you are only legally obliged to give these details if and when you appear in court. NB: Never give your details before being ‘booked in’ at the custody desk, as people are often arrested as an intelligence-gathering exercise.
@@TheSadButMadLad Its the 24 hr lock up that scares people into rolling over, but tbh it goes pretty quick, 🛌💤💤and as long as you keep your mouth shut 🤐and not incriminate yourself you're more likely to get out without a charge. 😉😁
@@MrAndrewFarrow Yep, and they'll get your details if you're already in the system, but they still cant force you to give your details willingly, only a magistrate can, not sure what would happen if you ignored the magistrates order though ??
28:38 The female security says "feds". The UK police are not called the "feds". She's watched too much Yank movies. No wonder she hasn't got a clue about what the law in the UK is.
As soon as you go into detail about a certain law or section, they stand there like they see water burning. They just have a global knowledge of the laws they so called enforce. Good job!!
Plod is out of order, chummy should just walk away as he has not been arrested! Utter BS from plod who doesn't know the PACE sections. Sack him immediately!
Visvindecy acht nein mein fraught mien varter bitte voch vicken klaus noun englander von ipcal vich politzei unt englander von stupid comment ya need to grow up ya sweinhund fool
The police do not have the right to demand your name or address without a reason. Generally, a police officer can only ask you to give your name and address if they believe you: have committed an offence.25 Ja
Right at the start, when he says he WILL arrest you if you don't provide your details, I think all you need to say is you will give your details under duress. That tends to make them change their mind. I think because duress invalidates the process of joinder, or because it becomes extortion.
1:40 If you are a suspect of an allegation of assault then the proper course of action is to be arrested first, then be cautioned about your rights and silence etc then give your details. If the crime is low level then the police can de-arrest having got your details and get you to come in for a voluntary interview or be arrested and actually charged if the evidence indicates it worthwhile. How many times has this cop carried out arrests using the wrong process.
Note that the initial arrest would not be because details weren't given. It's because of an allegation of assault or some other crime. The details then have to be given after the arrest. Never before arrest. And the police need a proper charge to quote to validate the arrest.
Note that the arrest and caution needs to be done first to make sure everything from that point on is valid to be used as evidence. Without an arrest everything said before hand is not admissible.
So who audits the auditors? How many of them honestly disclose their RU-vid earnings to Universal Credit or do Self Assesment Tax returns? Not saying you TPONTP, but am sure plenty of these auditors are not straight arrows.......
Police officer? An officer does office work do they not? So why is he phoning a friend because he does not know the basics when arresting someone? It sounds more like the song "There are more questions than Answers" Pictures in my mind that will not show. There are more questions than answers. And the more I find out the less I know... And the answer to the question we do not have to give it, and on his head be it, if you were to be arrested, and make a claim against him in private, has a man and not a man in uniform. "Pace" is not the law, and he should know that, and any "Offer from a corporation" can be "Null and Void "by "Rescinding" it to the "Status Quo Ante." The police are a Commerical business, "Engaging in trade and mean "Done for the sake of financial profit." The name of the "Person" should have asked him what his definition of the word "Person" he is using? He is quoting company policy and that is not the law, it is legislation and does not apply to a man, and is interfering as a third party to whatever occurred. Treating you as a minor and not a man, that is outrageous. He has not got time to be standing here? If he wants to rush you into a contract, so make sure you "Comply Under Protest and Duress," as it is his money he would be paying me.
Recently watched a video where the guy in the custody suite continued to refuse his id.I think he gave a nom de plume like Mr Nobody eventually the guy was de-arrested as no crime was established.Are you required by law to assist police with any investigation?Self incrimination is a possibility, if threatened with arrest why did the constable not read you your rights .Or do they arrest you first handcuff you then tell you what rights you have?
That copper with the glasses is probably one of the 20k the Gov chirps on about recruiting. Fast tracked into a uniform with little understanding of the law. Made to look a fool, well and truly schooled by TPONTP.
WTF...you gave your details, how is it after all this time you are not aware of how this shit works. Never give details until arrested and in front of the custody sergeant and he has authorised the arrest. Holy shit!
My understanding is that we live Under the Lawful law of the land which applies to a Human being, Legal law of the sea which is Admiralty law only applies to a person named on the Birth Certificate which is a Bond traded on the stock market by the Government. So if you want to be known as a person you can claim to be that Strawman.🇬🇧
And what's the betting, within an hour of writing up the paperwork for this incident that officer was back out on the streets threatening to illegally arrest other members of the public if they didn't provide details.
28:35 Even after the police attended and then left not doing anything (other than getting details) the security still attempt to put their hand in front of the camera. They are seriously stupid.
Details? He needs your "Consent" for "You" and "By giving them the evidence to convict you, by informing on yourself by becoming the informer, " and any information will only be used against "You." The police go by a policy which is not the law, and it is only legislation and only applies to a "Person" If anyone has bothered to read them, he is supposed to be a peace officer employed to keep the peace by being a peacemaker. That is the difference between legal and the law. He works for a business just like a Mcdonald's worker, and his company policy does not apply to a man or woman, only a person. He wants government identity and nothing else, other than what he can use against "You," if you were to say my mother calls me John, I could never remember when she said I was born; both of them are inadmissible in court because that is not first-hand knowledge when it has come from or inferred by a third party. He is "Offering "You" a Contract," he needs "You" to confirm that "You" are the government identification that they have authority over by "You" to "Consent" to the "Offer to Contract." And acquiesce with our silence and into a "Tacit agreement" if we fail to say when arrested, "I will comply under protest and duress." Man is created in the image of the Father, the Lord God and not some government ID that only identifies the "You," which is the "Corporate Person." You (pron.) Old English oew, dative and accusative plural of pu (see thou), objective case of get, "Ye" (See Ye), from PIE *yu, second person (plural) pronoun. Pronoun (n.) From pro "in place of" + nomen "name, the noun" (from PIE root *no-men- "name"). Means ( no men; in place of) and becoming not a man but a person. Person (n.) Directly from the Latin persona, "human being, person, personage, a part in a drama, assumed character," originally " a false face, a mask" such as those of wood or clay, covering the whole head, worn by actors in the later Roman theatre. A "You" is a "Person," which is a "Pronoun," and the number of pronouns that people what to be called today is a farce, especially with these people who want to be called anything other than a man or woman they were born to be. This copper wants "You" to be the "Person," and he does not know what policy he is trying to stitch "You" up with, madness. If he was an electrician, I would not employ him if he did not know his job, as he would electrocute someone or burn down my property. He is not using the "Law," as he is using "Legislation," and that requires "Consent to the Offer to Contract." This is how people acquiesce: they do not think to ask a simple question, and how many bother to ask to see a "Bench Warrant" Signed? Prisons are full of people who do not stand their ground and should take a look at "Don`t talk to the police, on RU-vid by regent university, where a law professor and a police officer tell you why you should never speak to the police.
