My 24 year old son has some sleeping problems (got his degree,out of work, feeling hopeless so I was up till 1 am trying to allay his concerns) at 5 AM in the morning he decided to go for a short walk to watch the sun come up.So with Van Morrison in his headphones and a travel mug full of coffee he sets off. 400 yards down the road a vehicle stops and the occupants started asking some personal questions- suddenly one of the occupants gets out the vehicle and grabs my son, pushes his arm up his back and body slams him in to the side of the vehicle before rifling through his pockets and taking his phone. The guy who did this was in his early 50s and he and his accomplices, one male one, female were dressed in police uniforms and were driving a yellow van with Police written on it. And all because he asked if he was obliged to answer their questions.They dont do themselves any favours.Seems these days knowing and exercising your rights is not liked by Mr Plod Feedback left on the Merseyside police website. The copper spent 10 minutes going through all my lads text messages and photos.They must have been bored.
Have you made an official complaint about this to a police station ? Make sure you fill out the appropriate paperwork. DON'T be fobbed off! They are in the minority, but thugs in uniform bring the whole police force into disrepute.
The Police need to know that you intend to complain, at the end of the day someone fitting your sons description could have been mentioned in a recent incident and they were just doing their jobs, but you have to complain.
Disgraceful. Obviously transferring his frustrations of still being just a regular copper in his 50s.
Deffo complain.
If a peppa talks to me I'm always the nicest man in the world.learnt a lesson in my teens,42 now.peppa don't like you to questio his authority!
That is disgusting...... complain, write to the chief constable, police commissioner and your local councillor. These thugs were obviously bored, ready to go off shift, once a copper, never a man....... with a very nasty streak running through them
Two sides to every story, by law a individual is obliged to identify themselves only to a police officer or judge, if upon inquiring as to his personal details the subject instantly become a streetside lawyer and starts being funny with a officer things can quickly escalate on both sides to exactly what you have described, a subject refuses to identify themselves, a officer only doing their job presses the point of you are legally obliged to provide the information, the person retorts more forcefully they do not wish to disclose that info. So on and so forth until the point the person has actually by technicality committed a offence and the officer takes action, the only question is wether the action is disproportionate or not but all easily avoidable, nothing to hide why not just answer? Nothing to gain from trying to take on a officer on a hyped up version of "how dare you ask me anything" because rightly or wrongly they are the ones with the "powers" and will ultimately get the info anyway.
I agree with you Dodgy Bob. Not saying Bobbies are perfect, but I cant see why people dont just answer the required questions --it just avoids any possible confrontation and frees the police up to get on with something else.
The lad was doing nothing wrong- he was stressed out and took himself off for a walk
Assaulted he was, in my view.
Yes Rude, but you have to consider that if someone is wandering round in a stressed state at 5 in the morning, thats notable, so Id expect and want the police to query what he might be up to .
Not saying they should have got rough though just because he decided to challenge their right to know what he was doing, that part is out of order.
You're up late arent you , cant you sleep?
Query what he was up to and query his mental state are two differant things.
To pin the lads arm behind his back suggests it wasnt the latter.
Why am I up late? none of your business- but as you asked nicely - i'm in first stage labour with my 8th child.
I'm going for a walk!
If he only enquired as to whether or not he was obliged to answer their questions, then my thoughts are ,they were out of order.
What or where is it that says we are not able to go for a walk at a particular time of day or night. I'm sorry to disagree with those who think that the lad was in the wrong, but why was he being persude? He was going for a walk for goodness sake.Doesn't matter what time. Would the same be acceptable if it was 3pm in the afternoon, or someone walking home from the pub or a night out at 2am.
Definitely wrong and it should be reported to Police Complaints Dept. if they still have one!
Why didn't they give im a ticket for an offence e.g. not answering their questions? Maybe they would have had to identify themselves!
Forgot to say Fish....I am very sorry for your son, it would be a pretty nasty experience for him at any time, but most of all now.
I was totally with everyone until I got to RUDEBOX's comment....8 kids woman!! Are you crazy?? I have 3 who drive me to the brink of insanity (aged 19, 17 & 3!!!) hope your labour is progressing well and you have an update for us soon xxx
Fish5133 I hope your son is ok & finds work soon xx
cathie it was sarcasm.
i take it none of you lot have had any run ins with the police?
well you do as they ask and co-operate or you get the crappy end of the stick, you be fair with them and they will be fair with you.
Do not have the "i know my rights" attitude as they will just take you for being cocky and cause you grief.
Sorry about that happening to your son fish but it happens to everyone i'm afraid and there is no way it is worth complaining, it will go on deaf ears.
peace man.
Ok, hypothetically then, next time a young twenty-something male is skulking through the deserted streets of early morning Irby and a police van is on routine patrol they should ignore him just in case he's a young out of work uni grad (not that it is at all relevant to the situation, and is only being used to assist in painting him as a victim, just because he's a grad does it make him more of a specially undeserving victim or more of a 'how dare they'?) but what if this particular young twenty-something is a drug addict looking for a house to burgle? So the police drive on by because they wouldn't want to upset or offend the subject just in case he all of a sudden becomes a streetside law expert, starts arguing, maybe gets aggressive then restrained then goes off crying assault. What if this person then burgles a house ten minutes later, gets disturbed, and badly hurts the occupants or even worse. It the transpires the next day a police patrol was in the area, and saw the person, but didn't stop him, you'd all be screaming "where were they? Why weren't they doing their job?" When it all could have been avoided by a quick stop, who are you, what you doing here, quick search, that it's you're nicked for going equipped to steal!
The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So why does everyone who sometimes may or may not look suspicious at that moment in time always do their best to obstruct them and become a victim.
Ok, hypothetically then, next time a young twenty-something male is skulking through the deserted streets of early morning Irby and a police van is on routine patrol they should ignore him just in case he's a young out of work uni grad (not that it is at all relevant to the situation, and is only being used to assist in painting him as a victim, just because he's a grad does it make him more of a specially undeserving victim or more of a 'how dare they'?) but what if this particular young twenty-something is a drug addict looking for a house to burgle? So the police drive on by because they wouldn't want to upset or offend the subject just in case he all of a sudden becomes a streetside law expert, starts arguing, maybe gets aggressive then restrained then goes off crying assault. What if this person then burgles a house ten minutes later, gets disturbed, and badly hurts the occupants or even worse. It the transpires the next day a police patrol was in the area, and saw the person, but didn't stop him, you'd all be screaming "where were they? Why weren't they doing their job?" When it all could have been avoided by a quick stop, who are you, what you doing here, quick search, that it's you're nicked for going equipped to steal!
The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So why does everyone who sometimes may or may not look suspicious at that moment in time always do their best to obstruct them and become a victim.
If the lad looked like he was up to know good then I don't see a reason why any police officer should question the goings on, but for the poor lad to be assaulted for nothing by a group of people with the authority they have is hideous to say the least. And as for walking about at 5am, there are plenty of other people who walk around at that time of the morning. People coming and going to work, people currently working ie. milk-men, post-men (unlikely around my area, they like to have a lie in). I myself like to go jogging at that time of the morning as it is reletively quiet. I would never expect this to happen to anyone, at any time of they day any how. Hope he isn't too shook up, but I would report this incident and try and get something done about it.
Report it then and be frowned upon, like i said, waste of time, they were doing their job.
5am is peak hour for the rats who take our stuff from our sheds, cars, and houses. I was stopped by Victoria park few months ago around the same time. Police asked me a few questions which i answered, they explained to me why they had pulled over ( few things going missing in the area around this time). They then told me to take care, i paid them the same courtesy and we both went on our way. Of course if i had started with the non of your business not telling you nothing mr fascist bully boy routine it may have been different
5am is peak hour for the rats who take our stuff from our sheds, cars, and houses. I was stopped by Victoria park few months ago around the same time. Police asked me a few questions which i answered, they explained to me why they had pulled over ( few things going missing in the area around this time). They then told me to take care, i paid them the same courtesy and we both went on our way. Of course if i had started with the non of your business not telling you nothing mr fascist bully boy routine it may have been different
Usually you have to do a little bit more than ask if you are obliged to answer their questions to get the Starsky and Hutch treatment.
I think the key word is cooperation, treat people how you wish to be treated, I know the police can be a bit overbearing on occasions but cant see them putting the arm on someone for no reason. Sadly in this day and age everyone is suspicious, terrorists ,thieves, muggers, druggies, no wonder. I can understand your lad being a bit put out, nice lad no trouble, but the police don't know that, I know we tend to believe our kids but they are not always straight with us, maybe he was miffed for being stopped for doing nothing and gave a bit of gob.
The guy went out with a cup of coffee to watch the sun rise and a bit of peace, at a time I might add that is not unusual for people with cups of coffee to be walking about on a weekday morning, if I got stopped I would enquire as to why also, it's a fair question. I mean why stop this guy when not once have I ever been stopped and at some points would have been perfectly reasonable given I've been going for late night/early walks since I was 13 or walking home at some pointless hour alone and I'm female, they've driven past me plenty of times with not so much as a second glance so I guess an at risk situation is fine but a normal one is highly suspicious. I don't think any of the times I've contacted the police they've performed their job the way it should be. Yes there is a stigma when it comes to the majority concerning the police but there are some of us who respect them and believe they will do their job right, no matter how many times proven wrong and if you where stopped for no apparent reason and questioned why I'm sure you'd be more than pissed and shaken that the answer was getting your face slammed into the side of a van and your personal space violated
Your son failed the attitude test.
Simple as that.
"nothing officer, just having a walk and clearing my head"
...if you where stopped for no apparent reason and questioned
and refused to answer the questions and ask why they wanted to know i'd expect that to wind plod up to say the least.
Ok, hypothetically then, next time a young twenty-something male is skulking through the deserted streets of early morning Irby and a police van is on routine patrol they should ignore him just in case he's a young out of work uni grad (not that it is at all relevant to the situation, and is only being used to assist in painting him as a victim, just because he's a grad does it make him more of a specially undeserving victim or more of a 'how dare they'?) but what if this particular young twenty-something is a drug addict looking for a house to burgle? So the police drive on by because they wouldn't want to upset or offend the subject just in case he all of a sudden becomes a streetside law expert, starts arguing, maybe gets aggressive then restrained then goes off crying assault. What if this person then burgles a house ten minutes later, gets disturbed, and badly hurts the occupants or even worse. It the transpires the next day a police patrol was in the area, and saw the person, but didn't stop him, you'd all be screaming "where were they? Why weren't they doing their job?" When it all could have been avoided by a quick stop, who are you, what you doing here, quick search, that it's you're nicked for going equipped to steal!
The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So why does everyone who sometimes may or may not look suspicious at that moment in time always do their best to obstruct them and become a victim.
All very well, if you look at the possible 'bad 'picture, but I can't see that slamming him up against the van, is the way to deal with someone who is not even a suspect.
We all know the police are not the white as white characters we are led to believe, most of us know someone who has had dealings with them, and the stories tend to have a very similar theme.
We also know, that they have to do their quota of jobs per night to prove they haven't been slacking! So maybe he was just to make up numbers.
Ok, hypothetically then, next time a young twenty-something male is skulking through the deserted streets of early morning Irby and a police van is on routine patrol they should ignore him just in case he's a young out of work uni grad (not that it is at all relevant to the situation, and is only being used to assist in painting him as a victim, just because he's a grad does it make him more of a specially undeserving victim or more of a 'how dare they'?) but what if this particular young twenty-something is a drug addict looking for a house to burgle? So the police drive on by because they wouldn't want to upset or offend the subject just in case he all of a sudden becomes a streetside law expert, starts arguing, maybe gets aggressive then restrained then goes off crying assault. What if this person then burgles a house ten minutes later, gets disturbed, and badly hurts the occupants or even worse. It the transpires the next day a police patrol was in the area, and saw the person, but didn't stop him, you'd all be screaming "where were they? Why weren't they doing their job?" When it all could have been avoided by a quick stop, who are you, what you doing here, quick search, that it's you're nicked for going equipped to steal!
The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So why does everyone who sometimes may or may not look suspicious at that moment in time always do their best to obstruct them and become a victim.
All very well, if you look at the possible 'bad 'picture, but I can't see that slamming him up against the van, is the way to deal with someone who is not even a suspect.
We all know the police are not the white as white characters we are led to believe, most of us know someone who has had dealings with them, and the stories tend to have a very similar theme.
We also know, that they have to do their quota of jobs per night to prove they haven't been slacking! So maybe he was just to make up numbers.
But he was a suspect, he was refusing to answer questions, that in itself can be construed to be suspicious cause what was he hiding? Of course from the details given on here we know he was hiding nothing, but how were the officers to know that? He was being obstructive, surely we've all seen road wars, street crime uk, night cops etc on tv and seen how a officer simply attempting to interact with a member of the public, for whatever reason, can quickly and totally needlessly escalate to the person being forcibly restrained almost always because they began being arsy with the officer and refusing to answer the simplest of questions then it all spirals out of control!
And all very well looking at the possible bad picture? Its not just possible it's happened time and time again throughout the country, and people would be the first to hold the police to account if it had happened when it could have been averted! I don't see how putting someone up against the van can be anything to do with their quotas, if there is a quota to meet they could have done so simply by stopping him, enquiring, getting their answer and going on their way, job done quota met! If it escalated to that point the subject obviously played a very major part himself in it getting to that point!
it would seem all assumptions are made against the lad stopped,it was his attitude that was at fault etc.this sounds like bored coppers flexing to me,and yes it does happen!a lot of coppers don't even know the laws they are there to uphold as I have twice had letters of apology simply because I knew more about their job than they did!im not saying all of them are bad as I have met some great bobbies,but the ones trying to prove themselves end up looking stupid!pursue the complaint all the way.
I'm a Good Girl me, never even had a Caution
(although many moons ago a copper stole me fag and ground it out with his foot- he said I was under age to smoke and I was).
Sorry, irrelevant...
[quote=granny][quote=Dodgy_Bob], He was being obstructive, surely we've all seen road wars, street crime uk, night cops etc on tv and seen how a officer simply attempting to interact with a member of the public, for whatever reason, can quickly and totally needlessly escalate to the person being forcibly restrained almost always because they began being arsy with the officer and refusing to answer the simplest of questions then it all spirals out of control!
And all very well looking at the possible bad picture? Its not just possible it's happened time and time again throughout the country, and people would be the first to hold the police to account if had happened when it could have been averted!
Dodgy Bobby,The street crime and road wars programmmes are made for entertainment! Of course the best bits are edited for production and of course, they always seem to have a camera there. Wake up ! According to your post, everyone is a suspect until proven innocent, in my opinion 99.9% of the British public are honest decent folk. That is were we are wrong in this country, for example, thinking that every muslim is a terrorist.
I feel sorry for the police in the fact that their whole life must be suspecting people, even their own family and friends. Very similar to how the USSR used to operate, and still do. Friends , family ,neighbours etc were always suspects under Kremlin law and still are.Doesn't give much chance to any other poor, unsuspecting soul, does it?
Maybe you would prefer a police state!
Our forces are not particularly bothered about attending any reported burgularies in any great hurry, are they?
.
Interesting reading the different replies and thanks for some of your concerns. I dont think the actual stopping and being asked questions is/was a problem. It was the total over reaction of a police officer to use violence and force in a situation that did not warrant it. I can only see that this was to intimidate and perhaps provoke a reaction from my son. I will be asking my son to consider making a formal complaint if only to mark the collar of this particular officer--who may have a problem.
I understand the "roadside lawyer" comments but my son did tell them his degree was not in law !.
Interesting reading the different replies and thanks for some of your concerns. I dont think the actual stopping and being asked questions is/was a problem. It was the total over reaction of a police officer to use violence and force in a situation that did not warrant it. I can only see that this was to intimidate and perhaps provoke a reaction from my son. I will be asking my son to consider making a formal complaint if only to mark the collar of this particular officer--who may have a problem.
I understand the "roadside lawyer" comments but my son did tell them his degree was not in law !.
Like a officer cares what someone's degree is?!?! It's irrelevant! So what a person has a degree? Why does that make them any better / any worse than any possible suspect? Violence or reasonable restraint? As a parent it's a given to choose your child's word over anyone else but given that your child has the intelligence to attend and graduate from university, they therefore must have have the intelligence to comprehend common law, refusal to identify ones self to a officer or judge invites suspicion worthy of investigation which if obstructed will lead to further intervention (including physical restraint if deemed nessacery), hence my streetside lawyer insinuation.
[quote=granny][quote=Dodgy_Bob], He was being obstructive, surely we've all seen road wars, street crime uk, night cops etc on tv and seen how a officer simply attempting to interact with a member of the public, for whatever reason, can quickly and totally needlessly escalate to the person being forcibly restrained almost always because they began being arsy with the officer and refusing to answer the simplest of questions then it all spirals out of control!
And all very well looking at the possible bad picture? Its not just possible it's happened time and time again throughout the country, and people would be the first to hold the police to account if had happened when it could have been averted!
Dodgy Bobby,The street crime and road wars programmmes are made for entertainment! Of course the best bits are edited for production and of course, they always seem to have a camera there. Wake up ! According to your post, everyone is a suspect until proven innocent, in my opinion 99.9% of the British public are honest decent folk. That is were we are wrong in this country, for example, thinking that every muslim is a terrorist.
I feel sorry for the police in the fact that their whole life must be suspecting people, even their own family and friends. Very similar to how the USSR used to operate, and still do. Friends , family ,neighbours etc were always suspects under Kremlin law and still are.Doesn't give much chance to any other poor, unsuspecting soul, does it?
Maybe you would prefer a police state!
Granted the afore mention documentaries are edited for viewing pleasure / action, but where did I say everyone is guilty till proven innocent? I merely insinuated that he was equally responsible for his treatment given his attitude towards a officer of the law by refusing to answer simple questions that, by given his level of education he should have realised were a legal requirement to answer! Not to become a suddenly aggrieved member of the public with nothing to hide! Again we come back to my point of all easily avoidable if he hadn't taken a attitude from the off!
How about a similar situation which arose in West Kirby, a few years ago. The particular unsuspecting person, with friends were questioned by police officers.As the main person who was being questioned was doing a degree in law, he quoted article no.--- to the police officer, after which they were left alone and told to go on their way. That particular person is now a barrister in London. Of course, during university he looked like 'chav central'!
Meaning, the police don't always know all the rules and if they do, they certainly don't follow them. Maybe they prefer to use their judgement from visual discrepancies.Therefore, someone should have a go at 'fashion gurus', see if they can change the image for some of these young people.
Can't imagine that sleepy little Irby is a hot spot for terrorists.
......and what's more, I'd be an agrieved member of the public if I was stopped ad questioned, for no apparent reason.In fact I'd probably hit them with me 'andbag!!
Take the 24 yr old out of it and think 'adult'. Would you like it, and would you not be upset and put on the spot? I'm sick of the young people being trampled.
If everyone on here thought the same would happen to their son or friends son, or nephew,or grandson, do you think they would take the same view as those supporting the incident on the police behalf? I think not.
Always remember, what goes around comes around.
Granny....most of the time I read your posts and think, what a sensible person you are...sadly however your latest offerings do not fall into that category.....how can you possibly say that anywhere in this country is not a hot spot for terrorists..recent events have proved they "sleep" in the unlikeliest of places....furthermore the law graduate who quoted article whatever to a policeman who presumably, to use your words "in a similar situation" was doing the job he was trained for by asking legitimate questions about a person who as in a gang at around five o'clock in the morning, in my opinion is nothing but a wise arse...how would you feel granny if the person initially involved in this post had been in the area of your home and allowed to stroll around without question by the police and then broke into your property and stole irreplaceable sentimental items or even worse, caused physical injury to yourself or one of you family.....would the police then be seen to be negligent in their duty or would you be saying "I'm sick of seeing young people being trampled"
I think the more pro active the police are the better. We are turning in a country where you can do what you like without consequence. I would like to see more police on the streets just to police people swearing in front of kids, leaving their dog sh!t on the streets that my kids walk through, giving people three points on their licence when they park on zig zags which is so infuriating because it is dangerous and make people think about their behaviour.
Regarding the lad in the incident... I have never been arrested, charged or been convicted of anything but the few times I have been "assisted" by the police I have never told the whole entire truth about the incident when I have told my family or friends. We can only speculate but I doubt an officer would risk a career in this day and age just to rough a lad up when there is CCTV in and out of the cars and probably some up in irby village. I can imagine that the lad took offence (if he wasn't looking dodgy) at being questioned. The usual responses where probably given "why don't you look for murders" etc etc which for all he knew theft might off been looking for someone at 5am who matched his description who had a history of violence... The police are isolated and then are met with a barrage of abuse refusal to identify himself which is a requirement unlike other agency's like border force and aggressive behaviour, what should they do? Ok lad on ya way. My dealings with police is quite good etc. I have always been polite and had a good laugh with them because they are trying to do a hard job and face not going home every day of their lives to protect us.
Police ask you a question and you respond by asking then if you are obliged to answer?
Why?
Just tell them what they want to know and be on your way.
Your son was being a smart arse plain and simple.
Maybe I'm old school and will do anything for an easy life unlike the emerging young 'I know my rights' brigade.
Police ask you a question and you respond by asking then if you are obliged to answer?
Why?
Just tell them what they want to know and be on your way.
Your son was being a smart arse plain and simple.
Maybe I'm old school and will do anything for an easy life unlike the emerging young 'I know my rights' brigade.
Spot on and straight to the point!
Just answer the questions and they will be on their way. If you have nothing to hide why are you bothered
.....how would you feel granny if the person initially involved in this post had been in the area of your home and allowed to stroll around without question by the police and then broke into your property and stole irreplaceable sentimental items or even worse, caused physical injury to yourself or one of you family.....would the police then be seen to be negligent in their duty or would you be saying "I'm sick of seeing young people being trampled"
It seems to me that a number of posts are judging against the original post. Which stated, he was walking at 5 am, with a cup of coffee and his music on. He
asked if he had to answer all the questions. If that's how it was, in my opinion it does NOT give justification for the response he got.
That to me, seems a fair question. According to many, he's proabably not telling the truth, he must have given the officers a barrage of abuse, he's a smart arse, he's asking for trouble, the list goes on. The response on here is like Chinese whispers.
Don't think I'd like too many on a jury. You haven't even heard the evidence.
As it happens, my daughter's house was broken into at 8.30am on a Sunday morning, and she was held up at knifepoint in her bed while they robbed her and her friends belongings. Two of them, one in one bedroom and another in my daughter's room. That doesn't mean to say I suspect everyone who is walking about at 8.30am on a Sunday morning.Neither does it mean I suspect every younger person to be up to no good.
So far, we have heard nothing from the police. ..4 years ago now.
Police ask you a question and you respond by asking then if you are obliged to answer?
Why?
Just tell them what they want to know and be on your way.
Your son was being a smart arse plain and simple.
Maybe I'm old school and will do anything for an easy life unlike the emerging young 'I know my rights' brigade.
Judging by my sons account he wasnt particularly being a smart arse but even if he was for a police officer to use violence in that case is still out of order.
https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rightsWhats wrong with knowing and exercising your rights. They are even posted on the Governments website.
Its not a case of being trampled, its them doing their job.
This thread is now boring.
Write your letter "dear police, my son was skulking around at 5am and when approached by police he was cocky and questioned whether he had to answer their questions"
Ffs... Drop it. Move on.
This thread is now boring.
Write your letter "dear police, my son was skulking around at 5am and when approached by police he was cocky and questioned whether he had to answer their questions"
Ffs... Drop it. Move on.
That's not a very nice remark to make. I'm sure members will do as they please, they don't need such polite guidance!
Maybe not worded very well Granny, but the message behind it is fairly accurate...never could understand that a successful three year university course shielded a person from the sort of query posed by the police officer...if I was walking down a road , seemingly away to the birds as is suggested by original post (maybe not exact words) ,I would expect to come under scrutiny from a law enforcement officer....you see Granny, I don't possess a university degree,just a wealth of common sense which apparently this graduate does not have.