Police Database on Protestors revealed

[SpookyFrank]

As I have said, there are intelligence databases on which details of people suspected of involvment in criminal offences and disorder, and their associates, are retained. If details of people are obtained in circumstances which merit their inclusion on a database on that basis, they are retained but, as I said at the outset, otherwise they are not (unless one of the other reasons I outlined applies).

It's not a question of retaining the information but of obtaining it in the first place. I just can't see any reason for it except intimidation. And of course nobody who has their photo and/or personal information recorded in this sort of situation ever knows whether it is kept indefinitely or skimmed through once and then thrown in the bin.

You choose to describe extreme examples and extrapolate them to the norm. That does not, however, mean that that is the norm.

The recording of protestors' personal information and photos is rapidly becoming the norm. Again, in many situations the police have no right to demand the information in question (they can photograph anyone they like in a public place of course, although it would be nice if they were aware that this applies to everyone and not just to coppers) but that seldom deters them from doing it. I've spent hours standing at police search cordons before telling everyone being searched under the terrorism act or whatever it is being function creeped this week that they are under no obligation to provide a name and address when asked and that they can request a copy of the police record of the search. The coppers do not themselves go to any great lengths to tell people these rules in my experience.

Police officers demanding information they have no right to demand is in breach of the bond of trust the police should share with the public IMO; even if it isn't technically any more unlawful than me going up to random folk in the street and asking them what their favourite colour is, the fact remains that whilst people will know all too well that they can tell me to piss off if I ask them personal questions for no reason, many people will assume that they are obliged to comply with a similar request made by a police officer. And again, in quote unquote public order situations there may well be other reasons why people feel obliged to comply with the whims of the police, lawful or otherwise, namely their disinclination to sample the delights of having a riot shield forcibly inserted edge-first into their face.

But it is plain that you simply do not accept that any surveillance or proactive, preventative police activity, intended to disrupt or prevent criminal activity or serious disorder before it takes place can be justified. On that we simply disagree.

I don't know where you got that from. I do not accept that surveillance of people who there is no reason to suspect of any wrongdoing* is either worthwhile for the purposes of preventing crime or fair on the groups targetted by it. I'm perfectly aware that surveillance has prevented several potential terrorist attacks in recent years, but I'm also aware that terrorists and protestors are not the same thing, nor even in any rational way comparable. The way protestors are treated these days is akin to trying to prevent Islamic terrorism by keeping files on every single muslim in the country and shoving a camera in their face every time they go to a mosque or a halal butcher.

You can't just go around telling people that if they don't approve of one thing that police officers do with their time then they'd prefer instead to have the country run by terrorists, drug lords and...well politicians I suppose. Because that's just silly.

*And no, simply not agreeing with the government on a particular issue is not grounds for suspicion of criminal activity. What with this being a democracy and all.

 

[detective-boy]

and if i wasnt going to be put on a databse then why would they photograph me and demand i give my names and address, and why would FIT coppers repeatedly refer to me by my name and hint at other details, such as we know where you live, when ive never been convicted of an offence

Loads of details are taken, and loads of photos and moving footage are taken and never end up on any "database" by identity - the details are gathered in a developing situation and are then subject to analysis afterwards - where reasons for retaining them are found, they are kept. Where they are not, they aren't (subject to the comments I made earlier about unused material rules).

But there is no requirement for you to be convicted to be on an intelligence database ... a moment's though reveals that that is a ridiculous suggestion ... how would a first time bank robbery gang ever be convicted if the police weren't allowed to keep any data on them until after they've been convicted ...

As I said, in the context of demonstrations, databases ARE maintained of those who have caused problems previously (whether or not convicted) or who are suspected of being likely to cause problems in the future and those who are suspected of being their associates.

 

[detective-boy]

And of course nobody who has their photo and/or personal information recorded in this sort of situation ever knows whether it is kept indefinitely or skimmed through once and then thrown in the bin.

Make an application under the Data Protection Act.

... many people will assume that they are obliged to comply with a similar request made by a police officer.

Which is why, in addition to seeking to ensure that the police act properly, people should be made aware of their (accurate) rights. Sadly the mainstream media make no attempt to fulfil their responsibility to educate people, preferring instead to make inaccurate, sensationalist claims which then lead to people getting into trouble as they believe, wrongly that they know their rights.

As I have said dozens of times previously, the best check on the police is a population who accurately know their rights and who complain when they are breached. But I personally would add, that also understands their responsibilities to society too.

 

[smokedout]

As I said, in the context of demonstrations, databases ARE maintained of those who have caused problems previously (whether or not convicted) or who are suspected of being likely to cause problems in the future and those who are suspected of being their associates.

and who decides what constitutes causing a problem

 

[detective-boy]

I don't know where you got that from. I do not accept that surveillance of people who there is no reason to suspect of any wrongdoing* is either worthwhile for the purposes of preventing crime or fair on the groups targetted by it.

I'm not saying that surveillance of people who there is no reason to suspect of any wrongdoing is worthwhile (or lawful). Its just that I accept that sometimes it is difficult to know for sure what someone (or some groups) intentions are from the start (having had to make that sort of decision dozens of times) whereas you seem to think that it is always obvious from the outset.

It simply isn't. And therefore it is inevitable that some entirely innocent people will be placed under surveillance, be arrested on suspicion of offences, have their houses searched on a warrant issued on suspicion of criminal activity, etc. The trick is to minimise the number of entirely innocent people to whom that happens (and to ensure that they are treated appropriately with apologies, explanations, compensation, etc. when it does happen despite our best efforts) whilst maintaining a syste which prevents serious offenders actually committing serious offences.

I would not argue that the balance is right at the moment - there is an overall tendency of police and government to act a bit paranoid and suspect everyone - but there IS a balance to be struck and if we are to stand any chance of effectively preventing serious offences and disorder, there will always be some infringement of the rights of individuals against whom reasonable grounds to suspect exist.

 

[detective-boy]

and who decides what constitutes causing a problem

The police are only concerned with crime and disorder. "Problem" was used as a shorthand for that in the context I used it. Political views should only be of interest to the police if they have been criminalised (e.g. by proscription of a political party).

 

[SpookyFrank]

Which is why, in addition to seeking to ensure that the police act properly, people should be made aware of their (accurate) rights. Sadly the mainstream media make no attempt to fulfil their responsibility to educate people, preferring instead to make inaccurate, sensationalist claims which then lead to people getting into trouble as they believe, wrongly that they know their rights.

As I have said dozens of times previously, the best check on the police is a population who accurately know their rights and who complain when they are breached. But I personally would add, that also understands their responsibilities to society too.

I agree that the media is not great at educating folks about things like their rights, but to be honest our rights as UK citizens are being mauled and reshaped at such a rate that keeping up with the changes is a challenge in itself. Things like kettling make it even tougher to get an accurate idea of what exactly one's rights are, you'd expect that if you were suspected of no crime then you'd have the right to move and associate as you saw fit; evidently while ketling remains a legitimate police tactic this is not the case. We also used to have the right when arrested to know the charges against us and to be given a chance to defend ourselves. This right has had an "unless..." appended to it as well. Any right that can be suspended arbitrarily and upon a whim of the state is not a right but more a temporary perk, a carrot on a stick.

IIRC police are obliged to read people a statment of their rights when they're arrested. I don't see why they shouldn't be required by law to do the same when conducting searches, placing people in that mysterious limbo known as 'detention' and generally doing anything that impinges upon someone's freedom to go about their day but doesn't involve any specific suspicion of wrongdoing on their part. No doubt the police would find this an inconvenience but from where I'm standing many of them cannot be trusted to stick to what they are legally permitted to do in such circumstances.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I'm not saying that surveillance of people who there is no reason to suspect of any wrongdoing is worthwhile (or lawful). Its just that I accept that sometimes it is difficult to know for sure what someone (or some groups) intentions are from the start (having had to make that sort of decision dozens of times) whereas you seem to think that it is always obvious from the outset.

It simply isn't. And therefore it is inevitable that some entirely innocent people will be placed under surveillance, be arrested on suspicion of offences, have their houses searched on a warrant issued on suspicion of criminal activity, etc. The trick is to minimise the number of entirely innocent people to whom that happens (and to ensure that they are treated appropriately with apologies, explanations, compensation, etc. when it does happen despite our best efforts) whilst maintaining a syste which prevents serious offenders actually committing serious offences.

I would not argue that the balance is right at the moment - there is an overall tendency of police and government to act a bit paranoid and suspect everyone - but there IS a balance to be struck and if we are to stand any chance of effectively preventing serious offences and disorder, there will always be some infringement of the rights of individuals against whom reasonable grounds to suspect exist.

Where do you stand on surveillance, mass arrests, search warrants and property seizures for "suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass"? Here's an example. Is that a balanced approach to using police resources would you say? In a city with a huge gang violence problem and a prolific drug trade? These sorts of charges have been repeatedly thrown out of court by judges and yet the police still go to quite staggering lengths to keep nicking people for them.

 

[winjer]

and who decides what constitutes causing a problem

We all know the police only target dangerous criminals:

 

[xes]

You would have to provide more detail on what the issue was - there is absolutely no reason in general law why that would not be absolutely straightforward.

other than the FACT that the WHOLE police force is based on a corrupt system, full of liars and complete cunts? Nop,e i struggle to think of a reason aswell.

 

[detective-boy]

IIRC police are obliged to read people a statment of their rights when they're arrested. I don't see why they shouldn't be required by law to do the same when conducting searches, placing people in that mysterious limbo known as 'detention' and generally doing anything that impinges upon someone's freedom to go about their day but doesn't involve any specific suspicion of wrongdoing on their part.

They are on arrest and on arrival at the police station when detention is authorised.

And to a certain extent they are in relation to both a stop/search and the search of premises. These requirements could be strengthened and a "rights" notice could be produced for service.

There is scope for an explanation of rights to be included when people are detained for any length of time in order to prevent disorder. Maybe it will be one of the improvements that Denis O'Connor comes up with ...

But you are right - the basic right shoud be for an explanation of why your usual rights are being infringed and an explanation of for how long, how you may challenge that, etc. (though the reality is that any challenge will have to be after the event - once it becomes apparent that a decision has been made to take a particular action, despite protestations and representations, the best advice has to be to cooperate with it's exercise whilst making it plain that you are not consenting as such and whilst gathering the best possible evidence to support a later court case).

 

[detective-boy]

Where do you stand on surveillance, mass arrests, search warrants and property seizures for "suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass"?

I think you have to judge each case on it's merits. I am aware of situations in which the intelligence that serious crime and disorder was planned was so significant that such action would be merited (and, in fact, if it was not, the disorder ensued and people then found the police could have intervened but did not the police would have been rightly criticised and possibly sued). I am also aware of situations in which it appears to have been an over-reaction.

But it can only be judged when the exact intelligence picture for each individual case is known. Individual officers in charge of operations will make their decisions and should expect to be held accountable for them and, if they are found to be wrong, to be subject to sanctions. It should be remembered, however, that it is anything but an exact science!

 

[durruti02]

We all know the police only target dangerous criminals:

where is that from, winjer?

 

[durruti02]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/m...nce-protesters-journalists-climate-kingsnorth

The Gruaniad has reveled that thouhands of protestors (e.g. half the Urban board) have had their details logged on a secret police database.

Whilst this is something many of us have suspected for years, it's shocking to see it finally blown open. Despite people like Jack Straw claiming we are not living in a police state the police are keeping a register of protesters, which we known is then used to harrass organizers through tartegted surveillance from FIT teams, or arrests on trumped up conspiracy charges.

There should be arrests made of the people who have been running this system and politicans such as the Home Secetary should answer for this system that threatens any reamining hope of ever being a democracy.

that is interesting .. always assumed this re activists but clearly the police understand the use of the press by activists all to well

 

[SpookyFrank]

They are on arrest and on arrival at the police station when detention is authorised.

If they take you to a police station. You may be 'detained' in the back of a van, or simply wherever you happen to be at the time in the case of a kettle. It's one of the more annoying things in the known universe to find yourself constantly rehashing this conversation for several hours:

You: "Am I under arrest then?"
Plod: "No."
You: "Can I go home then?"
Plod: "No."
You: "Can I please go and take a piss then?"
Plod: "No."
You: "Can you tell me when you'll be either charging me with something or letting me go home?"
Plod: "No."
You: "Sleep well at night do you officer?"
Plod: "Like the dead, since you ask."
You: "Yeah, I fucking thought so as well."
Plod: "And yourself?"
You: "Well, now that you mention it, I mostly lie awake in bed for hours on end every night thinking about all the brutality and injustice in this world and how most of it is totally avoidable if people would only give up their lust for money and power and start being civilised to one another. I lie there and think about how my country, which through no fault of my own I will always be associated with, is happy to condemn a degenerate regime with one hand and sell guns to it with the other. I think about all the kids who grow up being told that if they work hard then they'll get to do any wonderful job they can think of and live in a big house with lots of shiny things in it, only to leave school and discover that some shower of cunts has pissed the entire world economy up the wall as part of what was, essentially, nothing more than a rather childish game played with the lives and resources of billions of people. I think about how Shell claims to be an advocate of futuristic, clean energy sources whilst it continues illegal gas-flaring practices in the Niger Delta and poisons the homelands of those who never see a penny of the vast wealth that is made from them. I think about the French communards shot dead in Pere Lachaise cemetery in 1871 for having the gall to want to help run their own city. I think about how there are war criminals out there free as birds and rich as croesus solely because they had the good fortune to win. I think about how we keep animals in pens which are smaller than they are so we're never more than thirty seconds awayfrom a prepackaged bacon sandwich. I think about how there's an excellent chance the human race will be gone inside a hundred years because of people who ignored scientific facts that didn't tie in well enough with their plans to get rich and die from a heart attack while shagging a really, really nice call girl. I think about the people everywhere in the world who have no choice but to work for a pittance day in, day out just so they might be allowed to survive for a little longer. I think about the fact that before I was even born I was robbed of any chance of living a simple, honest existence working together with those around me to see to our needs and to enjoy the beautiful, untarnished world we find ourselves in free from fear, free from oppression and obligation and guilt and manufactured desires, I think about how there are nigh-on seven billion people in this world in exactly the same mess and how there's nothing I can do to help them. And then when an opportunity arises to perhaps draw attention to one little aspect of one of these problems; to perhaps try and make those responsible for evil deeds feel a tiny fraction of the shame and ridicule which is theirs by right; to peacefully but determinedly say out loud on one afternoon in a hundred that I don't fucking like what happens to people in this world; and to maybe feel for a few hours afterwards that I might have made some small difference, that there might just be some value in refusing to be totally silent about the things that scream through my mind 24 hours a fucking day and have done for as long as I can remember, to just maybe go to sleep feeling some kind of peace of mind for once; then I get shoved into a paddywagon, having broken no laws, and some cunt tells me I'm not allowed to go and take a piss. And now I've called you a cunt you really are going to arrest me aren't you?"
Plod: "I am, yes. Calling me a cunt, that's assault that is."
You: "Can I go for a piss when I get to the station?"
Plod: "We're not going to the station just yet. We can keep you in for longer if we wait a few hours before booking you in."
You: "I see. Can I smoke?"
Plod: "No."
You: "Not wishing to labour a point, but you sir are a cunt."

 

[winjer]

where is that from, winjer?

A policeman dropped it, whoever found it took a photo and sent it to Mark Thomas.

 

[detective-boy]

It's one of the more annoying things in the known universe to find yourself constantly rehashing this conversation for several hours: <snip amusingly phrased anecdote>

If that happens as described (i.e. arrest into a van and not taken anywhere) it is a breach of PACE. Once arrested you must be taken to a police station as soon as practicable (s.30(1A) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). Whilst that may justify delay in some cases - no transport available; need to keep transport to be filled with other detainees before going to station; station not able to receive so diverted elsewhere / held in van outside; operational need for officers to remain at scene (e.g. continuing disturbance) - it would not cover any delay just for the hell of it.

If such a situation develops the detainee would be well advised to make careful note of the circumstances - times, reasons given, identities of officers concerned, etc. - and then make complaint / take advice re- civil action for unlawful arrest subsequently.

I've got to say though that I do not recognise the situation you decsribe as being something which is commonly alleged - in the Met at least they rarely have enough officers to make genuine arrests let alone fictitious ones!

If you are referring to detention short of arrest in a kettle however, that is something which is not formally covered by guidance (at present). It can only be lawful if the police can justify the detention and that is not something which (a) the individual officers acting on the directions of the senior officer in command will be able to overrule or (b) something which will be debated in detail at the time. Again the best advice would be to note as many details as possible of conversations, officers identity, times, etc., making periodic requests to leave to ensure that your unwillingness is clear, and then again taking advice subsequently about making a complaint / suing for unlawful detention.

(And calling an officer a cunt is not assault - it may be threatening / abusive / insulting words (a minor public order offence) ... but it is not an assault - for that you need the use or immediate threat of force).