ARTSPRAY

Resident Members
  • Content count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About ARTSPRAY

  • Rank
    Getting There
  • Birthday
  1. daft Yam Yams lol
  2. so is it correct then or not ? Thanks for that, i don't know what i'd have done for the past 20 years without you pointing that out to me
  3. just something i found on the net that on the face of it says i am not automaticaly obliged to give my name and address to the police Do I have to give the police my name and address if they stop me in the street? The police have the right to stop people and ask them to account for themselves. This would usually involve them asking where are you coming from and where are you going to. You do not have to answer these questions though you would generally be advised to. There is no general police power to require you to give them your name and address. However you should be very careful here: The police can require you to give your name and address if they think you have been behaving 'anti-socially'. Since this can cover most cases you should be careful about refusing to give your name and address. Refusing is an offence. However the police would have to be able to back up a claim that you were acting 'anti-socially' in court so if you feel you could defend that then it may be safe to refuse to give them your name and address on these grounds. (Police Reform Act 2002 Section 50).
  4. it was the general idea of something like ID im saying could have the same objections made ,and even if i am legaly obliged to give my name to a police officer it doesnt mean i cant find that objectionable ,as these regs will soon be in force would it therefore follow they are not objectionable ? are you sure i am legaly bound to give my name to the police ,is not giving my name an arestable offence then ?
  5. it will just make it easier to dismiss officers who hide a connection with the press ,rather than finding out about a connection then finding it impossable to prove something untoward has gone on they can be dismissed for the very act of covering up this connection making the risks a little higher for those police officers willing to "sell themselves" to the press
  6. i suppose that same arguement could be used against the call for ID cards or if i am stopped by the police maybe i would find it objectionable to even give my name ,on both counts that in itself would not mean i had something to hide but like you i may just find it objectionable
  7. surely recording or filming a police officer in the course of their duty would only confirm they where acting entirely properly ,wouldnt it ? maybe the police should concider the constant recording of their day to day interactions with the public in order to protect themselves from unfounded alegations
  8. i think it is in order to create an offence wherebye those officers who seek to hide the fact they have a "freindship" would only do so becouse they have a more synister relationship going on otherwise what is this other than a minor inconveniance to i guese the very small amount of officers who actualy do know a journalist on a personal basis
  9. yes its bu the latter realy ,but i suppose those officers with something to hide would object to this more vigerously as it could expose connections they dont want exposed or put them in position of having to lie by not declaring ,the fact is they shoulnt be doing anything wrong anyway just like the SORN example just like the public at large it seems our rights to privacy are being gradualy eroded ,i think we can blame the bureaucrates for taking avantage of the crimes commited by a very few and using them as an excuse to undermine all our civil rights
  10. however the ruling is not a restriction ,it is simply that an officer should declare a freindship with any journalist ,it doese not prohibit any freindship
  11. about as sensible as a SORN decleration lol the fact i havent taxed my car should already be telling the DVLA i wont be keeping or using on the RD anyway ,it is just another excuse to fine me for what is essentialy a non crime
  12. becouse someone says they should ,and probably in light of the "indescretions" of some officers who have abused their "freindship" with some journalists
  13. why would a person in public office fear declaring such a "freindship" if they have nothing to hide then its a mute point realy and should not effect them in any way ,its not as if they are being forbiden from having a freind who is a journalist
  14. a drunks intent and what they end up doing may well be two very different things ,he said as he urinated in the wardrobe convinced it was the bog i do actualy recale a family freind ariving at my moms house late one night and worse for drink convinced he had killed a man,turned out he had atacked a small tree
  15. if the "unknown" tablets where indeed as claimed then yes they where witheld ,that is not to say the officer did not have good cause to witthold them ,however further to this it seems no alternative replacements where sourced ,for whatever reason and the person only actualy recieved treatment after a fit ocured as he had said may happen ,on the face of it it seems this was preventable meditate seems to have come up with some valid sugestions on how this could have been delt with ,they seem reasonable enough sugestions to me