We have detected that your browser is using AdBlock

Police Community is a not for profit organisation and advertising revenue is key to our continued viability.

Please disable your AdBlocker on our site in order to continue using it.
This message will disappear once AdBlock has been disabled.

Thank you for your support - we appreciate it !

If you feel you are getting this message in error please email support@policecommunity.co.uk


Member (Bronze)
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


JKW last won the day on July 11

JKW had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About JKW

  • Rank
    Relative Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you Reasonable Man for all the info and timely responses to my questions. It’s clear that you’ve given as much of an answer to my questions as anyone could given the subjectivity of the topics in question.
  2. So I guess it’s safe to assume that the only place one could hope to actually avoid being harassed by anyone at any time is on private property where said harasser would then be trespassing?
  3. As can I. A police informant, for instance. What’s worrying though, is that this appears to be a legal loophole that would allow for harassment to occur without accountability or penalty regardless of who’s following whom based solely on suspicion of criminal activity and not specific criminal acts. It strikes me as a very slippery slope (particularly as it relates to discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) and makes one wonder what the point of harassment laws are if they can so easily be side stepped.
  4. This does beg the question as to whether an individual who is not a police officer can follow anyone in the interest of preventing or detecting crime. Does subsection 3 of Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment of 1997 apply to all citizens and not just police officers? If it does then stalkers could just as easily use it as a defense in the same way say a police officer might, assuming of course that citizens have the same carte blanche as police officers.
  5. None of this is based on personal experience. In the two years I’ve been living in this country I’ve only had one interaction with a police officer and it was a perfectly friendly one. In this hypothetical situation, it would seem, to me at least, that there would be little point in making a formal complaint as the argument that what the officer was doing was “reasonable” by his or her own definition of that word could be used as an ironclad defense. More than likely such a complaint would be ignored given that fact, regardless of whether or not the person being followed felt harassed.
  6. I’d happily DM you but being a new user I’m not sure how to do that. Alternatively you could just post the aforementioned unposted post, assuming of course that it hasn’t been permanently deleted.
  7. That’s more or less what I thought, but I also thought there might be a more specific legal definition of what is or isn’t considered “reasonable” Case law as you stated, and legal precedence would then be the best way of determining such a definition if one were trying to define it, if I understand you correctly. So ultimately it’s up to a judge or series of judges to interpret the law based on what they consider to be “reasonable” Which would make it fair to say that officers effectively have a carte blanche in this particular hypothetical situation as they can always say that they were doing what they personally believed to be “reasonable?”
  8. The links I posted are as follows: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/1 and the link in your post to the pdf. What puzzles me is why the post was censored as the links both worked perfectly fine. As I don’t know who the moderators are I can’t speak for why the post wasn’t posted. In particular, I qouted section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics, and section 1 of the Prevention of Harassment Act of 1997. I also asked questions regarding the interpretation of these sections; questions, perhaps, that were perceived as inappropriate in some way though I can’t say I agree with that conclusion. My impression of this forum was that it would be more impartial than perhaps it actually is. Again, no knowing the moderators or their intentions it’s hard to say one way or another. Your guess is as good as mine.
  9. What qualifies as “reasonable belief?” Without any proof that a crime has or will be comitted than the officer is operating on suspicion alone. Suspicion that is based on the appearance and/or behaviour of the person being followed which could be perceived as discriminatory under some circumstances if i’m not mistaken. Certainly there must be a line somewhere that when crossed surveillance becomes stalking. It’s just not terribly clear to me where that line is. Perhaps it’s intentionally vague specifically in the interest of preventing or detecting crime? On a side note: I posted some links earlier to both the College of Policing Code of Ethics pdf and the .gov page with the outline of the Prevention of Harassment Act but the moderators chose not to post it for some reason? I’m curious why it wasn’t posted as nothing I said in that post struck me as offensive in any way.
  10. I’m wondering specifically about intimidation tactics and at what point intimidation becomes harassment. For clarity let’s go with this hypothetical situation. Let’s say there is a routine stop and search and the person who is stopped co-operates fully by agreeing to the search, answering all questions, and providing identification. The search doesn’t yield any proof of a crime having been committed but the officer present still believes that the person they stopped may be engaged in illegal activity and as such chooses to follow this person. The person being followed tells the officer not to follow them and that doing so is making them uncomfortable. The officer then informs this person that since the officer believes he or she might be engaged in illegal activity that the officer is well within their right to surveil. Does that qualify as harassment under uk law and/or breach the aforementioned Code of Ethics?
  11. Yes. I read the disclaimer before posting. Thank you.
  12. Hello, I’m fairly new to this country and as such am not overly familiar with the laws regarding police harassment. I’ve googled it a few times but have not been able to find an official .gov webpage which outlines exactly what does and does not qualify as police harassment. Any advice or information you could provide would be greatly appreciated