Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NO SUNSHINE

Am I just being stupid or is this a contradiction?

25 posts in this topic

+ SECTION 43 OF THE TERRORISM ACT (2000):43 Search of persons(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga...11_en_5#pt5-pb2+ THE MET'S WEBSITE - WHAT IT CLAIMS SECTION 44 GIVES THEM THE POWER TO DO:Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 gives police the power to search vehicles and people for items that could be used to commit a terrorist act. Police can search anybody anywhere under this law, and they do not need reasonable suspicion to do so. It is under this law that police conduct random searches in train and tube stations.http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/wha....htm#stopsearch-----------------------------------------------------------------Swear 99% of Met employees are absoltue morons

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is even worse, is if you try to bring a claim against the police for their sh*t interpretation of the law it will more then likely fail!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99.9%, of these niggas aint sh*t, and most of these niggas suck d*ck [/Jeru]

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytime I think about this it enrages meAll Im saying is protests>>Ive done it once before (for a different reason), we were probably 50 deep but we brought some main roads in south to a standstillCaused the police so much hassle, civilians jaws were on the floor & heads were heeding our reasons for protestingWhos really on this though?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol at asking thuns opinion on stuff tho guy is lost if alex jones hasnt told him what to think
C/S.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+ SECTION 43 OF THE TERRORISM ACT (2000):43 Search of persons(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga...11_en_5#pt5-pb2+ THE MET'S WEBSITE - WHAT IT CLAIMS SECTION 44 GIVES THEM THE POWER TO DO:Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 gives police the power to search vehicles and people for items that could be used to commit a terrorist act. Police can search anybody anywhere under this law, and they do not need reasonable suspicion to do so. It is under this law that police conduct random searches in train and tube stations.http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/wha....htm#stopsearch-----------------------------------------------------------------Swear 99% of Met employees are absoltue morons
its not a contridiction the first is a section of statue thereford lawthe second is a misinterpretation of the following section of the above lawbut tbh the first quote in reality allows for the second theres a case that makes clear what is enough to cause reasonable suspicion in a police officer doesn't have to be the same as what would causes reasonable suspicion in a laymen (they have powers of deduction that we the average persons couldn't possibly fathom...apparently)as long as they say the right thing when under scrutiny, its all good
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when you allow a tyrannical government to just do what they want Double speak will be performed on the masses and they will accept it

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol at asking thuns opinion on stuff tho guy is lost if alex jones hasnt told him what to think
Stay living in your delusional world were you think you are a gangsterYou probably wear your bullet proof vest while on your parents laptop
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its what your known for here init a fake wannabe g

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol at asking thuns opinion on stuff tho guy is lost if alex jones hasnt told him what to think
C/S.
lolbrisco's going ard these days
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh....doesnt 1 say section 43 and the other section 44?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eh....doesnt 1 say section 43 and the other section 44?
yeah so 43 says they need suspicion, then 44 right after says they don't - immediate contradictionPolice chat sh*tin section 44 it saysAn authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.subsections 1/2 say what can be searchedso technically if they think you're going to stab someone then they can search you, however i suggest the next time you are about to be searched you ask them "do you think I am going to commit an act of terrorism?", if they say no then you are under no obligation to allow them to search you... however if they arrest you and sh*t it's their word against yours
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eh....doesnt 1 say section 43 and the other section 44?
yeah so 43 says they need suspicion, then 44 right after says they don't - immediate contradictionPolice chat sh*tin section 44 it saysAn authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.subsections 1/2 say what can be searchedso technically if they think you're going to stab someone then they can search you, however i suggest the next time you are about to be searched you ask them "do you think I am going to commit an act of terrorism?", if they say no then you are under no obligation to allow them to search you... however if they arrest you and sh*t it's their word against yours
i have first hand experience of how bullshit this law isi walked into a train station with a white guy and an asian guy. 2 of us had rucksacks on.police walk up: "hi guys where are you going?""just to a makes house in cardonald""ok well we'd just like to have a quick look in your backs""what?""we are stopping you under section 44 of the anti terrorism act so we are going to have a quick look in your bags"long story short: they find weed on my boy, it goes to court, the judge throws the case out because between her and the lawyer they arent sure if the stop and search legislation was used in a lawful way and CBA arguing it over something minor like weed.my friend walks free, everyones time is wastedbasically, the transport police who stopped us are jumped up pricks most likely abusing this law.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets be serious now.If I was a police officer in Cumbria, I am stopping any old van being driven by an older male and checking its engine to make sure they aren't using red diesel.If I was a police officer working in Peckham, I am stopping any young boy or girl driving a car and searching the usual spots plus doing full insurance checks.If I was a police officer at Waterloo Station, I am stopping any male between 18-35 who has a rucksack and is dressed slighty scruffy.f*ck being politically correct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
long story short: they find weed on my boy, it goes to court, the judge throws the case out because between her and the lawyer they arent sure if the stop and search legislation was used in a lawful way and CBA arguing it over something minor like weed.my friend walks free, everyones time is wastedbasically, the transport police who stopped us are jumped up pricks most likely abusing this law.
:lol: so basically, they found weed on your boy?cool.STOP THE POLICE USING THESE POWERS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/our civil liberties are nonexistent now and if u think u have some it’s an illusionFrom day police can use the terrorism act and integrate it into almost any situation

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

come like the communism act back in the day in 50 years there will be a next bullshit ting

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police are pricks they always draw for the section 44

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hate them british transport policejumped up pricks

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
long story short: they find weed on my boy, it goes to court, the judge throws the case out because between her and the lawyer they arent sure if the stop and search legislation was used in a lawful way and CBA arguing it over something minor like weed.my friend walks free, everyones time is wastedbasically, the transport police who stopped us are jumped up pricks most likely abusing this law.
:lol: so basically, they found weed on your boy?cool.STOP THE POLICE USING THESE POWERS
come on streetsyes he had weedbut the point im trying to make isthe legislation which was passed under the guise of 'anti-terrorism' is being misused and even the judge was backing themedit: infact let me add - i had a laptop in my bag, and for some reason they said 'open it'. not even turn it on to make sure its really a working laptop, just open the lid. in my eyes that proves that it was bullshit coz if they really thought we could be terrorists, shouldnt they have some sort of protocol to follow escially with testing something like a laptop
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets be serious now.If I was a police officer in Cumbria, I am stopping any old van being driven by an older male and checking its engine to make sure they aren't using red diesel.If I was a police officer working in Peckham, I am stopping any young boy or girl driving a car and searching the usual spots plus doing full insurance checks.If I was a police officer at Waterloo Station, I am stopping any male between 18-35 who has a rucksack and is dressed slighty scruffy.f*ck being politically correct.
Good thing youre just a tea boy ey
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
long story short: they find weed on my boy, it goes to court, the judge throws the case out because between her and the lawyer they arent sure if the stop and search legislation was used in a lawful way and CBA arguing it over something minor like weed.my friend walks free, everyones time is wastedbasically, the transport police who stopped us are jumped up pricks most likely abusing this law.
:lol: so basically, they found weed on your boy?cool.STOP THE POLICE USING THESE POWERS
come on streetsyes he had weedbut the point im trying to make isthe legislation which was passed under the guise of 'anti-terrorism' is being misused and even the judge was backing themedit: infact let me add - i had a laptop in my bag, and for some reason they said 'open it'. not even turn it on to make sure its really a working laptop, just open the lid. in my eyes that proves that it was bullshit coz if they really thought we could be terrorists, shouldnt they have some sort of protocol to follow escially with testing something like a laptop
lol, shoulda got your boy to hold it and then shout "turn it on NOOOW!!" see if the police would run away or something
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
long story short: they find weed on my boy, it goes to court, the judge throws the case out because between her and the lawyer they arent sure if the stop and search legislation was used in a lawful way and CBA arguing it over something minor like weed.my friend walks free, everyones time is wastedbasically, the transport police who stopped us are jumped up pricks most likely abusing this law.
:lol: so basically, they found weed on your boy?cool.STOP THE POLICE USING THESE POWERS
come on streetsyes he had weedbut the point im trying to make isthe legislation which was passed under the guise of 'anti-terrorism' is being misused and even the judge was backing themedit: infact let me add - i had a laptop in my bag, and for some reason they said 'open it'. not even turn it on to make sure its really a working laptop, just open the lid. in my eyes that proves that it was bullshit coz if they really thought we could be terrorists, shouldnt they have some sort of protocol to follow escially with testing something like a laptop
I don't think they're allowed access to your machine without a warrant.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@nosunshine: you have some of the best legal academics at ur disposal and u ask here?lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0