Things that ur happy about

[eFestivals]

Refusing a search a law break?

no, not a law break - but the old bill have the absolute right to search anyone where they have reasonable suspicion for that person having been involved in a crime.

When a person has agreed to be searched if necessary by entering a premises (which is the normal case for anywhere with bouncers on the door) and then refuses to be searched after a crime has been reported, that counts as suspicion enough in the eyes of the law.

Im interested as a couple of years ago I was taking pictures in a city centre and was asked by 2 officers if they could search my bag, me and to look what I had been taking pictures of.

I refused and had a discussion and they them said someone of my description was banned from the city centre and asked for my name and address. They then talked to someone on the radio and then said you can carry on now.

They didnt get there search.

You got lucky - probably mostly the result of the particular coppers you encountered (not all of them are little hitlers all of the time), probably combined by your own attitude towards them when they made the request to search you, and definitely combined with their ability to easily double-check whether you were the person they initially thought you were.

In most cases in the same situation, you'd have been searched. That's how they tend to work.

[eFestivals]

I doubt it would be the norm for the cops to keep me held up for four hours... Friday & Saturday nights are busy enough without holding me up for four hours... Plus it would be totally unjustifiable and more fool you for letting that slide.

How they deal with it will always be dependent on other demands on their time. They'll let someone they were already dealing with off a minor crime if they get a call for something more urgent before they've finished dealing with that person.

But what you've missed from your consideration there is that on Friday or Saturday night the request to search you could be at the bottom of their importance list - and so it might be the case that the bouncers would detain you for hours until those coppers are able to arrive.

[eFestivals]

Would be happy to sit it out and waste everyones time!

and you're entitled to - but the sitting it out is a much bigger inconvenience to you than being searched there and then, and doesn't avoid you being searched anyway.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I'll not go into the details but have just found out (in the last 5 minutes) that I'm going to get an extra £2K windfall on 1/1/13. That'll be a very nice start to the New Year. I can feel a holiday coming up.

[rachbon]

I would wait for the cops.... I like being a pain in the arse.... It's the fucking principle... Treating everyone as a potential criminal because someone might of had thir phone stolen.... Cheeky basards

I'm sure I would do the same.

It's doubtful to start with. Be interesting to explore the legality of their false imprisonment as well.

Yeah.. how can it be legal for bouncers to hold people hostage?

It's not 'false imprisonment' to detain someone when there is reasonable suspicion to detain them.

Who gets to decide what is reasonable though?

[eFestivals]

Yeah.. how can it be legal for bouncers to hold people hostage?

(as I know you're in Scotland, I'll point out that I'm saying how it works in England. It might be different in Scotland).

essentially, by entering the premises and accepting their entry conditions you forfeit some of your rights. You are agreeing to allow those bouncers to have more than the normal say, by agreeing to their right to search you.

If you then refuse to allow them to search you when they have good reason to search you (because a crime has been committed), then you give them reasonable grounds for suspicion.

From here:-

http://www.guardian....citizens-arrest

The statutory power of any member of the public in England and Wales to detain someone they consider to be involved in criminal activity is to be found in section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974. A person "other than a constable" may arrest without a warrant anyone:

Who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence.

An indictable offence is one that can be tried in a crown court, in front of a jury. This alone isn't much use to the average civilian, and astonishingly the government doesn't seem to publish a complete list of offences which qualify, but examples include theft, criminal damage and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

By default, both the police and courts would back the bouncers*, because they are regarded as 'forces of good' in such circumstances.

(* obviously, it depends on their actions not being over the top).

Who gets to decide what is reasonable though?

the police do, and the courts will almost always back the old bill up - on the basis that the old bill are forces of good, and anyone being awkward towards them is not. In the absence of the old bill, bouncvers are regarded by 'the system' as more 'forces of good' than an awkward joe public.

It's one of those times where the old bill essentially get to write how the law works in regard to themselves, just by the nature/circumstances of things (and in a similar way, whether a person ends up in court or not is more at the discretion of the arresting copper than anyone else in the justice system).

Edited December 13, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

for Scotland it is different - tho the reality probably pans out in much the same way....

from here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#England_and_Wales

While no statutory provision for citizen's arrest exists in Scots Law, there is a common law position that anyone committing an offence can be arrested using minimum force if necessary with consideration to what is reasonable in the relevant circumstances. The offence must be a serious one and not merely for a breach of the peace. The person exercising the power must have witnessed the offence occurring therefore they cannot act upon information from another person. An arrest is applicable reliant on situation.^[35][36]

[Rufus Gwertigan]

doing the same isn't beyond me either, but having done it on enough occasions in the past I've wised up to the extent to at least think about whether I want to spend the next 4 hours in the company of the old bill just because I want to be awkward.

I was just the same and I have become more pragmatic. I began to realise that while I may have been causing a mild, forgettable, inconvenience everyone else apart from me were getting paid for it.

[Paul ™]

for Scotland it is different - tho the reality probably pans out in much the same way....

It is different in Scotland, we can't detain someone unless we actually see the crime being committed.

Also you can't search someone unless they give you permission. Normally this would be when entering a venue/event but then ROAR comes into play.

[eFestivals]

It is different in Scotland, we can't detain someone unless we actually see the crime being committed.

just out of interest, how easy might it be to manipulate how the law for Scotland is worded?

For example, by 'creating' a second crime of assault because the guy you were asking to search pushed passed as you stopped him to ask to search him?

That's a pretty crap example, but it was the best I could think of ... basically what i'm meaning is that is it easy enough to create as second crime that you did see, so you're then able to detain them as you wanted to for the first personally-unseen crime? It's a fairly standard way of doing things in the right circumstances for the old bill in England, so I'm wondering if Scottish bouncers had come up with their own version of something like that.

[AcademicPistol]

I this thread was a happy place? Not a Scottish law debate place.

[TheGayTent]

Jingle Bell Rock

[Paul ™]

just out of interest, how easy might it be to manipulate how the law for Scotland is worded?

For example, by 'creating' a second crime of assault because the guy you were asking to search pushed passed as you stopped him to ask to search him?

That's a pretty crap example, but it was the best I could think of ... basically what i'm meaning is that is it easy enough to create as second crime that you did see, so you're then able to detain them as you wanted to for the first personally-unseen crime? It's a fairly standard way of doing things in the right circumstances for the old bill in England, so I'm wondering if Scottish bouncers had come up with their own version of something like that.

I wouldn't like to try it, there is a chance if it goes pear shaped you get done with all sorts including false imprisonment, kidnap etc lol

Edited December 14, 2012 by Paul ™

[eFestivals]

I wouldn't like to try it, there is a chance if it goes pear shaped you get done with all sorts including false imprisonment, kidnap etc lol

lol .... I guess it's not a problem the old bill have when they twist the law in that manner.

So what's the point of bouncers in Scotland if they're not able to do very much?

[Paul ™]

lol .... I guess it's not a problem the old bill have when they twist the law in that manner.

So what's the point of bouncers in Scotland if they're not able to do very much?

Licencing conditions really.. checking ID, searching on entry, refusals, throwing out drunks, stopping fights, collecting glasses

[windy_miller]

I'm rubbish at DIY and have absolutely no knowledge of plumbing, but have managed to take the thermostat on one of my radiators apart and getting it working again My house is no longer freezing cold

[Paul ™]

My new telly arrived today, it's amazing

[kk1977]

I don't think that being one of many people in club where a phone has been stolen or lost would be classed by anyone as being of reasonable suspicion of having commuted a crime. Refusing a search from a bouncer is a reasonable thing to do. I do not think that in Scotland or England, a bouncer would have any right to stop anyone from leaving a club because there may have been a minor property crime.

Regarding searches by bouncers, my understanding is that you agree to be searches as a condition of entry. You can withdraw this consent at any time. The only thing the bouncers could do if you refuse a search is refuse entry or ask you to leave.

[BlackHole2006]

Going to China Whites tomorrow night. Will probably get a taste of how "The Other Half" live, and that taste will be a bad taste in my mouth I can imagine.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I wouldn't like to try it, there is a chance if it goes pear shaped you get done with all sorts including false imprisonment, kidnap etc lol

and once you get Independence you can carry doing all those things.

[Paul ™]

and once you get Independence you can carry doing all those things.

I don't think using pink fluffy handcuffs count

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I don't think using pink fluffy handcuffs count

Depends where you are putting them mats ;-)

[eFestivals]

getting it finished.

[TheGayTent]

I hope you mean the sack and not them getting up the arse.

I have never heard of any other meaning of the phrase??

[The Nal]

Off work now until 7th January!!