4 ms·
Technically he was fined for swearing at the police, not for covering his face. If he had said nothing he would not have been fined but might have been searched
by willyt 7y ago
Technically he was fined for swearing at the police, not for covering his face. If he had said nothing he would not have been fined but might have been searched as the police have the power to stop and search anyone who they have reasonable cause to suspect is acting suspiciously.
- kwhitefoot 7y agoBut they didn't have reasonable cause.
- sleepychu 7y agoActually in England they don't need reasonable grounds. https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rig... > You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that: serious violence could take place you’re carrying a weapon or have used one you’re in a specific location or area
- Zak 7y ago> you’re in a specific location or area Are the specific locations this applies to defined in law, or can a senior police officer just say "this neighborhood has a lot of criminals; search everyone"?
- sleepychu 7y agoBit of a mix, seems possible to make justification for an entire city. [1] [1] - https://twitter.com/brumpolice/status/1100765101156634624 https://twitter.com/brumpolice/status/1100765101156634624
- Zak 7y agoThat's... even worse than I feared, and most of the responses to the tweet are supportive.
- epanchin 7y agoThat’s not entirely accurate. They have the power to stop and search where they believe you have been involved in a crime or are carrying a prohibited item. They must have grounds to suspect they will find what they are looking for.
- rurp 7y agoIf he had remained quiet he would not have been fined for swearing, but he likely would have been fined for something else. It seems pretty clear the intention was to issue a fine, not to reduce swearing.