h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A scenario: you are out for a walk. There's someone in at home, so you're not carrying your keys. You won't be out long, so you've not bothered taking a wallet. In short, there is nothing on you to identify you as you.

The police stop you - just a couple of questions. Who are you? Where have you been? Where are you going?

Now, it's been seriously proposed that refusing to answer such questions could become an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000, thus making all of us accountable to the state for our every action, all the time. Shocking, appalling, the sort of thing one might expect of a dystopian, Orwellian sf horror, rather than Britain in 2007.

I have a question: if one were stopped by the police today in such a situation, and one simply did not respond to them AT ALL - i.e. remained completely silent, regardless of anything they said or did - what recourse would the police have? And if, under some pretext, they arrested you and you STILL remained silent, what then? If they have no way to identify who you are, and you refuse to identify yourself, what could/should/would they do? How long can they hold you? And if they held you for a time, how would they record it?

SoRB

What a ridiculous arguement/scenario. Why wouldn't you say who you were if you've nothing to hide?

How about a slightly different scenario, you go for a walk, no ID, you get knocked down, you're not badly hurt but need hospital treatment so the police ask you for name and address to inform relatives. Would you still stay silent? Or would it be a case of this is suitable and convenient for you to say something?

Your right to say nothing only applies IF you are arrested and cautioned, its already an offence not to give name and address to the police if the police have "reasonable grounds" to ask for it. I would say under 18's being out at 2 or 3 in the morning is a classic example where police need to ask. We wouldn't have the dead kids we've had recently if the police were able to ask for these details without hesitation or fear of the bleeding heart liberal do gooders spouting on about human rights. The one basic human right we all have is to live a life without fear of attack by yobs, criminals or terrorist, the price of freedom is we need to be ever vigilant and sometimes that may look like "authority" taking over but if that means we can go about our daily lives without fear or hindrance, I for one am all for it.

ST.

"What a ridiculous arguement/scenario. Why wouldn't you say who you were if you've nothing to hide?"

What, you want a list?

1. You don't like the policeman's attitude and don't feel like answering what you see as intrusive an impertinent questions.

2. You're in the area to meet your mistress and you've just been to the bookies, both of which are your business and nobody else's.

The list could go on and on.

"How about a slightly different scenario, you go for a walk, no ID, you get knocked down, you're not badly hurt but need hospital treatment so the police ask you for name and address to inform relatives. Would you still stay silent?"

Stupid question. In that scenario you have nothing to gain from silence and everything to lose.

Whereas in my suggested scenario you have nothing whatsoever to gain from answering police questions, and potentially something to lose depending on why you don't want to answer.

"Your right to say nothing only applies IF you are arrested and cautioned"

Really? Are you sure that I GAIN the right to remain silent if I'm arrested? That I have no such right when I'm simply walking down the street? That sounds incorrect to me, but I'm not an expert...

"its already an offence not to give name and address to the police if the police have "reasonable grounds" to ask for it."

Really? Seriously? If that is the case, why the fuss about the proposal to make not answering questions an offence?

"I would say under 18's being out at 2 or 3 in the morning is a classic example where police need to ask."

Ahem. I perhaps did not make clear enough that I was talking about police interactions with adults. Then again, a young looking 18-year old should not need to fear being lifted by the police if they are unable or unwilling to provide ID.

I'm all for people needing ID to get served in pubs etc., but the concept that one should be obliged to carry ID and produce it on demand smacks of Stalin's Russia, not the UK.

"We wouldn't have the dead kids we've had recently if the police were able to ask for these details without hesitation or fear of the bleeding heart liberal do gooders spouting on about human rights."

I'm not sure which "dead kids" you're referring to, but I rather think that none of the recent cases would have been in any way benefited by enhanced stop and search powers.

"The one basic human right we all have is to live a life without fear of attack by yobs, criminals or terrorist"

Um... no. We have a right to privacy. Look it up. It's there in the European Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in British law. And that's the point of my question.

"the price of freedom is we need to be ever vigilant and sometimes that may look like "authority" taking over but if that means we can go about our daily lives without fear or hindrance, I for one am all for it."

Good for you. When they come for you, I'll tell them where you live...



Seriously - does anyone actually *know* what the police could or would do with someone who had been stopped in the street who simply didn't respond AT ALL to questions?

Another reason for asking is a rather disturbing experience I had many years ago while working in a shop. A person (couldn't tell whether it was male or female) came in and wandered about a bit. They then made for the stairs behind the counter which led up to the stockroom. The manager said something along the lines of "Can I help you?". The person just stared at him. They were wearing odd dark glasses. Just stopped, and stared, for about twenty seconds. They then made for the stairs again, and the manager said something like no, you can't go up there, and eventually just stood in their way. The two of them stood eye to eye for about thirty seconds in complete silence. Then without a word this person turned and walked back out of the shop.

It was this that first got me thinking about what you could do with or to a person who simply refused to speak to you. Often court reports about well known criminals use the phrase "The accused spoke only to confirm his name." What if he didn't? What if you just refused to play along, and just kept quiet? I've been fascinated by the possibility for years, and have always wondered what the actual outcome would be.

Any answers?

SoRB

I guessed when I saw who posted this that you wouldn't have a cohesive or valid arguement, you've just proved me right.
You've done exactly what the bleeding heart liberal do gooders do, fallen back on a flawed Human Rights act that gives more protection to criminals and terroists than the innocent.
Whats more, as a former police officer I happen to know when it's appropriate to ask for ID from someone. For 12 months prior to leaving the job we underwent months of additional training because of the Human Rights act.

""Stupid question. In that scenario you have nothing to gain from silence and everything to lose.""

Like I said, if you've nothing to hide etc. You're saying stay quiet because you have something to hide, the example you quote about seeing a mistress is pathetic to say the least.Do you honestly think the police are gonna dash round to your home and tell your missus you're seeing your mistress? What sort of pathetic arguement is that?

<<"its already an offence not to give name and address to the police if the police have "reasonable grounds" to ask for it."

Really? Seriously? If that is the case, why the fuss about the proposal to make not answering questions an offence?>>

Re-read what I said ref. reasonable grounds.

<>

You won't need to, having nothing to hide (unlike you by sounds of it),"they" already know where I live.

As for what the police would do in the current situation and under current law, if they had reasonable grounds or suspicions to have stopped you in the first place and you refused to give details then you are liable to arrest.Thats been the case since "PACE" regulations came in back in the 80's.

I've had this debate many times in RL as well as online and frankly no-one has yet come up with any arguement that persuades me that attitudes like yours are valid in this day and age.

Your last point ref. court and "refuse to play along", well, frankly, not worthy of comment is it?

ST.

According to PACE - refusing to give your identity is _not_ currently sufficient grounds for an arrest...

According to http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/PACE_Chapter_A.pdf?view=Binary

"A copy of a record made at the time must be given immediately to the person who has been searched. The officer must ask for the name, address and date of birth of the person searched, but there is no obligation on a person to provide these details and no power of detention if the person is unwilling to do so."

So, if they stop you they can search you (if they have 'reasonable grounds), but once they've searched you, if they don't find anything they can't simply hold you for not giving your ID...

However, my guess is that there's a thin dividing line (or a non-existent dividing line) between having reasonable cause to stop and search someone and having reasonable cause to detain them

Here's another bit for you...

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/PACECodeCH.pdf?view=Binary

(c) Special warnings under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, sections 36 and 37

10.10 When a suspect interviewed at a police station or authorised place of detention after arrest fails or refuses to answer certain questions, or to answer satisfactorily, after due warning, see Note 10F, a court or jury may draw such inferences as appear proper under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, sections 36 and 37. Such inferences
may only be drawn when:
(a) the restriction on drawing adverse inferences from silence, see Annex C, does not apply; and
(b) the suspect is arrested by a constable and fails or refuses to account for any objects, marks or substances, or marks on such objects found:
• on their person;
• in or on their clothing or footwear;
• otherwise in their possession; or
• in the place they were arrested;
Codes of practice – Code C Detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers
34
C
(c) the arrested suspect was found by a constable at a place at or about the time
the offence for which that officer has arrested them is alleged to have been committed, and the suspect fails or refuses to account for their presence there.
When the restriction on drawing adverse inferences from silence applies, the suspect may still be asked to account for any of the matters in (b) or (c) but the special warning described in paragraph 10.11 will not apply and must not be given. 10.11 For an inference to be drawn when a suspect fails or refuses to answer a question about one of these matters or to answer it satisfactorily, the suspect must first be told in
ordinary language:
(a) what offence is being investigated;
(b) what fact they are being asked to account for;
(c) this fact may be due to them taking part in the commission of the offence;
(d) a court may draw a proper inference if they fail or refuse to account for this fact;
(e) a record is being made of the interview and it may be given in evidence if they are brought to trial.

"fallen back on a flawed Human Rights act that gives more protection to criminals and terroists than the innocent."

For the education of us "bleeding heart liberals', perhaps you can explain to us which specific parts of the Human Rights Act you object to - precisely which parts of it you think give "more protection to criminals"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm

<>

Take a sample of your DNA and check it against the database?

<>

well, they're making "fantastic" progress in reading emotions using MRI, so the could ultimately resort to that.

I daresay we'd all like to be confident that the police would only stop people with good grounds for doing so. In reality, I doubt this is the case.
Police are human, there are good & bad, whatever their training.

I guess remaining silent could be seen as provocative by some - I don't think I'd like to try it. It must occur sometimes - what about a deaf person, a non English speaker or someone with a disablement incorporating lack of speech?

To ST:

"I guessed when I saw who posted this that you wouldn't have a cohesive or valid arguement, you've just proved me right."

Really? I have a reputation for invalid and ragged arguments? Gosh. And yet...

"You've done exactly what the bleeding heart liberal do gooders do, fallen back on a flawed Human Rights act that gives more protection to criminals and terroists than the innocent."

All I did was point out that contrary to what you said, that we in fact have more than one Human Right.

In fact, we have quite a few. Free speech. Free assembly. Habeas corpus. Some of these have been enshrined in English law since Magna Carta. I'm surprised someone with your alleged background can be so ignorant of such things.

"Whats more, as a former police officer I happen to know when it's appropriate to ask for ID from someone."

And yet you're not familiar with the provisions of PACE, as evidence by your false assertion that it's an offence not to provide a name and address.

"For 12 months prior to leaving the job we underwent months of additional training because of the Human Rights act."

Pointlessly, apparently...

"Like I said, if you've nothing to hide etc."

... you've nothing to fear. Tell that to the guy they shot in Forest Gate. Tell that to the family of Jean Charles Jimineses. People fear the police for extremely good reasons.

"You're saying stay quiet because you have something to hide, the example you quote about seeing a mistress is pathetic to say the least."

To you. I realise that this may come as a surprise, but not everyone is like you. You asked why someone might not want to answer questions. I offered an example. That you, personally, consider it pathetic is irrelevant. Personally, I'd say it's pretty pathetic too. The point is - it's not a crime to be having an affair, and it should not be a crime to simply be somewhere and not want to tell anyone why (assuming "somewhere" is a street, rather than, say, an airbase, obviously).

"Do you honestly think the police are gonna dash round to your home and tell your missus you're seeing your mistress? What sort of pathetic arguement is that?"

Do you honestly think that everyone thinks things through in precisely the way you do? More importantly, do you honestly think that everyone should be forced to think and act as you do? What sort of pathetic, or rather, dangerously dictatorial argument is that?

"<"its already an offence not to give name and address to the police if the police have "reasonable grounds" to ask for it."

Really? Seriously? If that is the case, why the fuss about the proposal to make not answering questions an offence?>>

Re-read what I said ref. reasonable grounds."

I have. Unfortunately I've now, thanks to someone else, also read PACE. Have you?

"You won't need to, having nothing to hide (unlike you by sounds of it),"they" already know where I live."

You've nothing to hide by today's standards. But standards change. You obviously missed the allusion. Google Pastor Martin Niemöller.

"I've had this debate many times in RL as well as online and frankly no-one has yet come up with any arguement that persuades me that attitudes like yours are valid in this day and age."

What is so special about this day and age? Are you one of those people desperate to convince me I should be scared enough to tell you everything I do, and to let you watch my every step in a public place?

Your problem, ST, is this: I'm not scared. The IRA missed me twice, once by about eighteen hours in London, once by less than an hour in Warrington. Up until about ten years ago, I was scared. People who looked just like me had a demonstrable ability to strike hard, with near impunity, all over the country, killing civilians, children, destroying buildings. Nothing the police or secret services did seemed able to even slow them down. They were ruthless, dedicated, trained and skilled, and very, very difficult to spot.

Some of those people are now on the public payroll as ministers in government, and the bombings have stopped. I'm not scared any more. Sure, some religious nutbars have managed an atrocity, just one so far, since 9/11. Why that should be, when the Irish were so efficient and so frequent, is up for debate. But frankly, I'm not scared of the Muslims - not like I was of the Irish. So I'm much less prepared to suffer additional cost, inconvenience and erosion of my rights, simply because someone tells me I should be scared.

"Your last point ref. court and "refuse to play along", well, frankly, not worthy of comment is it?"

Well, if you don't believe you have the skills or experience to comment, fine. Your demonstrated grasp of the facts of PACE suggests your comments would be of limited value in any case.

But in case you missed it, I did explain rather carefully what had set me thinking about this question. I encountered a person, walking around in public, interacting with others, who appeared entirely uncommunicative. He/she didn't do anything that could be considered an offence, at least in the shop where I was, but it was a very disturbing situation which everyone present was alert to, and frankly we half expected violence. And my question goes to this: if that entirely non-communicative person had, say, attempted to steal something, or hit someone, and we'd detained them, and the police had come, IF that person had simply not spoken AT ALL - what would have happened to them? They appeared to have some sort of mental disorder - autism perhaps, I'm not an expert. I'm just interested to know how the police and/or courts would deal with someone who simply didn't play the game, didn't answer questions, didn't confirm or deny anything, simply didn't behave like a normal human does. These people ARE out there. Just wondered, you see.

SoRB

I find the phrase: 'I have nothing to hide so I don't mind.' an ill thought out one.

This is all about level's of acceptability.

People have no problem with CCTV cameras everywhere.

But if we say: would you want one in every room of your house, I would make a presumption, that people would say 'no', my house is private that is an un-acceptable intrusion'. Fine, if you have no problem with cameras in your room then my argument has failed also, do you shag good looking women? if do, I'll send you some cameras myself. You have, after all nothing to hide...

We all have 'something to hide' it is simply where we draw the line of acceptibility and for me if I am out going about my own private business then to be asked by someone I do not know, who has no reason to ask, is at an unacceptable level of intrusion. My level of privacy extends to being able to tootle around doing my own innocent stuff and no-one knowing.

>..it's been seriously proposed that refusing to answer such questions could become an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000<

That is Orwellian, imo.

In Canada, one is expected to identify oneself, otherwise risk being detained until the police are satisfied regarding your identity, but simply refusing to supply that information is not in itself an offence.

My dream of visiting the UK is becoming increasingly nightmarish

You should realise that everything in Britian is created to raise revenue. Any small reason to gte us to hand cash to the government and they will jump on it.

As long as you visit soon you should be OK!

Interesting question, SoRB. I don't know what the police *could* do in such a situation - you're not committing a crime by being where you are, and thankfully you're not committing a crime by not talking.

To put the 'nothing to hide but still not talking' scenario into a more specific form:
Say I have a migraine. I'm unsteady on my feet, I wince away from light, and I generally look drugged. A policeman stops me - but I'm stupid and confused and I don't respond because I can't process what's going on. I try and continue home, the policeman wants me to talk to him, I can't understand that.
If I got arrested (not detained for my own safety, which might be a good idea, but arrested) in that situation - would anybody defend it?

I'm reminded of a certain 'Not the 9 0'Clock news' sketch. "Being in posession of thick rubbery lips and kinky black hair'

The fact is ST that not all police are free from prejudice, and sometimes even the ones that are make mistakes.

This government is eroding English civil liberties wholesale, all in the name of public safety. Perhaps you can tell us why we can't demonstrate outside parliament any more ? Or how this protects us ?

but you can demonstrate outside of parliament.

Not outside the English Houses of Parliament - its now illegal within 500 yards of the place, thanks to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.

And yes Brian Haw is still there, though taken away most of his banners, but he pleaded that he pre-dated the ban and a judge upheld it.

895 people were arrested under this law between 2002 and 2005 only 23 were convicted. That includes Maya Evans who read aloud a list of the (then) 101 British dead in Iraq - she was convicted for that.

Of course you have your martyrs in America too "In October 2005, an American doctor, was given 22 years in prison for founding a charity, Help the Needy, which helped children in Iraq stricken by an economic and humanitarian blockade imposed by America and Britain. In raising money for infants dying from diarrhoea, Dr Rafil Dhafir broke a siege which, according to Unicef, caused the deaths of half a million under the age of five. John Ashcroft, the then US attorney general, called Dr Dhafir, a Muslim, a "terrorist", a description mocked by even the judge in a politically motivated travesty of a trial."

I was just there yesterday protesting the proposed tea tax.

You can demonstrate outside Parliament.

But only with the permission of the local police. You have to actually apply for permission in writing six days in advance in order to make any kind of political protest. As an example, the police consider standing in Parliament Square wearing a red nose to be a political protest. This is not a joke. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/markthomas.shtml

And the exclusion zone is not 500 yards, it's a thousand metres. There's a black tape line across the floor of the Tate Britain gallery demarcating the edge of it.

SoRB