Banned for being a naughty boy!

When released from custody I was issued a banning notice from the shopping centre where my crime was to hold a sign that said "shopping makes you beautiful" and daring to question the authority (or lack of authority) of the security staff. When handed the form I asked the sergeant to throw the form in the bin!

However in the cold light of day I started to question why the police are issuing forms on behalf of private companies? Below is an e-mail trail of my questions to the police:

I was arrested for a public order offence in Plymouth and subsequently released with no further action taken. On my release I was given a banning order form from Drake Circus shopping centre. This form had my name on top, the only people that I had given my details to that day were the police. My question is, who filled my details on the top of this form? If it was the shopping centre staff, why are my personal details being provided to a private company without my permission. If the police filled in the form, why are the police filling in and issuing forms on behalf of a private company?  

Dear Mr ;;;;;;;;;;,

I have received the e-mail that you recently sent to PC Hawkins, in reply to your questions:
Your details were written on the form that banned you from Drakes Circus shopping centre by a police officer. As I understand it you were ejected and banned from the shopping centre by Drakes Circus security staff. When they were informed that you had been arrested during the process of collating evidence they asked that you were issued with the banning notice. They were not given your details but we work in partnership with other agencies that does allow personal information to be passed in information sharing protocols. Issuing banning notices whilst prisoners are in custody provides good evidence should the person ever question the fact that s/he has been banned from premises.
I hope these are sufficient details, should you require further information please either e-mail me direct or phone me on the number below.

Kind Regards

Steve Langman Sgt 4723

Thank you for your swift reply. Is the banning notice a legally enforceable document and if so, which act or statute would I be breaking if I breach it?

Regards ,

Damien ;;;;;;;

 

Dear Mr ;;;;;;;;;

However should there be other offences involved, such as theft, the banning order would show that you were a trespasser and the offence of Burglary may be committed.

Regards

Steve Langman Sgt 4723

Once again thank you for your reply. Could you please pass my thanks onto the staff in the custody suite, I was treated at all times with respect. Also could you pass my apologies to PC Hawkins, it was nothing personal and should he want to know more about what we do and why we do it:

http://www.youtube.com/user/nationinformation

Many thanks,

So it would seem that not only are the police acting on the behalf of private companies (I hope they charge for their form filling and issue service?) but it is a complete waste of time as the form is not worth the paper it is written on!

Arrested in sunny Plymouth.

Well things have been pretty quiet here, but there has been a lot going on in the background out the nationinformation base. We decided to hit the streets of Plymouth and give the people there a bit of love! What happened next will be the subject of our next youtube video.

Needless to say one of the team was arrested, investigated and released 12 hours later without charge. We will comment further when the video has been published.

Many people question why we do what we do? It's simple really, it's fun! No seriously, unless someone pushes the boundaries then where is the line? And if no-one ever pushes the boundaries then there is always scope for the reduction in liberty without anyone noticing

EOK Portsmouth (part3)

EOK Portsmouth (part2)

EOK Portsmouth (part 1)

Census man lies.

One of the NATIONINFORMATION team was visited by the census official yesterday (nice to see him carrying his branded bag!). He was not really to sure how to deal with this other than to lie and put it on his form as a refusal. So a call to the census helpline was in order!

Section 50 UPDATE!

Ok, as we said in our previous post we would do a bit more digging on this section 50 of the police reform act. So during OPERATION SPREAD LOVE when the police requested our details under section 50, we asked had we caused an individual harassment, alarm or distress, the officer said "no", thinking we were referring to section 5 of the public order act.
The officer stated that by using the megaphone we had acted in an anti social manner and requested we give him our details or we would be arrested. The officer was then asked "what constituted anti social behaviour?". We were told that there was no legal definition of anti social behaviour. We then stated "so anyone could complain that anything was anti social and the police would have to act?" the officer replied "yes".

This is wrong, section 50 of the police reform act states:

Section 50

50 Persons acting in an anti-social manner
(1) If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been acting, or is acting,
in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)), he may require that person to give his
name and address to the constable.
(2) Any person who—
(a) fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1),
or
(b) gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under
that subsection,
is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding
level 3 on the standard scale.

(Note there is no requirement to give your date of birth)
As you can see there is a definition of anti-social behaviour contained within section 1 of the crime and disorder act, which states:

Section 1

Anti-social behaviour orders.
(1) An application for an order under this section may be made by a relevant authority if
it appears to the authority that the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to any
person aged 10 or over, namely—
(a) that the person has acted, since the commencement date, in an anti-social
manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment,
alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself.

Which is the same definition as a breach of the peace as defined in section 5 of the public order act:

Section 5

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly
behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening,
abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress
thereby.

Basically if you haven't breached section 5 then they cannot request your details under section 50. We are therefore going to write a letter to Hampshire constabulary stating that the officers were wrong to use section 50 as they had already stated that we had not caused an individual harassment alarm or distress, that our details should be erased from the officers pocketbook and any other system that this information has been transferred to.

Please note that that is our personal interpretation of the legislation and that this in no way constitutes legal advice. We would love any comments that may dispute our interpretation.

Much Love

The NIF team.