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.

Section 50

The Nationinformation team carried out our second love police operation yesterday in the sunny city of Portsmouth. The video will be up on our youtube channel soon.
Our first encounter was very succesful, I am still amazed at the speed of reaction of private security (they said they were customer services but they carried SIA cards!!). The police were really cool and even backed us up against the security.
The next encounter was pretty similar apart from the use of the megaphone. The police and shopping centre management allowed us to carry on and stood about 20 metres away from us. When suddenly they walked over and requested under Section 50 of the police reform act our personal details. Now we had done quite a bit of study but mostly on the public order act so section 50 threw us a bit. We pushed it as far as we could go, to the point that one of the team was arrested and then de-arrested.
Having done a bit more research on section 50 it pretty much covers anything. Anyone could say anything was anti social and the police can request your details or arrest you! Having looked back on the situation we are pretty sure they didn't know how to deal with us so they contacted the station to find out how to get us!!
We really weren't prepared for Section 50 as we haven't seen any other encounter where it has been used (nearly always section 5). More research required, but this is a learning process and it's a good bit of fun to!

Operation Spread Love

Looks like the Nationinformation team will be out on our second patrol this weekend. The location is yet to be confirmed but it will be a major south coast city. This time we are going to ease into things and have a bit more fun (less nerves this time!). We will of course blog the post operational de-brief and the video once edited will be on our youtube channel.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPGjTCYPH58

Census

Look out look out the census staff cometh !! from today 30,000 census staff will be coming to see all you naughty boys and girls who are yet to fill in their census form!!
Now I hope you will all be co-operative with them or you may find yourself forking out a £1000 fine! Now many people have many views on this subject but here's mine; I personally do not want the hassle of going to court over not filling this in. I am however going to make them work for it! basically make the census less profitable for the companies making money out of collecting your private data under the duress of a £1000 fine.
Surely if they were to convince us that the census is a worthwhile and secure with no dodgy dealings (no mention of lockhead martin on this mornings BBC report!) then there would be no need for the threat?

Wasting police time?

Now our first video has been published, it has attracted a few comments mostly good to be honest. One of the comments we would like to expand upon is this;

"Why are you wasting police time, they could have been out catching rapists"

Lets look at this carefully. Did we call the police? were we breaking the law? so in effect the police were wasting there own time by attending when no law had been broken. By police I don't mean the Officer and the PCSO I mean the police in general, the officers were obliged to attend due to their force policy of attending when called!

everything is ok Hereford

The first outing

March 26th saw the biggest protests in this country for many years, unfortunately the nationinformation team could not make it to London so instead decided to carry out our first operation as members of the love police. We made our way to the City of Hereford to pass on our message and have some fun.

                                                            

The public really didn't know what to make of us and reactions ranged from asking us what was going on to shouted comments of "get a job" (for the record everyone on the team has a job thanks!)

The police were really cool, but we decided to back down early on as this was our first operation. One of the undercover members of the NIF team did however overhear the PCSO in the video talking to her colleague on how they could get us! He replied that as we were doing nothing illegal there was nothing they could do!

The first video will be up on our youtube channel as soon as it has been edited.

Much Love
NIF

Welcome

Welcome to the first of hopefully many posts from the team here at nationinformation. Our aim is to wake people up to what is really going on and hopefully question why those with authority over us do what they do. Oh and have some fun too !