Unlawful SECTION 47 TERRORISM ACT STOP & SEARCH Hornchurch Police Station
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Shocking, until this point I thought the Met Police were starting to learn after searching AB at Kentish Town but nope, still arrogant and self important, here at Hornchurch is a prime example of why the Metropolitan Police are in special measures, I have taken this incident to my solicitor, and I will make sure they learn from this, which they most likely won't, once again we see the Met here searching me under the Terrorism Act.
![Spying on the Scammers [Part 3/5]](/img/1.gif)
About time the police had civil payouts attached to their wages. They'd soon gen up on the law and stop spurious searches and arrests
Havering borough seems to have a lot of corruption, PC Zolton nearly arrested me at Romford, then PC George searched me at Hornchurch
Or at least deducted from the stations budget, and when the chief inspector can't afford to buy all the new patrol cars he wants he might just take his officers "misgivings" a bit more serious
@@TheGwentAuditorTGA I was hoping you were going to have a footrace with PC Zolton 😝 Keep up the good work mate. I enjoy the videos
Totally agree , they act behind the mask of protection knowing they can abuse powers ,should be like the states where they lose their protected rights and get sued
@@TheGwentAuditorTGA Don't take it, within the law fight back. Initially by making a formal complaint to have their behaviour investigated.
Telling a "police" officer that he/she's violated your rights isn't going to make him/her feel shame or guilt about violating your rights. That would require morals or a shred of decency. >:(
It is a badge of honor in the met police.
@@forthfarean For sure....when someone calls them a "tyrant".....they LOVE that shit. :(
Great analogy.
I know, but they need to be told
There not worried about anything they do because it has zero effect on their salary l'm afraid.
Strange how you went from being a potential terror threat to being buddy/mate/sir within a few minutes 😂 and these muppets are supposed to be upholding the law
Absolutely clueless
Exactly, bunch of muppets, but im not surprised its the Met
@@TheGwentAuditorTGA - I'm a retired police officer , and I cringe when fools like these three act this way. And they got the section of the Act wrong!! What a waste pf tax payers money they are .
Londonstan the shit hole
That is always the case. They use it to abuse the law nothing else.
Searched for a legal activity. Thank you for exposing the tyrannical state of our police.
And under a Section that no longer exists and this purple jumper tells the auditor not to tell him his job. Outrageous!
When will they learn? How many times will they do this? This power should be removed it's being abused. Great video, as always! Keep up the hard work you do and thank you!
not that they will still use it even if removed lol
Cop strange behavoir to be filming a police station sir and i would have said i think its strange police officers take photos of two dead females who have been murdered and shown to there mates.
For as long as they feel like.
"Section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 enables a senior police officer to authorise 'suspicionless' stop and searches within a specific area for a limited time, up to a maximum period of 14 days." A PC is not a senior police officer. Unlawful search. Make a claim and hopefully take it all the way to court.
Also they quoted section 47 which a child protection act,
Hi, yes indeed, but of course the senior officer must have a reasonable suspicion about terrorism to give the authorisation in the first place - that officer can just authorise on a fascistic whim!
So that's yet another part of the cock up this film shows.
It is strange that the PC used 47 at the start but rapidly changed that to 43 when he was filling out the search form........ never mind his failure with GOWISELY!
An inspector or above
Claim for compensation. Simple.
There are some learning points to be had here:
1. Tell them you are filming a public interest story and remain silent. There is zero need to say anything else.
2. NEVER correct them if they are making a mistake. You brought up authorisation of section 47 which made them think about it again and change it to section 43. This could have a been a slam dunk civil claim and learning point.
3. Make sure to stay for a very very long time after and make sure to film every perosnal number plate and security point of the building. This shows that the search was pointless and they will never win.
it is still a slam dunk claim. He was detained and search unlawfully using the incorrect section. An officer changing what law to write down after the fact doesn't change anything.
To a degree the interaction and probing are the point on both sides. Gives the cops a brief hard on and taxpayer gets to fund scrutiny of police behavior.
Did he write every copy separately. That’s not a copy surely
Section 47A
Section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 enables a senior police officer to authorise ‘suspicionless’ stop and searches within a specific area for a limited time, up to a maximum period of 14 days.
The home secretary must be notified of any section 47A authorisation as soon as possible, and their permission must be sought if a section 47A authorisation is to last beyond 48 hours.
When a section 47A authorisation is in place, a police officer can stop and search any person or vehicle within the specified area, without reasonable grounds for suspicion. However, before giving a s47A authorisation, the senior officer giving that authorisation ‘must reasonably suspect that an act of terrorism will take place and considers that the powers are necessary to prevent such an act’.
Since section 47A came into force in 2011, only four authorisations of these powers have been made - for the British Transport Police, West Yorkshire police, North Yorkshire police, and City of London police - all following the Parsons Green tube station attack in 2017.
===========
Kerching.....
The cop writing the search record changed the section from sec 47 to sec 43. Definately unlawful, I'd call that perverting justice. Lying on an official police record.
@@ukfreedomaudits4948 I'm pretty certain they did that too. The reason is the form doesn't have the S47 as a reaon.
That is a crime. If you lie by altering a record its an offence
Pretty sure 47A is for Norn Iron.
Too right it is
Section 47 applies to an officer in uniform.
That guy said he was searching you under section 47 but when he went through the record of the search he said he’d “stopped”you under section 43😮
So confident in what they are saying/doing is lawful. The numpty writing out the report with the prostate test gloves is priceless
Funny how it changed to sec 43 when he handed tga the search slip, also can't believe how long it took him to fill it out.
By the look on his face when he was filling it out, I think he was struggling to understand all the words of four letters or more.
The time it takes to fill out that slip is all part of their dirty tactics - causing maximum inconvenience in the hope it will make you scared of them.
Writing like a 4 year old child.
@@Renegade1127 . No, he just can't write.
Still makes my blood boil when they assault auditors. Law is law not a matter of opinion. The injury was to your dignity. Key code ???? Key pad.
4 grown men fondled a man out of terror ( Terrorism).
If this is grounds for an assult then we need to do this more often. Filming needs to be the new normal 😡. You should also report them for a false report. The plod put down section 43 on the report but he clearly used section 47 when assulting you. 🤬
I hope that officer never decides to write a book!
Those tyrants knew you were an auditor, they were just abusing their powers
Of course they were
but if one Auditor messes up a court case.. it probably will create a legal precedence in which the police can use it against other Auditors ?? 🤔
@@gitmoholliday5764 Not really. The law is the law, and often the police abuse them.
@@moby1388 yeah... but what if in this case or another a Judge will agree "filming" keypads is illegal.. then it would be possible to stop anyone filming a police gate, even from a distance, just because there are some pixels in the video vaguely resembling a keypad.
@@gitmoholliday5764 If the keypad is in a publicly accessible location, it is the responsibility of the police to ensure that it is in a secure location.
I would be suspicious that the S&S was incorrectly completed.
If anyone can film a key pad with a pass being entered then it's the responsibility of the constable to keep it secure..😎
That was a clear failure by the police and another easy payout, they even looked completely broken.
A camera is only a weapon against misconduct and corruption.
Too right
T-shirts/sweatshirts/hoodies with that printed on would be a great idea.
Hi T G A, I found this conversation very interesting, this poor deluded individual has all sorts of problems with his understanding of the laws and the limits to his authority, by the sound of him he has been so immersed in the political propaganda about 'security threats' that he really believes filming is dangerous and people are queuing up to attack them them.
The next one is just vas bad, the assumption that their suspicions must be justified.
Each time you tell them that filming in public is entirely legal they just repeat the same nonsense, this then escalates into a search under the terrorism act but they do not tell you exactly what they are searching you for, that alone makes it an unlawful search and their physical administrations are common assault.
I assume you will be making the appropriate claims and I would suggest that you do not accept their first offer of compensation but insist on a court hearing, I am sure it is only the public embarrassment they will get from such publicity that will teach them to behave better.
He finishes by asking you if you understand their motivation and purpose, trying the 'what if you were doing this at somebody's home', which would in fact be just the same!.
The statement relating to hostile filming totally missed the point, it must be covert to be hostile, which part of that does he not know!. When he already knows that you do not have to give any personal information why does he keep on asking for it anyway, does he not engage brain before opening mouth!.
I do hope that the result of this will eventually lead to a significant change in common police behaviour.
Cheers, Richard.
@@PilotFlight2Mars Hi aidantrish, thank you very much for such a positive comment. I do not feel inclined to offer any criticism of auditors who do take what is first offered, taking it further does involve considerable expense and some uncertainty, earlier today I was informed of a viable alternative strategy.
This will only work when they come to you!, at the earliest opportunity you tell them that sadly you have a living to make and cannot stand there nattering with them!, if they wish to continue you have to issue and invoice for your time as a consultant to them, only then can you answer any questions.
They then can just walk away but if they persist you then demand the relevant names and addresses of themselves , when they ask why you say it is only for the invoice!, if that does not get rid of them the next bit involves you telling them that since they have accepted the contract by not leaving you alone you feel it is only fair to inform them that the invoice to them not the police will start with the admin. charge of fifty pounds plus forty pounds for each additional hour or any part thereof.
From this point on if they don't bugger off it is because they have accepted the contract and all the terms, and they have entered a civil law contract that is totally binding!, from then on I imagine that just by answering them very slowly and carefully you could easily run up a bill of over one hundred pounds for each of them!.
Make a brief note of the elapsed time at the end of the encounter and send them the bill, if it is not settled within the stipulated time make a claim in the small claims court, if they don't respond to the court that court will automatically judge in your favour, you can then go to the police station they are based at and demand that they are suspended until full payment is made, by that time with all additional expenses added!. Because the debt is lodged with the court they cannot wriggle out of it and among the terms of their employment contracts is a stipulation that they cannot serve if they have debts!. At no point in the whole affair is any criminal law involved!!.
Cheers, Richard.
It absolutely won't.
These Tyrants have no idea the mental scars this leaves on person for years after this humiliation, some people never get over it
Yet another lliar doesn' know the law and call you MATE shows how much respect he has for the public unlawfull arrest you were prevented from doing a lawfull activity that is arrest. What does he expect to find regarding terrorism? An atom bomb in your bag ?its just an excuse to try to find out who you are.
Section '47' cannot be used on Overt recording, and has to be authorised by a senior police officer. Suspicion is not a crime. This is how these tyrants can/will be dismissed or demoted. And perhaps a public apology to you from the police commissioner.
Obviously an unlawful search, not least on the basis that it wasn’t authorised by a senior officer. I look forward to hearing the outcome of your complaint / claim!
Police: I'm making a suspicion. I'm not making an assumption. It's a suspicion.
Socrates: By "suspicion", do you mean without proof and upon no evidence?
A third way through....Sect47
How are section 47A searches authorised?
A senior police officer can give an authorisation for searches in a specified area if he reasonably suspects that an act of terrorism will take place and reasonably considers that the authorisation is necessary to prevent such an act. Also, that the specified area is no greater than necessary for a duration that is no longer than necessary to prevent such an act.
Under this authorisation an officer may stop and search a vehicle, driver, passenger, pedestrians (including anything carried by them) but only for the purpose of discovering whether there is anything which may constitute evidence of use for terrorism or that the person is a terrorist.
So the constable on a training day seems to have seriously messed up.
Unlawful detention and search.😎
Correct. So I would make two FOI requests. One to the particular force. The other to the Home Office for the notification from that force. Wait a couple of weeks before submitting.
Then also make a SAR for the name of the senior police officer that authourised the S47A powers, the map of the area, and the dates on which it was signed off for. Plus the date the information was sent to the Home office.
==============
Since section 47A came into force in 2011, only four authorisations of these powers have been made - for the British Transport Police, West Yorkshire police, North Yorkshire police, and City of London police - all following the Parsons Green tube station attack in 2017.
==============
I knew it had to be a senior officer
@@TheGwentAuditorTGA Yes. You are correct. But there are other bits. Give them a couple of weeks, then go for the details.
Ask the Home Office as well, since I bet they forgot to send it to them. However you and I probably know there was no S47A in place at all.
So that's an issue for the officers who used S47A under their code of ethics, section 1, honesty and integrity. For the other officers, they are screwed on section 10 of the code of ethics which is grass other officers.
@@Nickle314 🎯👍👏🙋♀️🇬🇧
@@misssparky5574 The SAR/FOI both sides without telling them is a very useful trick. When the shared data doesn't match, then you have a valid reason to go back and say supply the rest. You just pick one example they haven't sent you. You don't tell them about the rest.
For example, where's the email set to you on the 15th at 2:31 to X? You've missed that. You might imply they have a security breach for example, and that they need to do their searches proprely or they will be fined by the ICO.
Like with an ATM machine, it's your job to prevent anyone seeing what pin you're entering.
Law is not an opinion😎
And also he is not your buddy.😎
They keep giving, appsalutly incredible 😎
section 43 , or 47 , did he make his mind up ?
Unlawful search. section 47a does need authorisation so without it the search was unlawful. But on the search record he wrote section 43
Thought so
@@TheGwentAuditorTGA YOU need to SUE, SUE, SUE, h&k solicitors seem to be the best at these things
Yes, as stated I already am, never go to Professional Standards as they do nothing
@@TheGwentAuditorTGA great enjoy
Wingnut took a long time to fill in the form and the one with the striped shirt seems well on with the pregnancy
You need to take them personally to court as they acted on there personal feelings. In that case their personality they should be held accountable individually. So not answering questions is illegal now and right to remain silent is being unhelpful really. You need to take them to task otherwise they will abuse others and you wasted your time.
Please keep us updated remember right to remain silent never talk to the police when they are trying to incriminate you.
Obviously Big Ears and Noddy have not read their memo on Auditors. 😂
Oh they have, they just like violating people's rights, makes them feel powerful
Police: Obviously, we take it as a security risk when people go around recording police stations.
Socrates: By "security", do you mean the feeling or the illusion?
Police: People don't really like us too much. Do they?
Socrates: Have you considered much on changing your ways?
Police: The issue is a lot of people don't like us. A lot of people want to cause us harm.
Socrates: Have you thought a little about stopping your harmful behavior?
That's how busy they are all that time for a tiny bit of writing . Thick as a submarine door.
So suddenly it went from Sect 47 to Sect43. So he new he f'ed up.😎
And what did they find relating to terrorism? Exactly
Have the compensation out there wages then they wouldn’t be so flippant
Good job mate ! Soon you get subscribers mate ! Hope more people visits this rotten place
Thanks man, and hopefully Hornchurch gets a mass audit like Kentish Town
he stated and recorded sect 43, but the stop and the search were conducted under sect 47 so sect 47 stands as you were not informed of the change in the search criteria prior to the search taking place, he suddenly changed the sect following coming back out of the police station ...obviously informed to make sure he recorded it as a sect 43 when briefed on what to do prior to coming back out again. if they dont know the sections they dont know the law, if they dont know the law then they cant do the job, obiously didnt even know the difference between public/public place/private, f they dont know the requirements they cant do the job they are sworn to uphold, it is DRILLED in to them at training CONSTANTLY...butthurt and power tripping.
Yeah they really dont its shocking
Auditing Yorkshire you guys rocks ! London now big payoff for you today
Indeed, he’s still got some claims going on as well, Inspector Muppet is getting more famous by the day, so will PC Lee George now
They didn't have grounds for a search They didnt GOWISELY. Make a formal complaint in order to have their conduct investigated. DO NOT DO NOTHING. Search GOWISELY.
I’m taking it straight up with my solicitor, no point going through Professional Standards, they never do anything
@@TheGwentAuditorTGA Good lad. Surrendering to their misconduct is never an option.
Is the check shirt constable drunk?😎 It is normal especially in this day and age.😎
Seems so lol
Wow, they were out within seconds. That was shocking. Saying you was filming the keypad and you didn't even film it. Should be an easy payout. Maybe with a visit myself with @AuditingYorkshire and show the support buddy.
Thanks bud
Hornchurch police station needs to be swamped with auditors...!!!
Bingo... they played right into your hands... have this bunch been living under a rock or what... Ching Ching, Merry Christmas!
Please, please, please, sue them.
How dare he say it's not normal behaviour? Define normal then. There are lots of things we all do which are uncommon, but not described as normal. With the number of thefts from high street shops, you might say that theft is normal behaviour and okay then!
They hate they can't find out who you are when searching auditor's 😡
you should have explicitly record through the gate, the keypad and all number plates while he was writing the slip lol
At the beginning of the search the officer states TGA is being detained under Section 47 - TWICE. When handing over the search record he states it was under section 43.........
The police officer has cocked up big style. he searched you under section 47 but put section 43 on the search record. I do hope you take this further.
Section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 enables a senior police officer to authorise 'suspicionless' stop and searches within a specific area for a limited time, up to a maximum period of 14 days
In the year ending 31 March 2021, there were 166 arrests for terrorist-related activity in Great Britain, 98 fewer than the number in the previous 12-month period (a fall of 37%).
For the years ending March 2002 to March 2021. Of the 166 arrests for terrorist-related activity in the year ending 31 March 2021: 45 resulted in a charge. 77 persons were either released under bail pending further investigation or released under investigation without bail conditions. 36 people were released without charge. 8 faced alternative action.
I am sure that you picked up on it later but he said under section 43 on his stop-and-search record. He searched you under 47 and someone probably whispered in his ear that he had f---d up. Even so, he didn't where he was based and what he hoped to find.
Did you notice he wrote section 43 on the search slip but clearly stopped you under 47 which DOES require the authorisation of an Inspector rank or above BEFORE the search can be carried out. This is exactly why you record the police because now you have them bang to rights for using a power they weren't authorised to use. I would definitely be suing all 3 officers separately and get that searching officer fired via a private criminal prosecution
At least they realise " a lot of people don't like us"
Problem is they are oblivious to why that is.....
Have you checked the search record he handed you? The officer may be pulling a fast one. He clearly states that he searched you under section 43 of the Terrorism Act having initially said it was under section 47. Did someone tell him to change it when he was out of view?
You can add attempting to pervert the course of justice to Assault & battery-illegal search & detainment, he clearly stated sec 47 when he grabbed you and continued even when you questioned it, that he then CHANGED the reason on his paperwork to sec 43 means he found out he had acted unlawfully and was trying to cover it up. send a copy of the video along with your claim.
Who was the senior officer that initiated section 47
Section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 enables a senior police officer to authorise 'suspicionless' stop and searches within a specific area for a limited time, up to a maximum period of 14 days.8 Aug 2022
This officer needs to be sued.
Here's an idea, when they ask why you are filming whatever, say you are wanting to buy a new car, and when they say "we don't sell cars", say I know, I'm hoping the payout for the unlawful search/arrest will pay for it !! LOL
A drain on the taxpayers pocket absolutely disgraceful no accountability.
The key pad is always the same 1966
I’ve just realised he said he was in “training” Bloody hell what were they training him in? Washing his hands after going to the toilet? Not using a handkerchief by the amount of sniffing.
How are section 47A searches authorised?
A senior police officer can give an authorisation for searches in a specified area if he reasonably suspects that an act of terrorism will take place and reasonably considers that the authorisation is necessary to prevent such an act. Also, the specified area has to be no greater than necessary and the duration no longer than necessary to prevent such an act. Ka-ching! HNK, HNK, HNK wey, hey hey.
A couple of points if I may:
1. What is 'normal' behaviour? And the answer is no such thing! There is behaviour that is uncommon and these are our creative types, sports elite etc. Maybe some of us think being a copper is not normal!
2. You did not refuse to give your details. You are not required to, totally different thing. A refusal is when you must do something and decline.
3. And finally, and I quote "some people don't like us".............can't imagine why!
Keep up the good work TGA!!!!
they knew what you were really doing - this is called a punishment search
Of course it was, complete malice
Puts gloves on to search you then wipes his nose and face without taking the gloves off, poor bloke
Absolute disgrace - they have no right to do this. Shocking
Interesting when he first starts talking to you he kept stating that people don’t like us, well I’m not surprised with the kind of attitude they have.
Take them to the cleaners cos they had no grounds to search you under section 47 of the terrorism act.
You are correct a senior police constable MUST authorise a search under section 47a. Notice I sadi 47a not 47 so he got wrong so he's quoted the wrong section and even if he got it right he didn't have authorisation to do so. Take them to the cleaners.
Also scruffy Police nobody smartly dressed these days sloven.
They take 17minuts to write a report...amazing.
another couple of tyrants
Make a formal complaint, he clearly stated he was going to search you under section 47, and did not correct himself or inform you that it was section 43 as stated on the search record.
Already have done
They aren’t the brightest bunch !
DIDN't see any KEY-CODE on VID , only posters on the door window.
Clearly Dumb, dumber and dumbest meant Sec 43 as there is no 47A in force, paranoia and bruised ego make a toxic mix.
all this info is freely available even to the Tyrants, so yes he does need authorisation before the the stop and search as per section 47a paragraph 4.1.1 onwards. and it has to be done by a uniformed officer.
So what did they find that confirmed to them you aren't a terrorist? If they genuinely suspected you in the first place they'd have treated you much more carefully.
when did it change from section 47 to section 43 at the end
Good job you never gave him all those details he was asking for or you'd still be waiting for him to complete that little tick-box form now. 🤣😂😆🐷🐖🐽Hasn't got an effing clue - look at him turning the form around and around. 🤣😂😅😆
Because Plod perceives that something is not normal does not make it illegal, cop waffle is irrelevant , they have no real idea what hostile reconnaissance actually is .
An understanding of sec 47 should also be an advantage before making an illegal search . The access code needs to be moved if they have concerns .
What was big ears colouring in 😳
Dear oh Dear! - A SENIOR OFFICER (INSPECTOR OR ABOVE) . . . . AN OFFICER IN UNIFORM . . . . KERCHING!
He just got down and personal on you then calls you "buddy," I don't think so, he can call you SIR!
Copsplaining isn't policing, I agree Welsh Blue police officers should pay for their ignorance and unlawful acts, then they might work closer to the oath they took.
So searched under section 47 but at the end he says searched under section 43?
Again poorly trained Police are they not informed of anything going on. ? .
If they didn't want you to look at the door why did they put posters on it? I was desperate for you to ask them that and please don't say thank you after they have unlawfully searched you. Great how you managed to keep your cool.
What’s Gareth Southgate doing in Hornchurch - thought he was in Quatar!
You need to be a bit more observant as when he handed you the stop and search ticket he said that you were detained under Section 43 and not Section 47 as he said earlier. If Section 43 is on the ticket then it is unlikely to be an unlawfull arrest.
Just wonder ifhe realised that you were right about Section 47 and decised to change it tonSection 43.
gotta add another comment, the first time after this that any of them used the term mate or buddy my response would automatically have been i'm not your mate i'm the victim of your unlawful use of police powers. good luck and please keep us updated.
Police: Why are you doing that?
Socrates: The why comes after the who, what, where, and when.
They look like they need their hard drives checking . Deffo corrupt
Did you receive any injuries during the search mental health affected by unlawful search
wow 2022 and they still spew this nonsense ...
They don't give a flying fuck about getting sued because it doesn't come out of their wages
They must be apoplectic about the people who live next door and can sit on their balcony watching that door 24 hours per day...
Meanwhile elsewhere in Hornchurch fortunately it seems there’s no crime for those useless fools to either prevent or investigate.
Put the keypad where the public cannot see it, job done.
Good grief! Was that muppet writing Essex's answer to 'War and Peace' or just a couple of chapters? Oh, by the way, can anyone tell me where to buy a camera which can give me the pin code when pointed at a keypad? Very useful for ATM machines I would think.