IB...?

[fishtank]

Ive always been led to believe the outcome will be worse if the police become involved (wether Your innocent or guilty)

Obviously if you put barriers in the way of an investigation and it's later found that you were hiding something that would reflect on your overall continuing dishonesty so it could have a bearing in your sentencing.

If you've nothing to hide you can be as awkward as you want but this is more likely to make them suspicious so it's kind of childish and pointless.

[Indy]

Ive always been led to believe the outcome will be worse if the police become involved (wether Your innocent or guilty)

as IB have no arrest powers etc by definition it would be.

FISHTANK thanks for the link above regarding the history of IB hugely interesting that!. Get the feeling that if steeling mail still got you strung up they'd be less of it.... what do you think?

[DGP1]

childish and pointless.

Have you been talking to my wife again

[not me]

if you have done nothing wrong and have followed all the correct procedures then you have nothing to worry about

You'd like to think that but I've heard more than whispers that a person that was hated by a DOM had their house searched etc by IB after the manager didn't give IB the full story or was very economical with it.

IB have no authority to search your house/property unless you have told them its ok to do so. They have to get the police, who then have to get a warrant if you say no. The only thing they can search is your works locker.
I've never been stopped by IB whilst out on delivery so I must be doing something right

not really
guys in our office have been stopped and told they are doing everythnig right
so its not a case of in the wrong if you see IB

[fmrPOSTIE]

Despite the myths IB do not have;

Warrant cards
Handcuffs
Powers of Arrest
Powers of Entry

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Despite the myths IB do not have;

Warrant cards
Handcuffs
Powers of Arrest
Powers of Entry

They don't have any SPECIAL powers of detention or arrest beyond those applicable to everyone. Or in simple terms a Citizens Arrest is their limit.

The statutory power of any member of the public in England and Wales to detain someone they consider to be involved in criminal activity is to be found in section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974. A person "other than a constable" may arrest without a warrant anyone:

Who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence.

An indictable offence is one that can be tried in a crown court, in front of a jury.

Such an arrest can only be made if it does not appear reasonably practicable for a police constable to make the arrest instead, and if the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds to believe that such an arrest is necessary to prevent the person being arrested from: (a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person; (b) suffering physical injury; (c) causing loss of or damage to property; or (d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

A civilian also has a broader (if somewhat vaguer) common law (i.e. judge-made) power of arrest where there is a "breach of the peace", which itself is not really a crime, but can be said to occur whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or, in his presence, to his property, or where a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.

A civilian may conduct an arrest in these circumstances if: (a) a breach of the peace is committed in his presence, (b) the person effecting the arrest reasonably believes that such a breach will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested, or (c) a breach of the peace has been committed or the person effecting the arrest reasonably believes that a breach of the peace has occurred and that a further breach is threatened.

[Postman Plodd]

It still seems a bit vague, did RM and the CWU have a hand in writing it?

Hypothetical situation, some guy thinks i've been up to no good, tries to grab hold of me. Since i am innocent and not in the act of committing a crime would this be considered assault and therefore could i defend myself? I'm sure 'grounds for belief' would be hard to prove/disprove either way.

[DGP1]

It still seems a bit vague, did RM and the CWU have a hand in writing it?

Hypothetical situation, some guy thinks i've been up to no good, tries to grab hold of me. Since i am innocent and not in the act of committing a crime would this be considered assault and therefore could i defend myself? I'm sure 'grounds for belief' would be hard to prove/disprove either way.

I think it would be more cut and dried, you kicking some poor guy lying on the ground would be acceptable but you standing on a street corner with a dozen of your mates wouldn't............common sense rules

[POSTMAN]

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top- ... -30467102/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A MANAGER of a Royal Mail crime investigation team has appeared at a Birmingham magistrates court accused of stealing over £6,000 from the company.

Ian Johnson, 42, of Foxcote Close, Redditch, pleaded not guilty to the theft of £6,025 belonging to Royal Mail Group Limited between September 7 and December 1 last year.

He has also denied a fraud allegation in relation to a Next gift card worth £48.99.

The magistrates ruled that the case should be sent to the city’s Crown Court.

Johnson was allowed bail.

The case was adjourned until April 30 for committal proceedings to take place

[jack]

Thats shocking, some poor person was probably under investigation for theft when all along the very person who was responsible for catching the thieves was doing it himself

[Postman Plodd]

Excellent! I reckon we should start watching these IB chappies, they're obviously a rum bunch of coves.

[stokes11eg]

It still seems a bit vague, did RM and the CWU have a hand in writing it?

Hypothetical situation, some guy thinks i've been up to no good, tries to grab hold of me. Since i am innocent and not in the act of committing a crime would this be considered assault and therefore could i defend myself? I'm sure 'grounds for belief' would be hard to prove/disprove either way.

I think it would be more cut and dried, you kicking some poor guy lying on the ground would be acceptable but you standing on a street corner with a dozen of your mates wouldn't............common sense rules

No, they are not allowed to lay a hand on you, otherwise it can be deemed an assault.

[DGP1]

It still seems a bit vague, did RM and the CWU have a hand in writing it?

Hypothetical situation, some guy thinks i've been up to no good, tries to grab hold of me. Since i am innocent and not in the act of committing a crime would this be considered assault and therefore could i defend myself? I'm sure 'grounds for belief' would be hard to prove/disprove either way.

I think it would be more cut and dried, you kicking some poor guy lying on the ground would be acceptable but you standing on a street corner with a dozen of your mates wouldn't............common sense rules

No, they are not allowed to lay a hand on you, otherwise it can be deemed an assault.

No it wouldn't, trust me that no judge would convict anyone for stopping a serious crime with force.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

It still seems a bit vague, did RM and the CWU have a hand in writing it?

Hypothetical situation, some guy thinks i've been up to no good, tries to grab hold of me. Since i am innocent and not in the act of committing a crime would this be considered assault and therefore could i defend myself? I'm sure 'grounds for belief' would be hard to prove/disprove either way.

I think it would be more cut and dried, you kicking some poor guy lying on the ground would be acceptable but you standing on a street corner with a dozen of your mates wouldn't............common sense rules

No, they are not allowed to lay a hand on you, otherwise it can be deemed an assault.

No it wouldn't, trust me that no judge would convict anyone for stopping a serious crime with force.

As long as it was reasonable force, thats the clincher.

If the accused was just walking away then gabbing them is "probably " reasonable force if they are suspected of a crime. Taking him out with a blow to the head and standing on him till the coppers turned up, wouldn't be.

They may not be allowed to lay a hand on you, but it does not mean that if they do it is assault, unless it comes under the following definition
"an assault is committed where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence."

As I see it if they suspect you of a crime and you attempt to leave the scene, then them gabbing you by the arm would not be assault as it was neither reckless, nor unlawful - would not like to argue it in court though

[Postman Plodd]

Hmm a knotty one indeed, a lot of variables. Interpretations of 'reasonable', 'grounds for suspicion' etc would differ. Basically i'm not happy about someone, actually anyone, laying hands on me if they suspect me or not, it lends itself to abuse whether well intentioned or otherwise.