Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

They are allowed to ask anyone for their name.

You are just ignorant. The conditions under which it is a crime for a citizen not committing an offence to refuse to give their name to police are narrow and limited and defined.

I have no intention at all, to interfere or give them any grief whatsoever, for them asking for my ID which I believe they have every right to do.

And if they knock on your door ? And say someone said such and such a person we want to talk to (not someone charged with a crime) is inside, can we come in and check if they are inside ? Would you just let them in ? If they then start going through your draws, to find letters to show the person they want to talk to does or does not live at your address, you would happily stand by and watch ? This is not a hypothetical scenario. This is from just ONE video documented example on crimebodge channel.

Not in Australia. They have every right to ask for your ID, driver's licence or whatever, and they don''t do it just for the hell of it.

You are ignorant. Not for the first time.

Sorry but I'm not. Haven't really seen any police ask anyone for ID here. I only see street cops walking up and down most of the time.

Occasionally you see them in a hurry because they are responding to something.

But, if they come to you and ask for an ID, it's perfectly legitimate and within their jurisdiction. And if you refuse, they have every right to arrest you and take you to the cop station until they find out your identity, so it's not something you would want to mess with.

It's also true that if you refuse an alcohol test, or refuse to give them your licence or refuse a drug test, you will also get arrested and charged.

And in this current climate, they are allowed to stop you, and ask for your employment papers. When you get off a plane, they ask everyone for their address, where you have been, what your business was for travelling on a domestic flight, and they have powers to put you into isolation. It's happened to me a few times, I cooperated, and got out unscathed as I was and still am exempt from isolation.

[erolz66]

They are allowed to ask anyone for their name.

You are just ignorant. The conditions under which it is a crime for a citizen not committing an offence to refuse to give their name to police are narrow and limited and defined.

I have no intention at all, to interfere or give them any grief whatsoever, for them asking for my ID which I believe they have every right to do.

And if they knock on your door ? And say someone said such and such a person we want to talk to (not someone charged with a crime) is inside, can we come in and check if they are inside ? Would you just let them in ? If they then start going through your draws, to find letters to show the person they want to talk to does or does not live at your address, you would happily stand by and watch ? This is not a hypothetical scenario. This is from just ONE video documented example on crimebodge channel.

Not in Australia. They have every right to ask for your ID, driver's licence or whatever, and they don''t do it just for the hell of it.

You are ignorant. Not for the first time.

Sorry but I'm not.

Show me the Australian law that say any citizen must provide identification to any police person requesting it, regardless of if they committing a crime or about to, or could be REASONABLY suspected of such or the other 'EXCEPTIONS defined in LAW - which is not the same as what you THINK is law. You can not because no such law exists. I have shown you the evidence of this in previous post. Just saying 'No I am right' without providing ANY evidence may be your favourite pass time but go on just have a try this time to provide some evidence. I DARE you.

[erolz66]

A good working definition of a 'Police State' would be one where a police person can demand you identify yourself regardless of anything else, of if you are a criminal, if they have reasonable suspicion you are or anything else and should you refuse they take you away and lock you up. That IS a police state.

When people live in countries that have laws that state the police do NOT have such powers, that is therefore in theory not a police state, behave as if they DO have them, over and over again THIS is what in turn leads to police overstepping the bounds and to abuses, that become systematic , along with attempts by police to protect other police who do this. The responsibility is OURS individually to not just 'sleep walk' in to such things like sheeple, if we genuinely care about issue like police abuse and police state.

For the record as far as I can tell I am about as politically diametrically opposed to the guy who runs the crime bodge youtube channel as a person could be. That did not (eventually) lead to me not investigating what he was saying and thinking for myself and coming to the conclusion that he was right. Right that we as citizens have a duty to know our rights and question if we think they are being abused by police by default if we want less police abuse and less degree of 'police stateism' in practice and not just in theory.

Now if you want to investigate a real 'conspiracy theory' you could try looking up 'thin blue line', You will have to look past the top google hits on this search but even on the first page you will find https://www.npr.org/local/305/2019/11/0 ... ery-county Dig a bit deeper and a bit harder and you will discover that there are a subset of police around the world displaying thin blue lines on their badges in some way, against all regulation and law. If you can not be arsed and get stopped by a police person who illegally displays such on their insignia somewhere, then be afraid. be very afraid.

[Paphitis]

They are allowed to ask anyone for their name.

You are just ignorant. The conditions under which it is a crime for a citizen not committing an offence to refuse to give their name to police are narrow and limited and defined.

I have no intention at all, to interfere or give them any grief whatsoever, for them asking for my ID which I believe they have every right to do.

And if they knock on your door ? And say someone said such and such a person we want to talk to (not someone charged with a crime) is inside, can we come in and check if they are inside ? Would you just let them in ? If they then start going through your draws, to find letters to show the person they want to talk to does or does not live at your address, you would happily stand by and watch ? This is not a hypothetical scenario. This is from just ONE video documented example on crimebodge channel.

Not in Australia. They have every right to ask for your ID, driver's licence or whatever, and they don''t do it just for the hell of it.

You are ignorant. Not for the first time.

Sorry but I'm not.

Show me the Australian law that say any citizen must provide identification to any police person requesting it, regardless of if they committing a crime or about to, or could be REASONABLY suspected of such or the other 'EXCEPTIONS defined in LAW - which is not the same as what you THINK is law. You can not because no such law exists. I have shown you the evidence of this in previous post. Just saying 'No I am right' without providing ANY evidence may be your favourite pass time but go on just have a try this time to provide some evidence. I DARE you.

Here you are dickhead.

You can be arrested in Australia if you refuse to identify yourself and the police do have the power to stop, search, and identify under the Act. If they are unable to search you immediately, they can stop you, detain you and obtain the necessary permits from any Judiciary to search your car or home if they suspect you for something.

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/view ... ra2002451/

And here is the kicker!

The Federal Police have even greater powers because they are a Federal Agency, and they can order State Police to do things under Federal Laws and have over arching powers to suspect people of terrorism, and other things and also come under the Department of Homeland, with other Agencies such as ASIO and ASIC who have the powers to bug your phones, get your emails, open your mail and they don't even need any permit or Judicial permission to do so. They can order police to arrest you without even giving you a reason if you come under certain categories or just even are suspected to have communicated to a terrorist organisation. They have the powers to have people under permanent surveillance, and have been known to follow people for months, listen to phone calls, intercept mail and email and they have arrested dozens of people on terrorism charges and even alleged them for planning, conspiring to commit terrorism acts.

Whilst the police have these powers, I have never been ask to identify myself other than when I have been pulled over by the police in a traffic stop, or when I was young and in nightclubs and drinking and they suspected me of being too young or not of legal drinking age. They have the right to do that and I think every parent is thankful they have these rights. They can stop and identify you for a number of reasons. Suspicion of any crime, being drunk and just a general dickhead, disturbing the peace, or for breaking any traffic laws or for even driving an old car or having a small defect such as a faulty brake light. They can even stop you and ask to identify you if they want you to assist them in any way, or if they think you were a witness to any event or crime.

So smoke it arsehole.

[erolz66]

How many hours did it take you to find something that you are still unable to understand

The following is from a LAW FIRM and reference a JUDGE making a RULING in COURT OF LAW - cf with you finding something you can not understand and claiming it shows that police can ask anyone for ID without any restriction and refusal is an offence. Forgive me if I think a judge understands the law better than you do. This took me about a minute to find.

https://www.stacklaw.com.au/news/crimin ... on-in-nsw/

The case hinged on two key questions – first, were the police entitled to demand photo ID? And secondly, did the police honestly suspect, on reasonable grounds, that the man could assist them to investigate the possible theft of his concession card?

The judge ruled that the answer to both of these questions was “no”, determining that while the police might have had an “honest suspicion” that the concession card could have been stolen, this “was based on flimsy material or formed in a process of reasoning which relied on tenuous connections”, rather than reasonable grounds.

Police powers to demand identification
In NSW, the main source of police powers is the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. Under section 11 and section 14 of the act, police can require you to produce ID if they honestly suspect, on reasonable grounds, a certain connection with an indictable offence.

For instance, under section 11, there must be reasonable grounds to suspect that the person from whom ID is sought may be able to assist in the investigation of an indictable offence which is alleged to have occurred nearby.

Section 12 makes it an offence to fail or refuse to provide ID when sought, under section 11. The offence carries a maximum penalty of $220.

Here is the actual NSW law from the NSW government website.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/vi ... /103/part3

Part 3 Powers to require identity to be disclosed
Division 1 General powers to require identity to be disclosed
11 Identity may be required to be disclosed(cf Crimes Act 1900, s 563)
(1) A police officer may require a person whose identity is unknown to the officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person may be able to assist in the investigation of an alleged indictable offence because the person was at or near the place where the alleged indictable offence occurred, whether before, when, or soon after it occurred.
(2) A police officer may require a person whose identity is unknown to the officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer proposes to give a direction to the person in accordance with Part 14 for the person to leave a place.
Note. Safeguards relating to the exercise of power under this section are set out in Part 15.

Did you not say something not so long ago about posters having to resort to insults ?

[erolz66]

I am able to establish and understand what a persons legal rights are when stopped and asked by police in NSW to provide ID within minutes. I have never been to Australia and live on the other side of the globe. You live in Australia and despite having the law placed in front of your face you are still unable to do that. You still insist the police have powers they do not have and this is the whole point of this thread. When people do what you are doing here in large numbers they invite police abuse and increase the chances of a non police state becoming one. Take some personal responsibility for the one thing you have total control over, yourself.

[Sotos]

Given that absolutely no individual or group of individuals, can possibly benefit from a worldwide shutdown then the notion that Covid-19 is some sort of cover-up for totalitarianism and/or world domination is nothing but childish bollocks!

If you were a "tyrant" taking over the world you’d want the masses to work even harder and for longer hours, not confined at home twiddling their thumbs while economies are crumbling!

Wildlife appears to be the only beneficiary from the global shutdown.

Profit-making from medical supplies and paraphernalia, doesn’t even get off the ground because there’s no point in making a profit that you can never enjoy!

Also, if there's no pandemic how come the US with the most relaxed policies has spiraled out of control with infected and dead?

Somebody reasonable hacked GR's account!

There is a pandemic. We saw what happened in Italy, New York etc, so it is quite clear that this isn't "like the flu". Governments rushed to enforce strict measures in order to protect their citizens and their health system that could collapse if too many people needed health care at the same time. Probably mistakes were made as nobody knows what is the best way to handle this, but there is no conspiracy to destroy world's economy, because as GR said nobody benefits from this (and even if a few benefit in the short term, nearly nobody would benefit in the long term).

Regarding "police state": This is a state of emergency. Some countries have even officially declared it as such. You might disagree with the degree of measures in this particular case, but a state has every right to act in this way when this is deemed necessary. It is highly unlikely that the whole world's leaders have turned into tyrants all of a sudden. We have an emergency situation which requires some sacrifices, including sacrifices in personal freedom. Some compared this to a "war". I wouldn't go that far, but consider that in an actual war the state has the right to give you a gun and send you to the front line where you might get killed. And perfectly democratic states can do this.

Yes, the rights of individuals are important, but there is also the common good. And when necessary we should accept restrictions to our individual freedoms if this serves the common good, and as long as those restrictions apply to everybody equally.

[Oceanside50]

This thing will not be brought on all at once.. creating a new world order means that things will slowly brought to light.. arresting people for no cause is too abrupt.. one world order also means one currency.. anyone hear of bitcoin.. slowly slowly we are being introduced to the pieces of the puzzle.. think Star Trek

[Sotos]

A police officer may require a person whose identity is unknown to the officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds...

OK, but at the moment you are stopped and asked for your ID, how are you able to know what the officer suspects? And even if you knew, are you going to be the judge if he has reasonable grounds? The way I see it you are obliged to give your ID if you are asked by the police. Maybe you can later file a complaint, and if it is found that the police didn't have reasonable grounds to ask for your ID then this law would apply.

[Paphitis]

How many hours did it take you to find something that you are still unable to understand

The following is from a LAW FIRM and reference a JUDGE making a RULING in COURT OF LAW - cf with you finding something you can not understand and claiming it shows that police can ask anyone for ID without any restriction and refusal is an offence. Forgive me if I think a judge understands the law better than you do. This took me about a minute to find.

https://www.stacklaw.com.au/news/crimin ... on-in-nsw/

The case hinged on two key questions – first, were the police entitled to demand photo ID? And secondly, did the police honestly suspect, on reasonable grounds, that the man could assist them to investigate the possible theft of his concession card?

The judge ruled that the answer to both of these questions was “no”, determining that while the police might have had an “honest suspicion” that the concession card could have been stolen, this “was based on flimsy material or formed in a process of reasoning which relied on tenuous connections”, rather than reasonable grounds.

Police powers to demand identification
In NSW, the main source of police powers is the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. Under section 11 and section 14 of the act, police can require you to produce ID if they honestly suspect, on reasonable grounds, a certain connection with an indictable offence.

For instance, under section 11, there must be reasonable grounds to suspect that the person from whom ID is sought may be able to assist in the investigation of an indictable offence which is alleged to have occurred nearby.

Section 12 makes it an offence to fail or refuse to provide ID when sought, under section 11. The offence carries a maximum penalty of $220.

Here is the actual NSW law from the NSW government website.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/vi ... /103/part3

Part 3 Powers to require identity to be disclosed
Division 1 General powers to require identity to be disclosed
11 Identity may be required to be disclosed(cf Crimes Act 1900, s 563)
(1) A police officer may require a person whose identity is unknown to the officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person may be able to assist in the investigation of an alleged indictable offence because the person was at or near the place where the alleged indictable offence occurred, whether before, when, or soon after it occurred.
(2) A police officer may require a person whose identity is unknown to the officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer proposes to give a direction to the person in accordance with Part 14 for the person to leave a place.
Note. Safeguards relating to the exercise of power under this section are set out in Part 15.

Did you not say something not so long ago about posters having to resort to insults ?

they are allowed to stop and identify you for any reason.

Even just to stop you in order to check your registration or defect your car. A faulty brake light and they will ask for your licence. they can stiop you and ask for your licence anytime they want to when you are driving in your car, even for a RBT or do a licence check.

I have never known them to ask for ID and have personally never been asked to identify myself without any reason.

These days, they will stop ANYONE and at ANYTIME without ANY suspicion of anything and without any reason to do so and if you refuse, you could be up for a max fine of $50,000 or be placed under arrest. yes there are laws for that now under The State of Emergency which is still active.

Yes, they have arrested people for no other reason other than being out in public with no good reason. And, they can make it up as they go along. What you can do, is pretty much phuck all, because they will back each other up and the Ombudsman isn't going to take your side. And no one is going to feel sorry for you.

They can stop and identify you merely for being drunk, and in public, causing any disturbance, any traffic violation and if you complain, they will just pull any reason they want to to justify their action and there is little anyone can do about it. They can stop and identify people for drinking in public. They can stop and identify young adults for being drunk or attending nightclubs or for simply suspecting you to carry illegal substances or being under age.

I have never been stopped and asked for ID except for being pulled over by a patrol. They don't need to suspect you of ANYTHING. They can just say you straddled a lane or that in their opinion you were driving erratically, or that you matched the bozo that shop lifted a chocalte bar from a small store a moment ago because you were wearing the same jeans then ask for ID which you must provide or they will actually arrest you. You are not allowed to not pass on your driver's licence or registration papers.

If they do it in public, all they need to say is you matched a suspect profile and wanted to verify your identity. And they have the right to do it.

Not a smart idea refusing to identify yourself if they approach you nicely and ask politely. I have never seen any situation where police have been heavy handed in Australia. generally, they mind their own business, and want an easy day at work. they don't want to hassle you and they don't like the paperwork. A day where they don't have to do anything is a good day for them.

And in your dealings with the police, it really does pay to be as polite as possible and try to have a nice smile or be on the happy go lucky side of your emotions. If they find you to be generally pleasant, it can even save you a fine if they stopped you for a minor transgression. If you stink and smell, blow smoke in their face, or just generally behave in a disgusting behaviour, then you are probably asking for trouble and deserve what you get. I did it once, and got away with it only because they put themselves in a compromising position and also had a witness. If there was no passenger in the car, I would have probably been arrested. They would have looked like real dickheads if they arrested me after shoving cameras and lights in my face. If they arrested me and that went to court, they would have looked like complete clowns. No way any Judge would take their side. I would have been let off, and they would have been reprimanded and they knew it too which is why I got away with being obnoxious to them. I wouldn't do it for the hell of it though.