Voluntary attendance at Police station for interview

[Faith]

Snik Snik Snik.

[Rights Fighter]

Smackety-smack!


Smack the penguin.gif

[lawlessone2009]

There is nothing 'voluntary' about the interview.

This setup merely saves the cops the problem of coming round your house at 5am and arresting you on your doorstep!

It's lazy cost cutting Policing.

Once you've 'contacted' the Officer that wants you in for a voluntary interview and you've actually turned up at the desk in the Police station there is NOTHING that can be done to let you back out that door. You WILL be arrested at the front desk if you try to leave.

With regards to DNA evidence and the securing of it. The Officer(s) will make up a little 'story' towards the interview along the lines of:

"If you've nothing to hide then you won't mind giving a DNA swab......"

You will then feel compelled to voluntarily (ha ha ha) give a sample just to prove your innocence. Of course if you don't volunteer then you'll most likely be arrested under suspicion of actually having committed the crime alleged, due to your non-compliant behaviour and unwillingness to freely provide the DNA.


Hell, VOLUNTARY has absolutely nothing to do with any changes in the legislation or methods, it's merely to make it look as if the system is working in a manner other than it actually is. Little piece of advertising to dress up a draconian system where you are at their complete mercy should you ever find yourself on the wrong side of their rules either wrongly or rightly.

[Casehardened]

I guess there is something in L1's cynicism, if the police feel your DNA may solve some past crimes, then of course they will get it somehow, and certainly if the allegation involves a minor, then a dawn raid and arrest to enable the seizure of computer equipment will still happen.

However the police should work to the new code and non-time-critical allegations such as 30 year old historical abuse, or ex-partner-involved-in-custody-battle rape, cases ought to now be dealt with initially by an invited interview (of course this does also cut down on operational costs)

There is some advantage for the interviewee in that he can prepare for the interview and has the opportunity to discuss the matter with a solicitor of his choice beforehand.

[Rights Fighter]

Wasn't Peter Sutcliffe caught after having a blood test taken after a driving offence? He had previously given a sample and for some reason had evade capture by the police for some time. Had they done the job properly some of his victims would be alive today.

I can see both sides to the argument in relation to regimentation of DNA. On one hand there's the privacy issue but on the other hand many cold cases are being solved decades later thanks to progressive research.....

[lawlessone2009]

Wasn't Peter Sutcliffe caught after having a blood test taken after a driving offence? He had previously given a sample and for some reason had evade capture by the police for some time. Had they done the job properly some of his victims would be alive today.

I can see both sides to the argument in relation to regimentation of DNA. On one hand there's the privacy issue but on the other hand many cold cases are being solved decades later thanks to progressive research.....

If you've nothing to fear then you have nothing to hide. Might as well have EVERYONE on the database as to have only 'criminals' on it is discrimination in my opinion and just imagine how many 'innocent' people could be made into criminals....

That and selling off the info to private companies such as medical/pension orientated profit driven establishments......

It's not so much the providing the sample for purely 'legal' purposes that gets peoples backs up it is the subsequent mis-use of the information provided by the government whilst informing everyone that it is 'for their benefit'... Even having criminals DNA on file fails to prevent them from committing crimes, just means it's easier to catch them. For the costs and resources involved I would've expected either compulsion or desertion not the strange place in the middle where the government decide on a whim how to get the next load of 'punters' onto yet another database, which WILL be sold off and privatised next time the government find themselves a little too deep in debt.

[lawlessone2009]

I guess there is something in L1's cynicism, if the police feel your DNA may solve some past crimes, then of course they will get it somehow, and certainly if the allegation involves a minor, then a dawn raid and arrest to enable the seizure of computer equipment will still happen.

However the police should work to the new code and non-time-critical allegations such as 30 year old historical abuse, or ex-partner-involved-in-custody-battle rape, cases ought to now be dealt with initially by an invited interview (of course this does also cut down on operational costs)

There is some advantage for the interviewee in that he can prepare for the interview and has the opportunity to discuss the matter with a solicitor of his choice beforehand.

I'm not a cynic. Happened to me both ways. A 'voluntary' sample was offered on one occasion with little doubt in my mind that it would have been 'taken' had I not complied.

With the false rape allegation numerous samples were simply 'taken'.

The bit that gets me is that every time someone is arrested a sample is taken (in Scotland anyway)! I don't know about other people but I am pretty certain my DNA doesn't change over my lifetime so one sample should be more than adequate. Reading the laws about 'retention of DNA' and time spans etc just hits me as nonsense. Once a sample is taken it's taken for life regardless of what is said by government/human rights courts/Joe in the street.

Why not take one sample and stick it on the bloody database and forget about it. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

It could also be noted that as a direct result of DNA stolen vehicles are now pretty much guaranteed to be found burnt out and houses where crimes take place are generally set on fire... Full blown uncontrollable sex offenders holiday abroad in places like Thailand where foreigners are subjected to terrible sexual abuses which would result in lengthly jail sentences here. DNA does not solve problems it merely moves the goalposts around and for every positive there is always a dramatic increase in the negative.

To me the costs far outweigh the benefits although if you use the old 'if it saves only one life/something else....' then 'cost' doesn't even figure in the equation which is commendable but there is never any PROOF that lives have been saved and on the contrary lives may have been indirectly losted/wasted as a consequence.

Again, if EVERYONE was on the database then FINE. Selecting individuals for mediocre 'offences' and sticking them on the database 'in case' their behaviour 'escalates' just doesn't cut the mustard with me. We should 'all be in it together' as Mr Cameron likes to remind us, until it doesn't suit him or his idiotic mates who are more criminal than the hardest criminal (in their eyes) ever will be...

[Verity]

Bang On Lawlessone.
Ain't that the truth that many think and more know but none will speak up and say.
Have a read of the articles on www.opinionsite.org and the responses.

[IvorBinWronged]

Thoughts regarding voluntary interviews or chats with plod...

The very fact that plod asks a person to come in for a chat suggests that plod has then earmarked as weak and probably an easy target who'll probably voluntarily talk themselves into an admission after waiving any legal rights.

If you attend a plod station voluntarily, you deserve all the treatment you get from them. Let them come for you so the duress of arrest puts your proper guard up.

These people get paid to put you away. They are targeted by their "sales".

What you think is right to say is wrong. When they ask you to agree to something, it has a hidden meaning and sews you up more. If they just chat, they are fishing.

They are not your friend.

They are not your friend.

They are not your friend.

[Casehardened]

If you attend a plod station voluntarily, you deserve all the treatment you get from them. Let them come for you so the duress of arrest puts your proper guard up.

On the other hand the shock of a doorstep arrest can interfere with normal rational thought processes and result in unwise decisions and admissions (unless the arrest was expected??)

With notice of an interview a solicitor can be consulted prior to the interview and be present during the interview to offer advice on any responses.

Or are you suggesting ignoring a request to attend the police station and waiting for the subsequent knock on the door?

[lawlessone2009]

I know that I would prefer the 'voluntary attendance' approach as oppose to the doorstep snatch.

You are able, at least, to make arrangements with regards to appointments/family/work/life in general. There is also a chance that you will walk back out the door on the same day.

What people say in a Police interview is entirely up to them. They do still have 'rights' but I believe that a legal representative should not be an 'option' and more a requirement should the Police want to interview anyone.

The Police should also be forced to 'show their hand' as regards the evidence they have BEFORE questioning anyone and their legal representative should progress on the basis of having seen this and being able to advise accordingly. It may not seem fair or just but the 'power' needs to be removed from the Police in so far as leading people to incriminating themselves which would result in Police actually having to INVESTIGATE an alleged crime and gather some real tangible evidence BEFORE ruining peoples lives. Taking a couple of statements and then asking double meaning questions when interviewing the suspect before then charging/bailing them is idiotic. The evidence should CLEARLY and CONCISELY exist before the suspect is sought for interview instead of relying on the suspect providing the evidence in which to convict themselves.

[Izzy]

On the other hand the shock of a doorstep arrest can interfere with normal rational thought processes and result in unwise decisions and admissions (unless the arrest was expected??)

With notice of an interview a solicitor can be consulted prior to the interview and be present during the interview to offer advice on any responses.

Or are you suggesting ignoring a request to attend the police station and waiting for the subsequent knock on the door?

In my Son's case I would have much rather had a bit of warning rather than the knock on the door, which yes did interfere with our rational thought process. I honestly think that a voluntary attendance at the police station would have given us a chance to get a Solicitor and perhaps things would have turned out different.

[Faith]

I agree with the above few comments...Casehardened, Lawlessone and Izzy regarding 'surprise' police visits. This sets you off right on the backfoot.

How many people have come on here saying 'I didn't have a solicitor because I didn't think I needed one'
Had they had forward warning of a 'discussion' they may well have come here first to be advised that they must take a solicitor.

The police often like using the approach of suggesting that it's best to save time and not wait for a solicitor.

[Dave]

I agree with the above few comments...Casehardened, Lawlessone and Izzy regarding 'surprise' police visits. This sets you off right on the backfoot.

How many people have come on here saying 'I didn't have a solicitor because I didn't think I needed one'

That is what I said to the OB, I was wrong.

[Boys don't cry]

In my Son's case I would have much rather had a bit of warning rather than the knock on the door, which yes did interfere with our rational thought process. I honestly think that a voluntary attendance at the police station would have given us a chance to get a Solicitor and perhaps things would have turned out different.

I was in Dave's position as well.

I just wish they had rang me a few hours before instead of coming with two vehicules.
I had my sleepers on,cooking for the children.

Knock,knock,
Police officer:"are you Mr BDC?"
Me "Yes"
PO:Can you step outside please?

(I was expecting them just to take a few notes)
Handcuffed infront of a 10 and 16 years old children.

Straight to the police station,Dna,swabs taken,interview,mobile and clothes confiscated.
In the evening,back home in the "kennel"car,allowed to take a rucksack.
Now you are a tramp BDC,who cares but see you soon for the bail date.

It will be two years soon but it seems like yesterday.

If I had been invited by the police ,maybe I would have had a solicitor,things might have been different,faster and easier.
I would have had time to prepare a little bit my interview but why make things simple when one can make them complicated?