How about thinking about this in a different way… the UK police randomly stop you in your car. They ask for your name, adress, driving licence, insurance, where you are going etc… now legally I am pretty sure that the only thing you need to say or provide them with is your name…that is the letter of the law and the onus is on them to confirm who you are etc. And that may take a while… However, assuming you havent done anything wrong, if you are polite, smile, hand over you driving licence, chat for 2 mins, you are 99.99% on your way in less than 5 mins.
Now think about dealing with customs/immigration/BF officers that you have given PN to and ask yourself if finding out if they are present and if so approaching them proactively is going to make your life easier compared with waiting on them to take the initiative while you ignore them or pretend they aren’t there?
skydriller wrote:
How about thinking about this in a different way… the UK police randomly stop you in your car. They ask for your name, adress, driving licence, insurance, where you are going etc… now legally I am pretty sure that the only thing you need to say or provide them with is your name…that is the letter of the law and the onus is on them to confirm who you are etc. And that may take a while… However, assuming you havent done anything wrong, if you are polite, smile, hand over you driving licence, chat for 2 mins, you are 99.99% on your way in less than 5 mins.
This isn’t mainland Europe, the police here can’t do that. They have no right to stop you randomly, nor to request the information you refer to.
To stop you they need reasonable suspicion that an offence may have been committed or may about to be committed, and if they do stop you then you’re entitled to be told why.
We have done this before but a British policeman is your servant, not your boss. I understand that on the continent it is the other way around and police have much more general powers to stop and question anyone – i.e. you are at all times answerable to any police officer who chooses to stop you and you must identify yourself.
In the unlikely event of me being stopped by a British policeman I will not be answering any of their questions until I’ve heard what they have a reasonable suspicion of me having done. If I feel the reason given is contrived and an excuse for a random stop, then it is likely I will challenge them to arrest me if they wish to continue the conversation. The PROB99 won’t, because it means paperwork.
I would not dare take this approach in any other country. My rule is that outside my own country where I don’t necessarily know my rights or the limits of state power, I do as I’m told.
I thought you had stop and search in the UK.
gallois wrote:
I thought you had stop and search in the UK.
They need a reason (and must tell you what it is) except in some very exceptional circumstances which are extremely unlikely to apply to 99.99999% of the population.
The way the police do the (illegal here) random stop and search (usually near pub closing time) is by stopping you and saying “Sir, you were swerving a bit and, you know, it is this time of the day we need to be especially vigilant” 
UK police tend to be a lot more polite than those who carry guns. Carrying a 9mm unavoidably dials up the arrogance level; it is a psychological effect. I’ve written this before; a guy working with gorrilas wasn’t carrying one because, he said, they can tell from your manner and get a lot more tense.
UK police used to do all kinds of “adventures” involving fitting people up (as I well know ) but nowadays (post CPS i.e. last 30 years or so) they don’t dare. And while incorrect shootings have happened in recent years, you aren’t going to get shot accidentally at an airport because those officers don’t have guns in the first place. You would have to be incredibly unlucky to find yourself in some situation where the gun squad is chasing somebody and they mistake you for the other one.
As an example, it seems that Greta Thunberg has been charged with ‘disobeying police orders’ during a climate protest.
No such offence exists in the UK – there is no such concept as ‘police orders’ and issuing orders to the general public is not part of their function.
Of course the report may not be accurate on the technicalities of the nature of the charge – bad translation and / or bad journalism – but the Grauniad is better than most in this regard.
Having a friend regularly stopped on suspicion of committing the offence of “driving while black”, I do not share the rose-tinted views of the British police. Yes, they are less armed and have less powers than in other countries, but they aren’t the saints some here seem to think they are.
Yeah; that still exists.
But they seem to have stopped totally blatent frame-ups (I got some in the 1980s) and fishing expeditions. I think the change happened 10-15 years ago. Maybe they got sent on the NATS corporate on-message course 
Graham wrote:
No such offence exists in the UK – there is no such concept as ‘police orders’ and issuing orders to the general public is not part of their function.
You don’t generally have to follow “police orders”, but if you “disturb the public order” the police may ask you to leave a particular location. If you refuse, police may remove you by force. You may also be held in custody for up to 6 hours.
In the present case of Greta Thunberg, she was part of a demonstration that was blocking road traffic. I would be surprised if the British police doesn’t have similar powers.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I would be surprised if the British police doesn’t have similar powers.
Indeed they do, under new powers that came into force last year .. along with many other new powers to tackle protest. Some would say such powers are draconian …
Separately, regarding “police orders”, it has been an offence for many years to “resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his/her duty”, so if a police officer is entitled to ask you to move, or leave an area, and you resist, you may be committing an offence. The High Court has, in recent times, granted the police broad injunctions aimed at preventing protests. Breach of an injunction is contempt of court, a criminal offence. So while the exact powers differ, the net result is that the UK police probably have similar powers to the police in Sweden, or elsewhere. See also the recent arrests of republican protestors at King Charles’ coronation – they were essentially detained for no reason at all, with seemingly no consequences for the police even when they admitted it was unlawful. The police also have wide powers to stop vehicles on the road, even if no offence is suspected. Failure to stop is an offence, and failing to produce a licence, or name and address when asked is also an offence. Outside of driving, though, there’s definitely no general power to stop people and ask to see “papers” (ID cards, etc.), unlike in some European countries.
