Sure thing Party Member. I’m sure you sympathizing with Big Brother and supporting your local Big Brother precinct can surely not be construed as party support.

2+2 = 5 right?

You live in a bullsht country if cops are breaking down your door and invading your house on a whim without a warrant because some hag neighbour complained about you. That's one step away from some serious Orwellian sht.

Really sad how the cops are acting politely, trying to calm the situation down, while he is acting like a complete tool & trying to inflame it & yet people side with people like him because the cops are always in the wrong in their eyes. Guess we really are in the age of shouting loudly & drawing attention to yourself being something many celebrate.

sounds like he is on benefits. council will fix it in the morning brah. no charge

Lol, well keep in mind bro. Our ancestors fought a war with that particular country because of the tyrannical practices that are allowed such as search and seizure. So much so, they made a point to include it in our Bill of Rights.

"20k a year to be a fookin nobhead" Lost it

What are your thoughts on the policemans completely pointless look into the mans home, including behind the door. What was he hoping to find? Looked to me like a weak attempt to try and assert some authority. This isnt uncommon, they have nothing better to do and absolutely HATE being called out on it. Why were they not social distancing? What if one of those officers is carrying Covid19?

Cops here don't just break your door down, those cops likely spent several minutes trying to get him to open the door so they could have a quick look round & then if everything as in order leave-of course none of that was filmed, because that isn't the narrative he is trying to push. As she said she had already explained through the door why they were there & he refused to open it, it is possible the police have had incidents with him before & he has a history of violence toward partners or something along those lines. Again, we have no context as to why they are there-just this idiot swearing & acting the goat.

They are looking around to see if anybody is being held against their will, been assaulted, hiding, signs of a disturbance/struggle etc-that is the only reason they are there. Because somebody has reported something going on at that address. If they left & then it turned out he had his girlfriend etc tied up in another room & then he killed her after they left then they have to face investigations, loss of job, public damnation via the media etc.

Dude is a dunce no doubt. That does not mean the police are entitled to take a look around your private property without a warrant. There obviously was no immediate danger to anyone inside either.

20K is nowhere enough to put up with knobheads like him daily.

Its some type of yorkshire variation.

Umm:You still don't understand the literary reference you made, and your posts reek of a childish mentality. How would police know that there was 'no danger to anyone inside' if neighbors call the police on someone and that person's first reaction is to say 'fukk off you might have the virus you have no permission to look here'? Hint: police cannot havea prioriinformation of something they were there to verify.

Speaking of dunces...yeesh. Aren't you embarrassed by your posts in this thread?

They cannot know that until they look around.

Police powers to enter your home or other private property

In general the police do not have the right to enter a person’s house or other private premises without their permission.

However, they can enter without a warrant:

when in close pursuit of someone the police believe has committed, or attempted to commit, a serious crime, or to sort out a disturbance, or if they hear cries for help or of distress, or to enforce an arrest warrant, or if invited in freely by the occupant, or under various statutes which give the police powers of entry (not necessarily by force) into a number of different kinds of premises.

lol, what do you mean?

that's half their job, driving around and doing nothing

see how they went on strike when their weekend pensionable benefits was taken away. lol serving the community. more like just in it for an easy job and the juicy benefits

They just didOf course they did. That changes absolutely nothing. Does it make it okay to shove their hands up his ass crack if they first ask real politely to have a quick look around there too?Yes we have no context and yet here you are still defending their forced entry into a house with no warrant because someone complained about him. You live in a bullsht country.

So if i hated my neighbour, I can call the police and tell them 'I think someone might be being held against their will there', you think its OK for the police to just walk into my neighbours house based entirely on my word? Its clear the guy was doing nothing wrong yet someone called the police on him, could have just been a neighbour who doesnt like him.
Entering without some actual evidence is disgusting and a total breach of privacy

seemed legit to me.

It is no easy ride, they spend most of their days sorting out domestics, being shouted at, spat at, sometimes assaulted etc. Idiots here attack ambulance crews & fire responders & those guys aren't seen in any way as being a threat to criminals.

They did, after he repeatedly refused to open his door.

Not unless they believe he is hiding drugs up there no.

Again, we have no concrete idea of why they were there, but police don't need a warrant to enter your house as I have detailed above.

From simple deduction Sherlock. If there were immediate danger, the police wouldn’t be politely asking to enter. The fact that were politely asking demonstrates that they weren’t in a particular hurry to get inside.

And if you’re going to try and use philosophical terms such as “a priori” at least use them correctly. The police indeed have a priori knowledge from the call itself. A call that there could be a possible assembly of people inside, is different where one where screams were heard and a possible murder could be occurring. The police used their “a priori” knowledge to determine their course of action, in which case they decided to be patient with a loon because they knew it was a non-serious call.

Now run along party member, and maybe read up on logic while you’re out.

Maybe that’s how it works in your country. But it must suck to live in a place where you’re guilty until proven innocent.

Brb, we have no evidence that there is anything illegal occurring here, but let’s go inside to check just in case.

Nope, if you made a false claim you could be charged with wasting police team, malicious phone calls etc, if you cannot convince them you had a valid belief somebody was in imminent danger. It would be reasonable for you neighbour to let them in yes-unless he has something to hide. It wouldn't be clear without a full search of his house whether he was doing anything illegal or not, but they aren't interested in whether he has some pot in a tin etc, they are likely either looking to see if there are people there who shouldn't be, or if anybody is being held against their will/in danger. The police can enter your house without a warrant for multiple reasons, they cannot gain evidence without entering. Problem is if the cops didn't go in & then he had somebody in there being held hostage & he killed them after they went away then the fallout is huge& then everybody bleating about excessive policing is then whining about the useless cops left that woman to die, sack them all etc.

Someone calling the police and saying that X is happening is notknowledge, that is 'testimony'. Police have toverifythe claim made by someone else. You do not even know the difference between 'knowledge' and 'claim' and you're in no position to lecture anyone about logic. You're a mental midget.

So, once again, if the police were called by someone (not the person in the house) and told that 'X' is happening, they go there to verify what is happening. And they cannot verify that simply based on the call. As another poster pointed out in this thread, someone may be held in the domicile against her/his will; a simple check is all that was needed.

Deduction in this case goes like this, simpleton:

1. Receive a call of a disturbance;
2. Go to verify;
3. Arrive at property (we don't know what happens, but at a minimum denial of entry, calling them kunts etc.); - belligerent person; which (your skills of deduction are chit, child)
4. Leads to 'possibility of escalated situation' & refusal to cooperate -> verify.

Which they did. In part because he, from your own message, was being a douche. Wasting cops' time.

Please, child - you've been on this forum long enough that you should know not to try and call me out re: 'logic'. But good job humiliating yourself with your own posts.

Either way, I hope my instructional posts in this thread help you pass a first year sentential logic class. Yeesh.

I'm not saying they don't have the legal ability to do it, I don't know why you keep coming back to this. Laws don't make things right or wrong.

I'm saying that the fact that they can do it on a whim without a warrant means you live in a bullsht country. Having context doesn't matter when you are also arguing in support of them doing entering on a whim without a warrant without context as well.

He's focusing on laws because those laws are obligatory. Whereas your agenda:Is simply of anti-government bullchit. I guess threads like this really excite you? It's your time to say 'yeah, fukk the man!!! LAUGH at police and waste their time! LOL at the State and its ability to protect me! Let's go back to the state of nature where I'd be soooo much better off' - yeesh.

I’ve been on this forum long enough to not know who you are, or ever seen you step foot in any philosophical or theological thread ever. I’d much rather debate a Hegelian practitioner such as GOO, than some pseudo intellectual who doesn’t understand what a priori knowledge actually means. Probably because you don’t have basic understanding of philosophy 101 stuff such as epistemology..

Secondly, your showing your epistemology brosef (although I’m sure you don’t realize it). The police don’t need to be empiricist to acquire knowledge of the situation. Rationalism only in this case is sufficient and that once again is how they deduced that this was a non-urgent call.

LOL. Digging through pages of someone's post history to pull an irrelevant quote out and argue about it is the surest sign of having absolutely no argument. You should be more concerned about your future Orwellian state than my post history, but I commend you for going through it, you could learn from it and I agree you've got nothing left to contribute to the actual discussion. Based on how you're writing like you think disagreeing with unrestrained without cause search by the state is equivalent to desiring the state of nature you could use more education and/or more test first.

As for side gigs, we can talk about that. I stand by that statement. It's an observation based on many years of seeing many different gov environments that men, especially in unionized government desk jobs, slowly have the soul stripped from their body in middle age if they don't have some sort of side occupation. Plainly obvious whether they realize it and would admit it or not.

Yeah, it isn't pure lancashire but doesn't sound 100% yorkshire either.

@MuscleXtreme

1. Your != you're. Be careful when trying to patronize someone;
2. You're simply throwing insults - you did nothing to engage the substance of my post. So, as a summary:
3. You're silly if you think that someone calling the police on someone else constitutes the police as having 'a priori knowledge' instead of 'testimony', and at the end of the day you're simply owning yourself in terms of epistemology. You assumed knowledge of the police when you wrote that it was 'obvious' blah blah. Try not to be so childish in your future approaches especially with posters like me.

EDIT: I keep getting 'do not have permission to reply'. So @Schism - your agenda was clear. Enjoy the fact that his door still got busted down, he'll have to pay for it, and he video taped himself showing what a malignant kunt he is - and put it online for all the world to see.

Happy days