Police officers will no longer have to fill out lengthy forms when they stop and search people in the street, the home secretary will announce.
The forms have been criticised for being complicated and bureaucratic.
Alan Johnson will say that in future only the ethnicity of the person stopped and the reason why will have to be recorded.
He will make the announcement at the Police Superintendents' Association annual conference on Wednesday.
This move will save 200,000 hours of officers' time a year, the home secretary will say.
Read more @ BBC News
Tags:
I can't help but think they got the wrong solution to the problem - less stop and search would have also resulted in fewer hours wasted.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But that defeats the purpose.
Stop and Search is a powerful weapon officers can use to deter crime.
Back in BLACK
Does it actually work?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I've heard that it doesn't.
Same with CCTV - Because video footage is not 'strong enough' evidence to convict someone, unless there is already much stronger evidence such as DNA etc.
But if more police patrols and CCTV might make people 'feel' safer, does that justify spending money on them?
Don't just do something! Stand there.
I read somewhere that for every thousand cameras they solve something like one crime.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
it does work (the stop and search). at least iin london. coz in london theres loads of knife crime so they started stopping and searching teens randomly in the street. and it actually worked amazingly. but now londoners have gotten new ways to terrorise people, it went from knives to pittbull dogs to crowbars to knives again and now we have guns and snakes. yes you heard right snakes. tell the truth i thought it was hilarious how thay use snakes now. how low can you go?
snakes?!?
Just imagine taking one for a walk...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
it was kind of a thing of "hey give us your money or ima get my snake on you" i mean how ridiculous does it sound. and it was young males saying this to another young male who refused to give up his money, so they pulled little snakes out their pockets and set them on him. he was fine though, he got a few bites but that was all. i just thought it was hilarious! whos the tough guy with a little snake in his pocket. i mean how pathetic does it sound. but yeah, stop and search, works well in my area/areas of london. they don't search girls though for some reason. and i personally know girls who were passed their male mates knives when they caught sight of police, and they were never caught coz the police didn't check the girls.
bit stupid
they got weapons arches now though. make you walk through them and they go off. like in the airports. would hate to think of the problems caused by keys setting the things off.
What are you talking about? People get convicted based on CCTV footage all the time.
Ergo it does work. So does Stop & Search.
Back in BLACK
Think they would require a female officer present to conduct the search on girls.
Back in BLACK
If all you've got is CCTV evidence, it's not enough 4 a conviction. Cos the cameras aren't clear enough 4 faces - and you saw those jewellery robbers who had prosthetic faces.
The only thing cameras are used successfully 4 is driving offences - cos u can see the numberplate clearly enough 4 a conviction.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Dude, iv got a friend whose done a few convictions based on CCTV evidence. It must hav been apparent who the perp is.
Back in BLACK
You can use the evidence, I'm not saying cameras are useless, but I'm pretty sure there will have been some other evidence pointing to who was guilty before anyone was convicted. Like DNA or positive recognition by a victim/witness.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Evidence like DNA may have nailed a case thus resulting in a conviction but many times CCTV footage have been used to help police investigations like filtering out suspects, picking a suspect or suspects, finding weapons, car number plate recognition, ect.
Intelligence services all around the world use CCTV to monitor suspect(s).
So in some cases if it wasn't for CCTV footage, there would have been more unsolved crimes.
as I mentioned, once for every 1000 cameras.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
to Serephim
they don't need female officers to search girls in stop and search. if you ask for one they will allow it if there is a female officer present. but if they have reason to beleive you are concealing a weapon then they don't need a female officer. thats my thinking anyways.
criminals would be try to avoid commiting a crime where there are cameras. at least if there faces were showing. but you get masked dudes now.