The head of that nail is well and truly bashed.
At least it keeps them from executing random swarthy people on the Tube.
No. “Stalinesque” according to Cameron. Up yours, too. 
In the US it means taken into custody – involunbtarily detained. It usually, but not always, is done in conjunction with being charged with a crime. Other times people are arrested upon suspicion that they have committed a crime. IANALawyer, so I couldn’t speak to where the line is btween having or not having sufficient evidence to make an arrest.
Here you are arrested on suspicion of an offence. Charges follow later, after a determination by the Crown Prosecution Service based on police inquiries and evidence.
Arrest allows detention and questioning under caution. You can be questioned under caution without being arrested, but under those circumstances you are free to leave at any time.
You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
It’s also worth noting that if you are not charged, there is no record kept of your arrest here. So a criminal background check doesn’t show up an “arrest record”, it would only be recorded if you are charged. Unlike in the US where records are kept of every arrest, which may lead to problems later on for even an innocent man.
That article makes the allegation in the opening paragraph but offers no justification or evidence thereafter. Plus, it’s the Guardian - that doesn’t make it wrong, just highly suspect without external verification.
Should read “found guilty”, doh.
As opposed to the Torygraph?
Please.
There.
As similar to the Torygraph. Please note my OP gave two cites.
No. That’s the name of the offence. It encompasses it all. Please give a cite which backs up the Guardian’s assertion. I’ll note that their own article - your cite - singularly fails to do this.
That is just a ridiculous statement and one that makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously. You wanna carp about the Telegraph too? No, I thought not.
Well, negative reaction to this arrest and the way it was handled is coming from all parties:
Like I say, I think this one is going to come back to bite the Met on the arse big time.
What part of “counselling or procuring” do you not understand?
That’s part of the title of the offence. Please provide a cite which backs up the Guardian’s precise claim. I’ll note that the Guardian’s own article - again, your own cite - fails to do this.
So, in effect, you are forced to respond to police questions? This is very different from American law. Here, the “caution” is “whatever you say may be used against you in a court of law.” You never have to respond, and the general advice I’ve heard is that one should never talk to the cops in the absence of a lawyer.
I’m confused by this as well. Why should a newspaper have to justify this? Isn’t that the government’s responsibility? It’s not the newspaper who questioned someone under suspicion of a crime.
No, you have the right to remain silent and you have right to be questioned only in the presence of your legal representative. It’s just that if you choose to remain silent when asked a specific question, the fact that you did remain silent to that question can be reported in court if you later rely on an answer to that question in your defence.
Police: Did you stab your wife?
Suspect: >Silence<
later in court…
Prosecution Barrister: Did you stab your wife?
Defendant: No, I was in Cardiff that day and could not have stabbed her.
Prosecution Barrister: Why did you not tell the police this when they questioned you?
Defendant: Umm…
The jury can then draw inferences from the fact that the defendant didn’t give the police that answer when he was questioned.
What inferences other than he was exercising his right not to answer?
That he had a straight forward answer and chose not to provide it. The jury can infer that he’s concocted the answer afterwards.
I’m not a lawyer, but that’s my interpretation of it.
Look here. It’s up to the court to direct the jury as to what they can draw inferences from.
He didn’t know what alibi to go with yet, presumably.
If his solicitor isn’t there yet, he can wait for him to show up. If his solicitor IS there, he can object to the form of the question or whatever.
He doesn’t have a right not to answer (although the principle of a right to not incriminate oneself does exist in English law).
For the benefit of non-U.K. Dopers, The Guardian is a very left-wing U.K. newspaper, and therefore cannot be fully trusted when reporting on Conservative MPs. Hence my insistence on verification. Similarly, The Telegraph is a right-wing U.K. newspaper, and therefore similarly cannot be fully trusted in such matters, which is why I gave both it and the BBC as cites in my OP. And FWIW, the BBC has its own biases…
Is this still true? (Go to about 1:00 in)