Going back 25 years if someone took undeclared cash out of the country (my country) their phone would be searched 100%.
I cant imagine it would have been different in the UK.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
- Thread starter allyboy
- Start date
I cant imagine it would have been different in the UK.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 23,083
Not a crime, but all legitimate reasons to be suspicious when combined. Unless we're suggesting that the police shouldn't ever be able to take someone's past into account when determining whether someone's actions are suspicious.Sadly, the term “arouse police suspicion” is a phrase that should raise the hair on everyone’s neck at present.
That said…
Bring a convicted criminal: not a crime
Out on licence: not a crime
Traveling on an Irish passport: not a crime
Traveling in a valuable car: not a crime
Bag full of cash: sounds like a crime
Leaving the country: not a crime
I see ONE RED FLAG, plus personal prejudice.
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 21,692
Smartphones not been around for that long, but either way, I think it’s a warrantless search.Going back 25 years if someone took undeclared cash out of the country (my country) their phone would be searched 100%.
I cant imagine it would have been different in the UK.
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 21,692
Lifetime sentence. Got it!Not a crime, but all legitimate reasons to be suspicious when combined. Unless we're suggesting that the police shouldn't ever be able to take someone's past into account when determining whether someone's actions are suspicious.
Was his past crime driving a valuable car, looking suspicious, carrying lots of cash across the border, or just being a dick?
Not sure but your contacts and call records would certainly be looked at.Smartphones not been around for that long, but either way, I think it’s a warrantless search.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Not a crime, but all legitimate reasons to be suspicious when combined. Unless we're suggesting that the police shouldn't ever be able to take someone's past into account when determining whether someone's actions are suspicious.
Yaxley-Lennon has a strange hold over some people who can't ever see he is in the wrong. As you say the Police build up a picture of your activities and amass evidence in the course of an investigation. I mean the only answer is every citizen has a personal cop assigned to them to observe their actions 24/7. The only charges can be raised are those that are actually seen by the cop. If a car of which you are the registered keeper jumps a red light or is caught on camera speeding you are sent a letter which asks were you driving - if not you are invited to name the driver. Similarly you are stopped in a traffic stop where the officer smells alcohol on your breath. When asked where have you been you say I am going from home to my place of work then thats it. No breathalyser just "OK on your way Sir"? In CB's world thats how it should work. No test - no investigation - when did you last have a drink? - no hopping on your socials to find Instagram full of pics of you pissed up hurling a half eaten kebab into the gutter at 3am because thats intrusive. All officers clock on and have cotton wool up each nostril because the fabled "coppers nose" has no place in Policing
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Lifetime sentence. Got it!
yes - because he is a known recidivist - his 2 decades of convictions are listed below. Law enforcement will naturally target known criminals because they are likely to carry on their ways - do you have issues with that?
Convicted Crimes:
- Assault (2005): Assaulting an off-duty police officer, sentenced to 12 months in prison.
- Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest (2005): Concurrent 3-month sentence alongside the above assault conviction.
- Public Order Offense (2011): Leading a street brawl involving 100 football fans, received a 12-month suspended sentence and a 3-year football match ban.
- Possession of a False Identity Document (2013): Using someone else’s passport to enter the US, sentenced to 10 months in prison.
- Mortgage Fraud (2014): Committed fraud related to a mortgage application, sentenced to 18 months in prison.
- Contempt of Court (2017): Breaching reporting restrictions by livestreaming outside Canterbury Crown Court, received a 3-month sentence (part of later combined sentencing).
- Contempt of Court (2018): Livestreaming outside Leeds Crown Court during a trial, initially sentenced to 13 months (later reduced to 9 months after appeal, serving about 10 weeks).
- Contempt of Court (2024): Admitted to 10 breaches of a 2021 High Court injunction by repeating false allegations against a Syrian refugee, sentenced to 18 months in prison (current sentence as of October 28, 2024).
BridgyDids
Well-Known Member
2 things that are not known at present.
1 - who was the Bentley registered to? If it was someone with a flag on their record, then police could very easily have means to stop them.
2 - why would someone who cannot bank in the UK, take the money to bank it (presumably)? Also if it was a collection from the protest, what format is the money? Coins etc? Or was it notes?
1 - who was the Bentley registered to? If it was someone with a flag on their record, then police could very easily have means to stop them.
2 - why would someone who cannot bank in the UK, take the money to bank it (presumably)? Also if it was a collection from the protest, what format is the money? Coins etc? Or was it notes?
What I think we've learned these past few pages is that Robinson is a rather dislikeable character with a dubious past.He has garnered a loyal following, some of who probably have questionable motives.
He also seems to have built up a rather large group of people who have a very strong dislike of him.
Whether this has filtered through to the police and others given the role of protecting us I don't know,but it seems many are unconcerned with the police using questionable interpretations of our laws as long as it's on someone they don't approve of.
He also seems to have built up a rather large group of people who have a very strong dislike of him.
Whether this has filtered through to the police and others given the role of protecting us I don't know,but it seems many are unconcerned with the police using questionable interpretations of our laws as long as it's on someone they don't approve of.
The guy is a known liar, criminal, grifter and ****. I would wait to learn the full picture rather than jump the gun to defend him and take his word for anything.Lifetime sentence. Got it!
Was his past crime driving a valuable car, looking suspicious, carrying lots of cash across the border, or just being a dick?
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find most of us 'clowns on here's have made lots of noise about the terrorism laws.You're absolutely correct but you're wasting your time on the clowns on here.
They're like turkeys voting for Christmas.
It doesn't matter how much of a prick Robinson is,if they can't see the misuse of terrorism laws has implications for all of us then they're beyond help.
Maybe pop over to the Palestine action thread..
If you've made lots of noise about the terrorism laws you should be able to work out you're not one of the clowns referred to.I think you'll find most of us 'clowns on here's have made lots of noise about the terrorism laws.
Maybe pop over to the Palestine action thread..
But it seems many are unconcerned with the police using questionable interpretations of our laws as long as it's on someone they don't approve of.
I'll be concerned if and when it becomes clear the police have used questionable interpretations of the laws.
At the moment that isn't proven one way or the other. That's what we have the courts for I guess.
Had a look at some of your previous posts and for someone who won't be concerned until it becomes clear that the police have used a questionable method to obtain information,you seem absolutely convinced that that the police will use the not even introduced yet id cards to stop and search.Not really applying the same approach to each issue are you.I'll be concerned if and when it becomes clear the police have used questionable interpretations of the laws.
At the moment that isn't proven one way or the other. That's what we have the courts for I guess.
No, I expect a greater level of scrutiny at the border. And I expect that scrutiny to increase if and when anomalies start appearing such as large amounts of presumably undeclared cash.Had a look at some of your previous posts and for someone who won't be concerned until it becomes clear that the police have used a questionable method to obtain information,you seem absolutely convinced that that the police will use the not even introduced yet id cards to stop and search.Not really applying the same approach to each issue are you.
When I travel I take documentation, I take my BRP, I might even download an e visa. I know I cant come and go as I please, I cant refuse to answer questions, if I'm held in a queue waiting to be processed I might moan a bit but basically tough shit.
If he was stopped and searched going about his normal business then yes, I would be concerned about the direction we're heading. I think he should be allowed to protest, he should be allowed to rally, he should be able live his life as he sees fit as long as it doesn't conflict with the law of the land.
And once again, Im not presuming the police have done nothing wrong here. Im sure we'll have a much more balanced picture by the end of the court case.
But as a former customs officer for more than a decade, what he was asked to do seems perfectly reasonable to me. Ive done it myself, I've questioned people, I've detained them, I've downloaded data of phones. Not because of any great conspiracy, because that's the job I was paid to do.
Last edited:
All that seems perfectly fine,but do you feel using schedule 7 of the terrorism act is justified here or not,that is what is at the root of this for many people.No, I expect a greater level of scrutiny at the border. And I expect that scrutiny to increase if and when anomalies start appearing such as large amounts of presumably undeclared cash.
If he was stopped and searched going about his normal business then yes, I would be concerned about the direction we're heading. I think he should be allowed to protest, he should be allowed to rally, he should be able live his life as he sees fit as long as it doesn't conflict with the law of the land.
And once again, Im not presuming the police have done nothing wrong here. Im sure we'll have a much more balanced picture by the end of the court case.
But as a former customs officer for more than a decade, what he was asked to do seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I wouldn't have a clue what the Act allows people to do.All that seems perfectly fine,but do you feel using schedule 7 of the terrorism act is justified here or not,that is what is at the root of this for many people.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Sadly, the term “arouse police suspicion” is a phrase that should raise the hair on everyone’s neck at present.
That said…
Bring a convicted criminal: not a crime
Out on licence: not a crime
Traveling on an Irish passport: not a crime
Traveling in a valuable car: not a crime
Bag full of cash: sounds like a crime
Leaving the country: not a crime
I see ONE RED FLAG, plus personal prejudice.
Being a convicted criminal whose leaving the country with a dual passport (falsely applied for) whilst on licence (for terrorism offences ) without informing the police / probation officer) with a bagful of cash (£15000) looks like a f@cking good reason to stop him to me.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
If you've made lots of noise about the terrorism laws you should be able to work out you're not one of the clowns referred to.
Just everyone else then.If you've made lots of noise about the terrorism laws you should be able to work out you're not one of the clowns referred to.
No just the ones who believe using a terrorism law to obtain information off him is justified,but im sure you already knew that.Just everyone else then.