Bizzare encounter with police

[waterworks]

I reported a crime via 999 and the police detained me at the scene as I stayed there to see if they turned up, I told then I did not wish to give my details and then they handcuffed me and after some time claimed I was someone just released from prison for murder, over an hour in handcuffs for no reason was the outcome , I now have the reply to my complaint which is obviously a whitewash. , their claim I looked like this person who used the same name as me and is known in the same county as me is highly unbelievable as my name is not common and I have part Russian heritage which makes my face quite uncommon as well, I need to see proof that this person exists because either the police are lying or i have a double that is a serious criminal and i could be detained again.

How do I confirm this person exists , I'm guessing the police won't show me proof due to data protection ?

could I search court cases with my name ?

[echat11]

A starting point would be a 192 search providing they are listed at an address.

[islandgirl]

why did you not wish to give your details?

[echat11]

why did you not wish to give your details?

I was just thinking, you'd be able to help on this.

[islandgirl]

I would like to but don't know too much about the procedure here - however if the OP was obstructive or refused to identify themselves then it may easily have given rise to reasonable suspicion that they were the wanted person. The complaint can no doubt be escalated so the OP may wish to do this. As for whether the other person exists, try social media?

[islandgirl]

echat11 more info on the other post by the OP which I have just seen:
I was detained by the police and used two swear words while in normal conversation , not aimed personally at anyone , abusive to anyone and no member of the public was in sight , i cant remember the actual words but something like " i dont fxxxxxg know " or " i dont fxxxxxg beleive this" this was through exasperation at their incompetence at no time was i aggressive or resisting detention, the police threatened me with a public order offence and have used this as justification to detain me further. As far as i can find out use of swear words like this is not an offence and the police have a higher threshold for language due to their job. Am i right or wrong ? This is important because they have told me this in writing and I don't think it's true.

Swearing may not be the offence but words likely to cause harassment alarm or distress can be...clearly the incident went from the threat of a public order offence to handcuffs and a ride in a Police car...there must be more to this. "The police have a higher threshold for language due to their job" really?

[waterworks]

why did you not wish to give your details?

I made the call to the police and I was there with the phone I made the call from, I asked not to be involved, the police complaint findings state they checked the number and confirmed it , my veiw was that was enough information.

[waterworks]

echat11 more info on the other post by the OP which I have just seen:
I was detained by the police and used two swear words while in normal conversation , not aimed personally at anyone , abusive to anyone and no member of the public was in sight , i cant remember the actual words but something like " i dont fxxxxxg know " or " i dont fxxxxxg beleive this" this was through exasperation at their incompetence at no time was i aggressive or resisting detention, the police threatened me with a public order offence and have used this as justification to detain me further. As far as i can find out use of swear words like this is not an offence and the police have a higher threshold for language due to their job. Am i right or wrong ? This is important because they have told me this in writing and I don't think it's true.

Swearing may not be the offence but words likely to cause harassment alarm or distress can be...clearly the incident went from the threat of a public order offence to handcuffs and a ride in a Police car...there must be more to this. "The police have a higher threshold for language due to their job" really?

No, the swearing was not the main incident that led to being detained , it was just a claim they made to justify further detention, I don't beleive they were telling the truth and swearing in normal conversation is not a public order offence when nompublic is present ?

[islandgirl]

So there was more to it. Words likely to cause harassment alarm or distress is the wording. Have you been charged with an offence? If you do not believe your behaviour was wrong then plead not guilty and the court will decide.

[waterworks]

So there was more to it. Words likely to cause harassment alarm or distress is the wording. Have you been charged with an offence? If you do not believe your behaviour was wrong then plead not guilty and the court will decide.

There was no charge , the police just warned me that swearing was a public order offence , like i said, there were no public present and the swear words were just in normal conversation not aimed at them, grossly offensive or personal. All the information from credible sources online says that what I did is not an offence.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are...0circumstances.

[islandgirl]

It can indeed be a public order offence but it depends on circumstances. The quote you link to is interesting (whether the Mayor of London's admin is a credible source I leave to the reader...). It says:

It can be unpleasant and insulting when some members of the public behave in an abusive and aggressive way to police officers. Furthermore, the courts do not accept that simply swearing at a police officer is sufficient grounds for an arrest. With this in mind, the MPS has provided officers with practical advice on how they should exercise their powers in these difficult circumstances.

This of course relates to London only. There was no charge and you were warned but no action taken. I do not understand what you are trying to prove? That you were incorrectly warned (which may or may not be the case as we were not present).

[waterworks]

It can indeed be a public order offence but it depends on circumstances. The quote you link to is interesting (whether the Mayor of London's admin is a credible source I leave to the reader...). It says:

It can be unpleasant and insulting when some members of the public behave in an abusive and aggressive way to police officers. Furthermore, the courts do not accept that simply swearing at a police officer is sufficient grounds for an arrest. With this in mind, the MPS has provided officers with practical advice on how they should exercise their powers in these difficult circumstances.

This of course relates to London only. There was no charge and you were warned but no action taken. I do not understand what you are trying to prove? That you were incorrectly warned (which may or may not be the case as we were not present).

I'd rather not be lied to and threatened with arrest by the police , that's reasonable isn't it ?

[islandgirl]

It is. But none of us know what happened on the day at the time so cannot comment as to whether their actions were reasonable or hugely inappropriate as they may well have been. Escalate your complaint is the only course of action I suppose - there may well be body worn footage of the incident to prove the issue either way.

[waterworks]

It is. But none of us know what happened on the day at the time so cannot comment as to whether their actions were reasonable or hugely inappropriate as they may well have been. Escalate your complaint is the only course of action I suppose - there may well be body worn footage of the incident to prove the issue either way.

I have already received the reply to this complaint from the police and it confirms that at no time was I aggressive or insulting, as I said the words were only emphasis words used in normal conversation.

[waterworks]

I have asked the poilce to prove the person they claim uses my name , looks like me and lives in my county exists but they said they cannot due to data protection and in effect my right to not give my details to the police in future or not carry identification no longer exists for me.

So the police can claim anyone fits a description of a wanted person to detain, handcuff and search but never have to prove this , fully shielded by data protection. , that seems to be a loophole open to abuse ?