Police stopped and searched my autistic son

tell him to say nothing at all. Do not speak. Not a word.

Train him to ask for a solicitor and thats it. u say nothing until the solicitor is there and u say nothing until u arrive home.

if he doesnt attend they may have to arrest him.  

but again train him to ask for a solicitor  

there are alot of missing details that could effect what is going on here

That's not how it works - he will be isolated in a room for hours to stress him out..

Then the 'nice plod' will come in and start questioning him and accusing him of all sorts of things - he will then be crying and stressed.

If he asks for a solicitor, they will agree - but they will leave it a few more hours before one is called.    He will be crumbling by then.

'Nice plod' will offer him a coffee - and then start to question him when his guard is down without a solicitor. .

He will have admitted to being Mr A Hilter by the time the duty solicitor arrives - everything he said was 'offered freely' so he'll be screwed.

IF he goes to the interview, he's stepping into the lion's den.    

Speak to a solicitor first - do not step into a police station without a solicitor with you.

The solicitor will probably tell you it's not anything to bother with.

This couldn't be further from the truth. I am a detective in London and have interviewed people of all ages and with various conditions. We do not isolate people in rooms for hours, we do not interview people without a solicitor unless they have specifically requested not to have a solicitor, we do not trick people, we do not twist people's words, we do not have "friendly chats" that are then used as evidence, this is illegal, we are not trained to do this and have no reason to manipulate people into admitting something they haven't done. It's not like we get paid on commission. Plastic, your words and advice are incredibly damaging and will only cause the original poster untold stress. 

NAS73159, if your son has been invited for an interview this will he called a caution +3 interview. He is under no obligation to comply with this and if he were to attend he would be entitled to speak to a solicitor free of charge and have an appropriate adult present which could be yourself. A caution +3 interview is the same as a regular interview except that the person being questioned is not under arrest and is free to leave at anytime. I cannot speak for your son specifically but if I interview someone then I will likely have evidence of an offence that I need to put to them. If they don't attend an interview and there is enough evidence against them then they could be charged. The interview would give them a chance to put forward a defence that could change the outcome of a charging decision. If your son has a solicitor then the police are obligated to provide disclosure around the offence and the evidence and then the solicitor will advise your son. I hope this helps in some way. Feel free to message me with any questions around the interview process but I won't be able to advise on your specific case. Take care.

thanks for this

Hi Plastic. "Are you seriously suggesting that he should just trust them again and walk in for a non-mandatory 'chat' and have every confidence that it's not a trap?" Yes. I am saying that. It won't be a 'chat', it will be a formal, legally abiding interview. We don't set out to trap people. No one that I know has any reason to do this.

"Are you subjectively saying that my advice to not walk through the door without legal representation is 'damaging and dangerous'?" No I'm not saying that. You're advice to seek legal representation is sound, sensible and good intentioned.

"Are you honestly saying that "Don't worry, I'm sure it will be fine - don't think about protecting yourself." is a sensible course of action?" No I didn't say that. I simply examined the system around voluntary interviews to attempt to help the original poster.

The reason I have commented at all is to try and help people understand the actual legal processes that the police have to go through as there is a massive amount of disinformation on this thread. I understand that over the years people have come to distrust the police through some very bad officers not acting in the public's best interest. You will have to trust me when I say that the majority of police that I experience are hard working, moral and doing their very best in tough situations to help people. I was once a member of the public myself so I am not naive to the fact that there are still bad officers. What is don't buy is the suggestion that we as an organisation are somehow trying to trick and manipulate innocent people to the point where they are charged with a crime. There is simply no reason to do this. I'm sorry if you have had a bad experience in the past, I genuinely am.

Apparently my posts have crossed the line and been reported as abuse or spam.

Until this matter is resolved, anyone reading my screeds, should be aware that the content (and presumably my motivation for posting) is being held to question.

I guess my truth is overly offensive to some, although I was more going for educating rather than abusing anyone. I will cease posting here on this topic, unless it is found that my posting is not abusive or spamming in nature. I will have a bit of a think, and probably take legal advice before posting the story of Phil Alcorn, too.

This thread for me is an act of personal stupidity (or bravery, if you prefer). Telling the unacceptable truth about the underpinnings of our modern society is very well know for bringing trouble to ones door, but as the other posters evidence shouts out, we do need some fundamental changes to be made to how policing is executed, and we aren't going to get them unless we actually speak of the issues. 

James H comes across, as many police officers do, as a rational fairly kind and balanced human being simply trying to do a noble job, in the face of terrible odds. 

I apparently come across as an "abuser". I'll freely admit, I do abuse liars, slashing away at them with the "katana of truth" It's one of the many facets of Autism that really upsets "normie" society. The truthiness. 

Unlike some of our posters I am NOT "noble" in my nature. I am a coward hiding behind the anonymity of my keyboard, literally trembling with the fear of knowing that if I REALLY persist in saying the wrong things about our glorious boys in blue, there can be (well documented) consequences to my anonymity turning out to be paper thin.. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Sure ain't no "nobilty" in it though. 

Hi James - I totally appreciate your position - but you are totally isolated from the reality that the law-abiding general public has when dealing with the police.     I completely understand that for at least 99% of your time you are dealing with the utter dregs of society, violent, lying criminals and people who hate you and who know the system and use it to their advantage.

Unfortunately, the police seem to get incredibly jaded and so treat everyone with the same utter contempt and suspicion.       I get that.

This lad has been traumatised and pepper-sprayed by his encounter with the local police.    Are you seriously suggesting that he should just trust them again and walk in for a non-mandatory 'chat' and have every confidence that it's not a trap?        Are you subjectively saying that my advice to not walk through the door without legal representation is 'damaging and dangerous'?

Are you honestly saying that "Don't worry, I'm sure it will be fine - don't think about protecting yourself." is a sensible course of action?

I'm actually surprised by your naivete and belief in the motives of your colleagues.

As a member of the police force you are isolated (have to be for your own protection) from the communities you "serve" both physically, economically, and intellectually.

I'd imagine that this burst of truth, comes as quite jarring, just as the hard reality of policing is often "jarring" to the public when we first encounter it... YOu'll get used to it, like we did.

I moved past "hatred" nearly 3 decades back, and am looking to solve the problem and get us a police force we CAN BELIEVE IN. The first step is stripping away the propaganda and "image" and exposing to the light the nature of the police force we actually have. Discussions like this, (where you vaguely accused one of us of falsehood, incidentally) can be helpful, but painful. I know whenever my own crapulence gets exposed to the public eye it is painful, but gradually as you lose your self-illusions it gets easier. 

The Policemen and Policewomen (that sentence was probably illegally short, but I want to get on with this!) are simply people like you and me plucked from the street, selected for suitability, and then trained to do a job. 

Unfortunately you are trained to see the general public not as your peers, (let alone your employer) but as potential adversaries, and it's bloody obvious to us whenever we deal with you, because it's always there, in nearly everything you do.

THERE has to be a better relationship that can be built twixt police and public.

I'd posit that a good idea would be to make all police officers to NOT be allowed to don masonic regalia any more than you let them don Nazi regalia. For the same reasons, pledging a higher oath seriously compromises their ability to do proper policing. Being a mason is as mind warping as doing drugs, from what I can gather, (it is after all, SECRET). So why do we allow this?

Thank you Aidie.

Your comments are most useful, knowledgeable and welcome here.

They are also were helpful to the original poster !!!!!!!!   which is the point of this forum

I am not seeking to invalidate or deny anyone's bad experience with the police. The point I am making is that you cannot assume all police are the same. For every bad experience there will be equivalent good experience. What is not helpful is when someone asks for help and advice and is then inundated with "expert" opinions from people who have either one or no experience of the police and who certainly have no professional experience of working in the legal system. I was only trying to help the original poster with what seems to be a very stressful situation involving their son. There were far too many unhelpful and just plain false words of advice that only serve to confuse the situation further. You're talking about 50 years of experiences. It's 2021, you cannot compare today with 50 years ago. PACE started in 1984 and introduced many laws around police procedure in an effort to create a fairer system. Carry on with your science experiment though. That sounds like it'll be really accurate.

I've had two bad experiences of the police too. I won't go into specifics but I feel I was badly let down on both occasions. 

I've had two bad experiences of the police too. I won't go into specifics but I feel I was badly let down on both occasions.