If you haven't read the Human Rights Act, then - and I honestly don't mean to be rude here - you don't know about human rights in English law. It is the only piece of Human Rights legislation in English law. What specific situations do you mean?
No, but - in cases like this - the police don't know if the suspect is a criminal or not. You can't have police pushing people around before they even know if they're criminals, that's why we have trials. Otherwise, not only would there be no incentive for the police to make sure they get the person who's actually guilty, but you, me and everyone else would not be safe. You want evidence? Look at the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, they made retroactive laws that punished people for things which weren't crimes at the time they were committed, and Stalin had 40,000 people killed for an alleged assassination plot. And that's not even the worst of it by a long way. Be thankful that we have rights in this country, such as the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, that protect your rights BEFORE IT CAN BE PROVEN THAT YOU ARE A CRIMINAL, and don't just take it for granted that you have freedom.
Sorry but I don't see how this answers my question. How would informing the citizen for the reasons for the search and having two female officers present make the search any less effective? I understand your argument about how the police shouldn't have to pussy-foot around, and now I'm asking for specifics.
And then, when the offenders go back into society, they will reoffend because they're in an even worse position to make a new life for themselves. Recidivism by people who served custodial sentences is a serious problem in the UK, and as much as it sounds more satisfying than the "soft option" of rehabilitation, the fact is that it just doesn't work for the purposes of preventing reoffending. Also, crime has several causes, such as poverty, which may not justify the crimes committed but make it far too simplistic to just say "let's be tougher".
No, but - in cases like this - the police don't know if the suspect is a criminal or not. You can't have police pushing people around before they even know if they're criminals, that's why we have trials. Otherwise, not only would there be no incentive for the police to make sure they get the person who's actually guilty, but you, me and everyone else would not be safe. You want evidence? Look at the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, they made retroactive laws that punished people for things which weren't crimes at the time they were committed, and Stalin had 40,000 people killed for an alleged assassination plot. And that's not even the worst of it by a long way. Be thankful that we have rights in this country, such as the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, that protect your rights BEFORE IT CAN BE PROVEN THAT YOU ARE A CRIMINAL, and don't just take it for granted that you have freedom.
Sorry but I don't see how this answers my question. How would informing the citizen for the reasons for the search and having two female officers present make the search any less effective? I understand your argument about how the police shouldn't have to pussy-foot around, and now I'm asking for specifics.
And then, when the offenders go back into society, they will reoffend because they're in an even worse position to make a new life for themselves. Recidivism by people who served custodial sentences is a serious problem in the UK, and as much as it sounds more satisfying than the "soft option" of rehabilitation, the fact is that it just doesn't work for the purposes of preventing reoffending. Also, crime has several causes, such as poverty, which may not justify the crimes committed but make it far too simplistic to just say "let's be tougher".