Prepare to be searched...

[class 313]

Stops under the terrorism act should only be for terror related issues. What are the figures for other 'issues'?

I do not know the figures but I'm sure if you did a little research you would find out.

 

[Bayum]

Well, because the link says that mostly asian men were searched...

So i stated that - underneath the link...

 

[class 313]

Yes, I have to because you keep telling me I am against all stop and searches.

But you suggest you do as all stop and searches infringe Civil Liberty's.

 

[richa2002]

I do not know the figures but I'm sure if you did a little research you would find out.

The terrorism act should only be used for terror related issues so I suspecy there are very few charges for any other offences. You and I can not comment though without the figures.

 

[yorkie]

0.5% is the figure where a stop and search for terror reasons found an article that may have been used in terrorism, and links have been posted which demonstrate that even things like just having a rucksack and a map can 'count'.

Looking at this (the Guardian article linked to earlier), the number of people charged as a result is 0. So you could argue the success rate is actually 0%.

 

[richa2002]

But you suggest you do as all stop and searches infringe Civil Liberty's.

I do think that most stop and searches are against our civil liberties however, it's all about balance. Targeted ones are obviously quite successful with that 22% rate of knife-pickup in a targeted high crime area so on balance, I support these but random stop and searches yield hardly any success therefore on balance, I don't support these.

 

[yorkie]

Well, because the link says that mostly asian men were searched...

So i stated that - underneath the link...

It doesn't actually say that, it says 35% of them were Asian, which is not "most", but it is true that the chances of being searched if you are Asian is far higher. This is not the same thing. For the record, I don't agree with this type of search for anyone. As I have stated before, I do agree with targetted searches in high crime areas with metal detectors which do not infringe on privacy where they are simply looking for things like drugs (using sniffer dogs) and knives/guns (using metal detectors).

 

[richa2002]

0.5% is the figure where a stop and search for terror reasons found an article that may have been used in terrorism, and links have been posted which demonstrate that even things like just having a rucksack and a map can 'count'.

Looking at this (the Guardian article linked to earlier), the number of people charged as a result is 0. So you could argue the success rate is actually 0%.

Well, surely if no-one actually gets charged then the success rate is indeed 0%? I can't see how an arrest and then a release can be deemed as a success.

 

[class 313]

I do think that most stop and searches are against our civil liberties however.

How did you work that out? If a stop and search is made but not under the terrorism law but that person was innocent. The police just infringed their Civil liberties.

 

[richa2002]

How did you work that out? If a stop and search is made but not under the terrorism law but that person was innocent. The police just infringed their Civil liberties.

How did I work what out? I personally think all stop and searches infringe our civil liberties but as I said before, it's all about balance. I don't understand your example situation though.

 

[class 313]

How did I work what out? I personally think all stop and searches infringe our civil liberties but as I said before, it's all about balance. I don't understand your example situation though.

But the police cant do that!!?!?! no they can't!? That's the attitude I get from you.

 

[richa2002]

But the police cant do that!!?!?! no they can't!? That's the attitude I get from you.

Just because something is lawful doesn't mean it stops infringing civil liberties in my opinion.

 

[yorkie]

Well, surely if no-one actually gets charged then the success rate is indeed 0%? I can't see how an arrest and then a release can be deemed as a success.

I totally agree.

Police usually need reasonable grounds to suspect a person before they can stop and search them.
But the powers used by the transport police are those under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Searches can be carried out in areas senior officers have designated as being at risk of terrorist attack.

The key thing here is that the terrorism act allows highly personal searches with NO grounds to suspect anyone. Yet, so far, the 'success' these searches have has been in areas other than terrorism, there has been no success in the area of terrorism itself, it has NOT fulfilled its purpose whatsoever.

If the police are in say, Brixton and have no grounds to think someone is carrying a kife, other than they just look dodgy, they can't search them. If they have grounds to believe they may have a knife, they can.

If someone is taking photos of trains, we know for a fact that some police officers do not like it and decide you may be dodgy. Not all, but some. Many of us have experienced it. If you are at, say, Colton Junction, then they can't search you unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect you are committing a criminal act. Taking photos of trains is not reasonable grounds so they are forced to leave you alone But at, say, King's Cross, they do NOT need to have reasonable grounds. They can say it is "random" and they have the power to invade your privacy, take you away for several minutes while they check your details, look at everything you have got and question you. If the police decide they don't like the look of you at a place that is "designated as being at risk of terrorist attack" then you will find that they can detain you for quite some time if they wish.

 

[Bayum]

Like i've said. If you don't like it - write to the Police. Write to the home office. WHATEVER. Afaic, I dont really care. At all. So keep arguing, you aint gonna change my views

 

[yorkie]

Like i've said. If you don't like it - write to the Police. Write to the home office. WHATEVER. Afaic, I dont really care. At all. So keep arguing, you aint gonna change my views

If you don't care, why do you keep posting? Not that you aren't entitled to - it just seems an odd thing to say.

 

[Bayum]

Because. Im bored with arguing. You dont like it, I dont mind it. Simple as.

As i've stated before - I was stopped and searched, wasted about 20 minutes of my time - s**it happens!! DEAL WITH IT

 

[yorkie]

I'd hoped to read something slightly more constructive.

 

[Bayum]

Well, deal with it. It aint gonna change.

But you can write to them all you want, as you do with everything else. LM Fares are rising, ticket names are changing, meh meh meh

Times have changed!! People don't care!! People are better off not knowing about things. Even if it did go public - I bet people would still use LM services regardless!! People dont like the random stop and searches - they DEAL WITH IT they GET ON WITH THEIR LIVES they DONT ARGUE ABOUT IT

 

[richa2002]

With that attitude I assume you wouldn't mind living under a dictatorship? I don't see how you can support random stop and searches under the terrorism act if they have a 0% success rate?

 

[Bayum]

Because I do. Im vulnerable. I feel safe that way. As will many other people im sure.

 

[richa2002]

How can you feel safe about a process which doesn't protect you?

 

[Bayum]

Because, at some point. It might. If people know things like this are going on - they aren't really likely to go carrying things around with them. Which I think makes it safe

 

[Mojo]

But what is even more worrying is that a large number of people are *not* afraid of the police and will carry on committing crimes regardless.

 

[yorkie]

Because, at some point. It might. If people know things like this are going on - they aren't really likely to go carrying things around with them. Which I think makes it safe

By that logic, knife crime should be on the decrease since 2000 then? Oh, wait.... it isn't - it's up!:-?

 

[Beaker]

Yes, I have to because you keep telling me I am against all stop and searches.

But you (plural) but not all of you, keep arguing, I've said a few pages back. That I agree with most of views, but not the attitude you go about putting it across, in a '' I'm right your wrong'' attitude.

 

[Bayum]

By that logic, knife crime should be on the decrease since 2000 then? Oh, wait.... it isn't - it's up!:-?

Well - dya know what?? Tough. I really don't care anymore. If anything happens - it'll happen. If I get stabbed, I get stabbed. If I get bombed - I get bombed. Either way - it was meant to be

 

[P156KWJ]

think of what would happen if there was no police at all though, it would be a damn site worse than it is already.

 

[class 313]

But you (plural) but not all of you, keep arguing, I've said a few pages back. That I agree with most of views, but not the attitude you go about putting it across, in a '' I'm right your wrong'' attitude.

100% agree with you here Nathan which is a rare thing indeed

As said by Richard before. Its all our opinion. Fair enough we can debate why or why it shouldn't happen and IMO there's nothing wrong with debating but how Yorkie and Richard go about it in a way that we must be out of our minds to believe in such an act is wrong.

 

[richa2002]

think of what would happen if there was no police at all though, it would be a damn site worse than it is already.

Random!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

100% agree with you here Nathan which is a rare thing indeed

As said by Richard before. Its all our opinion. Fair enough we can debate why or why it shouldn't happen and IMO there's nothing wrong with debating but how Yorkie and Richard go about it in a way that we must be out of our minds to believe in such an act is wrong.

The facts say that random stop and searches under the terrorism act have a 0% success rate, you can understand our surprise at anyone still thinking this is a good way of preventing terrorism.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But you (plural) but not all of you, keep arguing, I've said a few pages back. That I agree with most of views, but not the attitude you go about putting it across, in a '' I'm right your wrong'' attitude.

That's what an argument is like... Yorkie and I are more than willing to listen to factual arguments and if we have got it wrong, prove us wrong and we'll admit to our mistakes (Not directed straight at you Nathan).

 

[yorkie]

As said by Richard before. Its all our opinion. Fair enough we can debate why or why it shouldn't happen and IMO there's nothing wrong with debating but how Yorkie and Richard go about it in a way that we must be out of our minds to believe in such an act is wrong.

No, we've presented a fair and logical argument.

A few people have just ranted or repeated daft comments like "it's happening", "get over it" and "i don't care" type lines, which are tedious and add absolutely nothing of any value to the debate whatsoever.