-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Prepare to be searched...
- Thread starter yorkie
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Speed limits are often also a load of bol***ks. Speed limits should be defined according to the traffic conditions such as on the M42 rather than using some arbitrary value.
But that's a discussion for another thread.
Mintona
Established Member
Police randomly searching, finding someone with a bomb and saving lives > Police waiting for evidence, person setting off said bomb and people being killed.
Right so you want everyone to be checked, even if it takes 9 hours at a time. Better get the whole population of China employed as terror police then, otherwise there won't be enough to check us all!
Can you clarify: Do you mean searched at random OR searched on suspicion of carrying out terrorism? The two are very different.
Yes, terrible crimes, everyone with a backpack should be detained for 9 hours if they have a map.:roll:
But there are thousands of people being searched every year without any evidence of terrorism, and there is no evidence that if these searches had not taken place that anyone would be dead. So your argument that one person being searched has saved hundreds of lives is daft.
Unfortunately there have been no reports of a random search resulting in a bomb being found, despite thousands of them taking place.
I can't. But are you willing to take the risk?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That's exactly the point.
We all know how reliable the intelligence is, example being the Brazilian that was shot at Stockwell. Completely innocent, even after the complete lies the police then made up. For example he apparently jumped the ticket barriers. When CCTV shows him calmly walking through...
Do you want to rely on this intelligence when they can get it oh so wrong rather than checking random people that does no *long term* damage.
I never said everyone - I said, why bother doing half a job for A person, which was replying to your initial point.
And just because they haven't found a person doing random searches yet, doesnt mean to say it wont happen. I was told I would never get good grades and not get into sixth form - didnt get anything below a B, and now im in Sixth Form, and I have a preliminary place at Uni next year. So it might happen.
As Craig said, where is the evidence that this has EVER happened by any of the tens of thousands of the random searches that have taken place?
How do you mitigate against the risk? Searching everyone? How often should people be searched? Should everyone who uses public transport be searched every day or just every so often?class 313 said:
Do you not think that if random searches became very regular, people may not want to risk being detained for extended periods and missing their trains and being late for work etc, and may instead go by car? Going by car means you are almost certain not to be stopped unless you are actually suspected of an offence e.g. speeding. Do you agree with this policy against public transport users?
I'd rather be safe in my own country to be perfectly honest. And if people like you are going to go and say it's alright for people to go around doing things like this - then fine. But, I think people are more likely to go back to cars and things when they hear of people being stabbed and bombed on trains because people don't like being *randomly searched* and if going by car would make it safer. Then yes. I would agree with this, whether I get Priv and free bus travel or not. I have my whole life ahead of me, and I dont wanna waste it or have it wasted by someone else
So you admit that the police lied, but they would not lie about you because you have nothing to fear because you are innocent. Just like the guy who got killed had nothing to fear... oh, wait....:roll:
Right, so you spend 9 hours per person and just do a couple of people per day. That reduces the risk because less people are checked. And you're telling me that is a sane argument?
How many more random searches do you think it will take before they find someone with a bomb? 10,000? 100,000? a million? the entire population? How many are required before it becomes wrong?
They kept him behind because of all the stuff he had on him... Like i've said before - if I was a police officer, and I found that stuff on him - i'd take him as well.
And i dont know. But if people know random searches are being done, it will make people think. And will reduce things such as:
Drug Crime
Weapons
Terrorism
Possession of Illegal Items/Substances
Plus - your seeing this all from a transport point of view. It might not just happen at a train station - could happen to a shopper in town like it did with me.
I am saying it is alright for who to go round doing what?
I'm trying to de-cypher what you are saying but am struggling. Are you saying that stabbings and bombings would increase if random searches were not in operation? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? There are more random searches in London than anywhere else, and that is where more stabbings occur, so that doesn't add up.
If you want to reduce violence on public transport, the answer is to have high staffing levels, staff on trains etc. And police who respond in a timely way to incidents instead of taking hours. Not the occasional 'random search' on a photographer at a major terminal!!! Do you really disagree with me on that? I'd love to know why.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do you admit that the terrorism laws are being used to prevent OTHER types of crime? And, if you do admit it, do you think that is morally right?
Last edited:
Mintona
Established Member
I have no evidence at all - but it could happen tomorrow.
yorkie said:
What makes it morally wrong? Criminals are still being put behind bars, doesn't matter how underhanded the police are, coz you can guarantee the crooks will be 10 times worse.
I'm saying - that as people such as yourself, that don't like the idea of Random stop and search, grow in power - the police wont be able to do it anymore. So the number of people carrying drugs, weapons etc will increase - which will lead to an increase in the number of incidents on public transport.
So, you would be prepared as a tax payer, to pay more taxes to staff more police and staff at stations etc to see this problem solved??
And as a matter of opinion, I would quite like to know your take on this. How do YOU think we should counter and combat terrorism if you don't like the method currently being used?? Wait until it happens?? And then say - oh, we suspected that person. Too late now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh yeah - the last bit. Yes, I do think the stop and search are being used for other things as well. but like I said - if it stops me being stabbed or something whilst im shopping in Leeds - fine with me.
The fact is if the government changed the law so police officers could only stop and search suspicious acting people, the police would just lie and say 'I thought he looked suspicious.' So there's not much you can really do about it anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I admit Terrorism laws help other types of crime such as anti-social behaviour. I also believe stop and search is morally right.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I admit Terrorism laws help other types of crime such as anti-social behaviour. I also believe stop and search is morally right.
O L Leigh
Established Member
And this is all based on... what? A report of someone going about his everyday business being inconvenienced because he was stopped by the Police and whinged about it to the media...? Do you think we've been given the whole story here?
Surely a terrorist is going to want to look like "just anyone" if he/she is going to succeed. Blending in is everything. It may be that there are innocent people stopped, searched, questioned and even detained by the security services, but that is just the nature of things. Should we accept such inconvenience? Well, I suppose that depends on how much value you put on your security and that of the transport network. If the attacks of 7th and 21st July 2005 (not to mention the Madrid train bombings) teach us anything it is that the transport network, and, by connection, the countless thousands of people who use it, are vulnerable to attack from anyone foolhardy enough to stick a bomb in a backpack.
The problem for the authorities is that they don't really have a handle on just how bad the situation really is. You may think that the current anti-terrorism measures are overly draconian, but how do we know that they aren't actually woefully lax? If the fear that a random search might discover a device is enough to prevent a terrorist cell from launching an attack, then I consider that an inconvenience worth bearing.
Then again, you may want to campaign for your civil liberties and to attempt to curtail the power and scope of the state. But ask yourself this. Who is such action really going to be serving? Those people with nothing to fear from the state because they are innocent of any wrongdoing, or those who might seek to hide behind their civil liberties in order to carry out atrocities against the innocent?
Sounds a bit dramatic, doesn't it. Then again, how would you know that such measures are not appropriate? For example, would you support a campaign to ban the sale of railway keys through channels such as swapmeets and eBay on the basis that they constitute both an illegal trade in stolen goods and a security risk?
I'm not offering answers here, primarily because I'm struggling with some of the questions myself. However, I have to say that there is a worrying undercurrent of complacency here that I feel needs to be addressed and I want to pose the questions so that everyone has the chance to stop and think. There is no denying that the transport network is a major target for terrorists and, as such, steps need to be taken to safeguard it. Perhaps the Police response to this threat is wrong, but then again perhaps it isn't. Are we in a position to judge? I would say not. However, as a railway employee and the person responsible for the safety for everyone on whatever train I happen to be driving at the time, the threat that something might be attempted is never far from my thoughts.
O L Leigh
Surely a terrorist is going to want to look like "just anyone" if he/she is going to succeed. Blending in is everything. It may be that there are innocent people stopped, searched, questioned and even detained by the security services, but that is just the nature of things. Should we accept such inconvenience? Well, I suppose that depends on how much value you put on your security and that of the transport network. If the attacks of 7th and 21st July 2005 (not to mention the Madrid train bombings) teach us anything it is that the transport network, and, by connection, the countless thousands of people who use it, are vulnerable to attack from anyone foolhardy enough to stick a bomb in a backpack.
The problem for the authorities is that they don't really have a handle on just how bad the situation really is. You may think that the current anti-terrorism measures are overly draconian, but how do we know that they aren't actually woefully lax? If the fear that a random search might discover a device is enough to prevent a terrorist cell from launching an attack, then I consider that an inconvenience worth bearing.
Then again, you may want to campaign for your civil liberties and to attempt to curtail the power and scope of the state. But ask yourself this. Who is such action really going to be serving? Those people with nothing to fear from the state because they are innocent of any wrongdoing, or those who might seek to hide behind their civil liberties in order to carry out atrocities against the innocent?
Sounds a bit dramatic, doesn't it. Then again, how would you know that such measures are not appropriate? For example, would you support a campaign to ban the sale of railway keys through channels such as swapmeets and eBay on the basis that they constitute both an illegal trade in stolen goods and a security risk?
I'm not offering answers here, primarily because I'm struggling with some of the questions myself. However, I have to say that there is a worrying undercurrent of complacency here that I feel needs to be addressed and I want to pose the questions so that everyone has the chance to stop and think. There is no denying that the transport network is a major target for terrorists and, as such, steps need to be taken to safeguard it. Perhaps the Police response to this threat is wrong, but then again perhaps it isn't. Are we in a position to judge? I would say not. However, as a railway employee and the person responsible for the safety for everyone on whatever train I happen to be driving at the time, the threat that something might be attempted is never far from my thoughts.
O L Leigh
Within the thread, several examples are being given including someone being detained for over 9 hours, and the statistics show that thousands of people are affected, it's not based on what happened to one person. It's just that one person has filmed the encounter and the resulting video has sparked a debate. It is not a "whinge", it's an important point that needs to be addressed. There are more here.
All I can be bothered to say now is that I am extremely disappointed that so many people are so willing to give up our civil liberties.
How do you respond to people whose argument is based on comments like it "doesn't matter how underhanded the police are"? and who admit they have no evidence to back up their claims and just repeat the same lines.I have no desire to miss my trains and be humiliated in front of the 'normals' for grabbing a quick phot, so I rarely bother taking photos on platforms these days. On the other hand at least I can relax knowing I am safe from being harrassed at a lineside location (for now)...
Beaker
Established Member
Within the thread, several examples are being given including someone being detained for over 9 hours, and the statistics show that thousands of people are affected, it's not based on what happened to one person. It's just that one person has filmed the encounter and the resulting video has sparked a debate. It is not a "whinge", it's an important point that needs to be addressed. There are more here.
All I can be bothered to say now is that I am extremely disappointed that so many people are so willing to give up our civil liberties.
I have no desire to miss my trains and be humiliated in front of the 'normals' for grabbing a quick phot, so I rarely bother taking photos on platforms these days. On the other hand at least I can relax knowing I am safe from being harrassed at a lineside location (for now)...
But why can't people say they don't feel a problem. Without being flamed down. I seriously believe there are far more important things to worry about than being searched for a few minutes.
Indeed Yorkie. That's politics. You rubbish one unproven case with another, proving, in this instance, that neither of us know exactly what the authorities know compared to what we are fed by the media. They can't afford to tell everything. and shouldn't be expected to.
Beaker
Established Member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7578799.stm
39 Knives found, and that is not just for the whole country.
Craig said:
Thank you for proving Craig's point, that "Officers out on patrol in high crime areas would be a better solution"
Clearly, targeted searches such as that, where they go to specific high crime areas and know what they are looking for and know they are likely to find it, are far more effective than the so-called "random" searches at stations, and the statistics you quote prove it. The 'success rate' of the terrorism searches is 0.5% (and that 0.5% isn't bombs, it's very minor things that potentially might be linked to terrorism and see the link about the bloke who was detained for 9 hours without doing anything wrong - people like him are included in that 0.5% so it's not really a 'success rate' at all), and the far more sensible operation that you quote got a success rate of 22% of cases finding knives
There is no flaming, and if there are far more important things to worry about then go and worry about them if you like. Also, how is being held for around 9 hours "a few minutes" or did you not read the link?
Beaker
Established Member
Thank you for proving Craig's point, that "Officers out on patrol in high crime areas would be a better solution"
Clearly, targeted searches such as that, where they go to specific high crime areas and know what they are looking for and know they are likely to find it, are far more effective than the so-called "random" searches at stations, and the statistics you quote prove it. The 'success rate' of the terrorism searches is 0.5% (and that 0.5% isn't bombs, it's very minor things that potentially might be linked to terrorism and see the link about the bloke who was detained for 9 hours without doing anything wrong - people like him are included in that 0.5% so it's not really a 'success rate' at all), and the far more sensible operation that you quote got a success rate of 22% of cases finding knives
There is no flaming, and if there are far more important things to worry about then go and worry about them if you like. Also, how is being held for around 9 hours "a few minutes" or did you not read the link?
Yes but the 9hrs isnt what happens every time is it?
Why should we have to share the same views as you ?
Why can't you allow people to get on with their lives and not have to agree with you ?
Not every time, no, but is it acceptable?
I'm not saying you should have to; are you saying I should have to share the same views as you?
How am I stopping you getting on with your life?
Beaker
Established Member
I'm not saying that, I agree with your thoughts on the police stop and searchs to an extent. I just don't agree with how you put them across like they are gospel.
Our predecessors fought hard to make our country fair and free, creating a near-perfect balance for hundreds of years between protecting our rights and protecting the public in from crime.
As for searching everyone. At present on the majority of people on railway stations (in comparision to the numbers present on the premises) are spread out, so depending on the number of people you have near you any explosions will not kill or injure as many people. If you delay everyone to be stopped, you will create a high concentration of people in one area which would be the "perfect" place to detonate an explosive to kill or injure a much larger number of people.
As for searching everyone. At present on the majority of people on railway stations (in comparision to the numbers present on the premises) are spread out, so depending on the number of people you have near you any explosions will not kill or injure as many people. If you delay everyone to be stopped, you will create a high concentration of people in one area which would be the "perfect" place to detonate an explosive to kill or injure a much larger number of people.
Beaker
Established Member
I'm surprised the question hasn't died of boredom and moved to china.
gordonthemoron
Established Member
re stop & search.
Couple of years ago got stopped at Waterloo whilst checking in for E* to Brussels (enroute to Berlin) by some surly jobsworth. Apparently he found it suspicious that I would want to go by train rather than fly! ****er
Couple of years ago got stopped at Waterloo whilst checking in for E* to Brussels (enroute to Berlin) by some surly jobsworth. Apparently he found it suspicious that I would want to go by train rather than fly! ****er
richa2002
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 2,298
! When you think it can't get anymore ridiculous...
When its not ridiculous in the first place, a lot more...
- Status