Prepare to be searched...

[richa2002]

And if you get searched, you get searched.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


A station can be a high-crime area.

It's the principle I disagree with most, not how it may personally affect me. The problem with people who support this random searching is that they can only see it at face value and not look at the bigger picture.

 

[Bayum]

Based on that then Yorkie - what if they got wrong intelligence in the future?? And are unable to combat the terrorism based on the wrong intelligence?? Random stop searches would seem like a good idea then...

 

[Craig]

I'm off to the pub to meet Eezypeazy, I'll be back to continue this later.

 

[class 313]

That has to go down as one of the daftest posts I've read.

"20 mins of time is a lot better than being dead" so you are saying they should have searched him for 20 minutes rather than shooting him? Well, quite obviously, YES I agree there!

Are you saying muggings should be re-categorised as terrorism?

But its this 'intelligence' nonsense you would prefer over stop and search.

I'm saying muggings cause terror.

 

[Bayum]

It's the principle I disagree with most, not how it may personally affect me. The problem with people who support this random searching is that they can only see it at face value and not look at the bigger picture.

So - you would like someone at a station to come upto you, hold you at Knife Point, or in London or where ever you shop, mug you, all because the police don't have *intelligence*??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But its this 'intelligence' nonsense you would prefer over stop and search.

I'm saying muggings cause terror.

And as we all know - Muggings happen a lot more than Terrorist Attacks... If random stop searches can stop things such as this... is all good imo!!

 

[class 313]

It's the principle I disagree with most, not how it may personally affect me. The problem with people who support this random searching is that they can only see it at face value and not look at the bigger picture.

You haven't been affected by a stop and search whereas I have. Would you not agree I would have a better sight on things as seen it on both sides?

 

[yorkie]

As for how to combat terrorism, it is obvious that police should act on intelligence, as they currently do.QUOTE]

Based on that - is what I said.

Are you saying intelligence is the same as "full blown proof" then?

If the police don't have enough intelligence then, should they not arrest them or whatever??

Erm, if there is no reasonable grounds for arrest then I don't see why anyone should be arrested. Obviously.

So in the case (mentioned a few pages ago) of the person who was arrested for taking photos of a police car going the wrong way up a street, they arrested him without any grounds, and that is wrong.

If they have grounds for an arrest, then fair enough.

I don't see how you can suggest people should be arrested when there is no grounds for arrest? That's what the likes of Pinochet did.

Or let them get on with what they want to do because they don't have enough evidence/intelligence??

If there is no evidence/intelligence against someone then of course you have to let them get on with their lives.

 

[richa2002]

A station can be a high-crime area.

I agree, however I never see any police about when there are drunkards at half 10 at night but they're happy to randomly stop people in broad daylight where crime is most unlikely. I'd say there are more high-crime areas during the day than a major railway station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You haven't been affected by a stop and search whereas I have. Would you not agree I would have a better sight on things as seen it on both sides?

Well, I can't say your opinion is wrong but I'm just saying you fail to see the bigger picture and and you only consider how it affects you personally.

 

[yorkie]

Because you're posting in a way like you can do something about it.

Actually, we can. We can complain to our MPs, and if the mood of the nation is against erosion of our rights then governments that want to be elected will stop eroding them. Things are getting bad in this country with regards our freedoms being eroded, but they are not beyond hope. At least not yet. The Labour party are going to be got rid of soon, and I'd like to think part of the reason for that is the erosion of our civil liberties and the fact that the majority of the public appears to be against it.

 

[Bayum]

Are you saying intelligence is the same as "full blown proof" then?

Erm, if there is no reasonable grounds for arrest then I don't see why anyone should be arrested. Obviously.

So in the case (mentioned a few pages ago) of the person who was arrested for taking photos of a police car going the wrong way up a street, they arrested him without any grounds, and that is wrong.

If they have grounds for an arrest, then fair enough.

I don't see how you can suggest people should be arrested when there is no grounds for arrest? That's what the likes of Pinochet did.

If there is no evidence/intelligence against someone then of course you have to let them get on with their lives.

Based on that last point then... Again as im saying - you would like to see a bomb go off, again - on the underground, because the police don't have enough intelligence?

 

[yorkie]

Exactly - and the stop searches pointed out by Beaker in that article you liked so much Yorkie - may have stopped potential muggings or stabbings

Did you actually read the article Beaker linked to?
Did you actually read my comments on it?

Obviously not!

Because, if you had, you would realise that they are:
1) NOT random stop and searches
2) NOT conducted under terrorism acts

They were targeted in specific high-crime areas, which is exactly the point Craig was making earlier, if you had bothered to read it.

They were completely different, and the sort of search I'd like to take place far more often instead of random ones.

I suggest you read before you post.

 

[class 313]

The Labour party are going to be got rid of soon, and I'd like to think part of the reason for that is the erosion of our civil liberties and the fact that the majority of the public appears to be against it.

Why do you think getting rid of the Labour party will make things better? You're a fool if actually believe that to be the case.

 

[richa2002]

So - you would like someone at a station to come upto you, hold you at Knife Point, or in London or where ever you shop, mug you, all because the police don't have *intelligence*??

Not at all but random stop and searches under the terrorism act which is being described here has been proven to be very unsuccessful and therefore would not prevent me being held at knife point based on the facts.

And as we all know - Muggings happen a lot more than Terrorist Attacks... If random stop searches can stop things such as this... is all good imo!!

They don't though. Maybe in high-crime areas but a busy railway station in daylight is not a high-crime area in relative terms.

 

[yorkie]

Based on that then Yorkie - what if they got wrong intelligence in the future?? And are unable to combat the terrorism based on the wrong intelligence??

I've already answered that point. See above.

Random stop searches would seem like a good idea then...

What are you suggesting exactly?

Why do they seem like a good idea?

Give me evidence of their effectiveness if you can, please.

 

[class 313]

I agree, however I never see any police about when there are drunkards at half 10 at night but they're happy to randomly stop people in broad daylight where crime is most unlikely. I'd say there are more high-crime areas during the day than a major railway station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, I can't say your opinion is wrong but I'm just saying you fail to see the bigger picture and and you only consider how it affects you personally.

Right ok this is is another case of 'because I haven't seen it it must not be there' There's plenty of proof plolice are about when people are drunk at nightclubs and such, just watch some of the programs based upon such a thing.

Well tbh, If I thought the stop and search idea would affect me in such a way of course id be against it. But I don't see it that way so why the hell would I be agaisnt it if actually doesn't affect me.

Even so, I do look at the bigger picture and seems like only a small group compared to the actual amount of people in the country are 'outraged' to a point such as you and Yorkie.

 

[Bayum]

Did you actually read the article Beaker linked to?
Did you actually read my comments on it?

Obviously not!

Because, if you had, you would realise that they are:
1) NOT random stop and searches
2) NOT conducted under terrorism acts

They were targeted in specific high-crime areas, which is exactly the point Craig was making earlier, if you had bothered to read it.

They were completely different, and the sort of search I'd like to take place far more often instead of random ones.

I suggest you read before you post.

I suggest you shut up making assumptions. Yes, I did read the post. yes I did read your comments - so what??

What are the chances of winning the lottery??

It happens. So im sure it will happen with the police as well.

Dont like it - complain like you usually do. But when something goes wrong - as usual you'll be the first to complain. As always

 

[richa2002]

Because you're posting in a way like you can do something about it.

It's called a democracy where the people can attempt to change things themselves by using the methods described as Yorkie, this isn't a dictatorship.

 

[class 313]

They don't though. Maybe in high-crime areas but a busy railway station in daylight is not a high-crime area in relative terms.

Facts to back this up?

 

[yorkie]

Are you saying muggings should be re-categorised as terrorism?

I'm saying muggings cause terror.

So that's a "Yes" then.

I suggest you write to your MP asking them to change muggings to be classified under terrorism, please tell me what the response is.

 

[class 313]

It's called a democracy where the people can attempt to change things themselves by using the methods described as Yorkie, this isn't a dictatorship.

Which allows fools like you to change things which just because they don't please you means they must not work.

 

[Bayum]

How is that even the same?? Im pretty sure an old lady would count mugging as being terror, but I dont think the same old lady would categorise it as *terrorism*

 

[class 313]

So that's a "Yes" then.

I suggest you write to your MP asking them to change muggings to be classified under terrorism, please tell me what the response is.

You can't just dictate to me what I haven't said.

You can't just put words into my mouth.

I didn't say yes or no.

 

[yorkie]

So - you would like someone at a station to come upto you, hold you at Knife Point, or in London or where ever you shop, mug you, all because the police don't have *intelligence*??

No I would not, where do you get that idea?

And, as I said earlier, if they do the right sort of searches instead of random ones, they will actually confiscate many weapons and that will reduce knife crime. Why didn't you read the posts above about this subject?

And as we all know - Muggings happen a lot more than Terrorist Attacks... If random stop searches can stop things such as this... is all good imo!!

Yes they do, and random searches have a very low success rate, so they do not "stop things such as this". On the other hand, ceasing random searches and instead going to high crime areas with metal detectors yields far better results. As I have said before, please see earlier posts that give details of the far higher success rates.

Given the far higher success rates of targeted searches rather than random searches, why are you in favour of random searches?

I find it interesting that your focus is no longer on preventing terrorism; it is now on preventing muggings and knife crime. That is most welcome, and I agree totally that there are far more of them so it needs to be delt with more. I just find it very odd that you think random searches yield better results than targetted searches, when the evidence proves otherwise.

 

[richa2002]

Right ok this is is another case of 'because I haven't seen it it must not be there' There's plenty of proof plolice are about when people are drunk at nightclubs and such, just watch some of the programs based upon such a thing.

In these programmes they follow policemen so obviously it's going to appear there's police at all these troublespots.

Even so, I do look at the bigger picture and seems like only a small group compared to the actual amount of people in the country are 'outraged' to a point such as you and Yorkie.

When I say look at the bigger picture, I do not mean look at other opinion and choose the opinion with a majoirty. I mean to make an informed decision based on facts, history and principles. Not mass opinion.

 

[Mojo]

Which allows fools like you to change things which just because they don't please you means they must not work.

So you don't think we should be allowed to vote now?

Voting *does* allow us to change things. Different parties have different policies, pressure from the opposition has helped change the Government's mind on a number of things.

Is this how you want to live?

 

[class 313]

Yes they do, and random searches have a very low success rate, so they do not "stop things such as this".

There's nothing wrong with intelligence and Stop and Search working hand in hand. As I believe just have intelligence would have a lower success rate overall.

 

[yorkie]

Based on that last point then... Again as im saying - you would like to see a bomb go off, again - on the underground, because the police don't have enough intelligence?

What do you mean by "because the police don't have enough intelligence?" and how would random searches prevent a bomb going off again given that they did not prevent them in 2005.

 

[Bayum]

No I would not, where do you get that idea?

And, as I said earlier, if they do the right sort of searches instead of random ones, they will actually confiscate many weapons and that will reduce knife crime. Why didn't you read the posts above about this subject?


Yes they do, and random searches have a very low success rate, so they do not "stop things such as this". On the other hand, ceasing random searches and instead going to high crime areas with metal detectors yields far better results. As I have said before, please see earlier posts that give details of the far higher success rates.

Given the far higher success rates of targeted searches rather than random searches, why are you in favour of random searches?

I find it interesting that your focus is no longer on preventing terrorism; it is now on preventing muggings and knife crime. That is most welcome, and I agree totally that there are far more of them so it needs to be delt with more. I just find it very odd that you think random searches yield better results than targetted searches, when the evidence proves otherwise.

You basically said yourself, that nothing should happen unless the police have intelligence. If they have no intelligence, but suspicion, would you still be against arresting someone??

And the only reason im bringing muggings and knife crime into it, is because - it's based on the same thing. The random searches take place at stations, and may find knives, bombs etc. Take place in Leeds or other places - and knives may again be found. IT AINT JUST A PROBLEM ON THE RAIL AND TRAVEL NETWORK

 

[richa2002]

Facts to back this up?

Yorkie quoted a 0.5% of all searches resulted in an arrest and these include the man who got detained for 9 hours but was innocent.
Yorkie's quote:
'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'

 

[Bayum]

What do you mean by "because the police don't have enough intelligence?" and how would random searches prevent a bomb going off again given that they did not prevent them in 2005.

Because, what im saying is - would you say *no they shouldn't be arrested* to the police, who want to arrest someone on suspicion of terrorism, and about to blow up a train, but they have no *intelligence*

OR

Would you say *yes arrest them, even though you have no intelligence*