Stop & Search

[st_files]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

I'm struggling to be on the side of the libertarians on this one. With the genuine threat of terrorism I cannot see how it makes this country any safer to stop the Police having the power to stop people at random and search them. I totally understand this is open to abuse and I believe that there are times where the Police overstep their authority but surely you have to be fairly naive to not see that the greater good is being served?

These two journalists who brought the action are on a really dangerous path. I'd rather live in a society where the Police stop a few more people than is necessary rather than one where the odd suicide bomber gets through.

[AndrewW-G]

I'm not sure if you missed the point, nobody is saying that stop & search powers shouldn’t be used, but simply that the police should only stop and search with a reasonable suspicion, the government refuse to allow profiling, so therefore needed a blanket power for the police to use............................... yet another case of labour punishing everybody for the actions of a tiny minority

Any decent policeman will have the ability to “spot a wrong un” and gain the suspicion required just by saying a quick and friendly hello

[turbobloke]

SP&L may get helpful responses from BiB.

[st_files]

AndrewW-G said:

I'm not sure if you missed the point, nobody is saying that stop & search powers shouldn’t be used, but simply that the police should only stop and search with a reasonable suspicion, the government refuse to allow profiling, so therefore needed a blanket power for the police to use............................... yet another case of labour punishing everybody for the actions of a tiny minority

Any decent policeman will have the ability to “spot a wrong un” and gain the suspicion required just by saying a quick and friendly hello

It smacks of left wing hysteria to me. A couple of Guardian readers (quite rightly) get stopped and searched around the Arms Trade Show, one of them refuses to stop filming while being searched and then launch this action. Allow the Police to do their job.

[st_files]

turbobloke said:

SP&L may get helpful responses from BiB.

I really wasnt sure what section this should have been posted in...

[Oakey]

st_files said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

I'm struggling to be on the side of the libertarians on this one. With the genuine threat of terrorism I cannot see how it makes this country any safer to stop the Police having the power to stop people at random and search them. I totally understand this is open to abuse and I believe that there are times where the Police overstep their authority but surely you have to be fairly naive to not see that the greater good is being served?

These two journalists who brought the action are on a really dangerous path. I'd rather live in a society where the Police stop a few more people than is necessary rather than one where the odd suicide bomber gets through.

Were you stting bricks back in the days of the very real IRA threat before we had all of this 'anti-terrorism' bullst or did you just go about your daily business without worrying you'd be blown up?

[st_files]

Oakey said:

st_files said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

I'm struggling to be on the side of the libertarians on this one. With the genuine threat of terrorism I cannot see how it makes this country any safer to stop the Police having the power to stop people at random and search them. I totally understand this is open to abuse and I believe that there are times where the Police overstep their authority but surely you have to be fairly naive to not see that the greater good is being served?

These two journalists who brought the action are on a really dangerous path. I'd rather live in a society where the Police stop a few more people than is necessary rather than one where the odd suicide bomber gets through.

Were you stting bricks back in the days of the very real IRA threat before we had all of this 'anti-terrorism' bullst or did you just go about your daily business without worrying you'd be blown up?

I feel less safe if the Policemen/women** cant follow their instincts.

• By Policemen/women I mean full time professionals, not these part time glorified security guard Community Safety Planks that the Govt seems to think are the answer to an understaffed public service.

[Oakey]

st_files said:

Oakey said:

st_files said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

I'm struggling to be on the side of the libertarians on this one. With the genuine threat of terrorism I cannot see how it makes this country any safer to stop the Police having the power to stop people at random and search them. I totally understand this is open to abuse and I believe that there are times where the Police overstep their authority but surely you have to be fairly naive to not see that the greater good is being served?

These two journalists who brought the action are on a really dangerous path. I'd rather live in a society where the Police stop a few more people than is necessary rather than one where the odd suicide bomber gets through.

Were you stting bricks back in the days of the very real IRA threat before we had all of this 'anti-terrorism' bullst or did you just go about your daily business without worrying you'd be blown up?

I feel less safe if the Policemen/women** cant follow their instincts.

• By Policemen/women I mean full time professionals, not these part time glorified security guard Community Safety Planks that the Govt seems to think are the answer to an understaffed public service.

Yuo avoided answering the question though. Were you in this state of fear and paranoia back in the days of the IRA when there was a very real threat or did you just continue about your everyday business?

[st_files]

Oakey said:

st_files said:

Oakey said:

st_files said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

I'm struggling to be on the side of the libertarians on this one. With the genuine threat of terrorism I cannot see how it makes this country any safer to stop the Police having the power to stop people at random and search them. I totally understand this is open to abuse and I believe that there are times where the Police overstep their authority but surely you have to be fairly naive to not see that the greater good is being served?

These two journalists who brought the action are on a really dangerous path. I'd rather live in a society where the Police stop a few more people than is necessary rather than one where the odd suicide bomber gets through.

Were you stting bricks back in the days of the very real IRA threat before we had all of this 'anti-terrorism' bullst or did you just go about your daily business without worrying you'd be blown up?

I feel less safe if the Policemen/women** cant follow their instincts.

• By Policemen/women I mean full time professionals, not these part time glorified security guard Community Safety Planks that the Govt seems to think are the answer to an understaffed public service.

Yuo avoided answering the question though. Were you in this state of fear and paranoia back in the days of the IRA when there was a very real threat or did you just continue about your everyday business?

I am not in "a state of fear and panic" now so really not sure what you're getting at. I dont really think about it when I'm moving around London which is the same as back in the IRA days. Comparing the two is pointless though, two totally different adversaries.

[Oakey]

But you just previously said it makes you feel 'less safe' if the Police can't stop and search people at random?

How is comparing the two pointless? They're all terrorirsts are they not? Albeit one group was far more successful than todays threat

Edited by Oakey on Wednesday 13th January 11:44

[Jasandjules]

Random searches are the product of the politically correct not wishing to stop muslims to my mind. Once we accept that the police resources are better directed towards searching those with the most potential to be a threat then we can free up resources and engage the terrorists better.

This however goes both ways. For example, if a suspected terrorist had ginger hair then I'd be happy that a large number of people with ginger hair were stopped and searched.

[Parrot of Doom]

Jasandjules said:

Random searches are the product of the politically correct not wishing to stop muslims to my mind. Once we accept that the police resources are better directed towards searching those with the most potential to be a threat then we can free up resources and engage the terrorists better.

This however goes both ways. For example, if a suspected terrorist had ginger hair then I'd be happy that a large number of people with ginger hair were stopped and searched.

Police resources are better directed towards searching people based upon intelligence. I have ginger hair, and anyone wanting to search me based on your reasoning can fkoff.

[st_files]

Oakey said:

But you just previously said it makes you feel 'less safe' if the Police can't stop and search people at random?

How is comparing the two pointless? They're all terrorirsts are they not? Albeit one group was far more successful than todays threat

Edited by Oakey on Wednesday 13th January 11:44

maybe 'less safe' was a poor choice of words - I would prefer the Police to have the right to stop and search people without having to justify it. Yes, I realise this can/will be abused by some Old Bill but overall I think thats a price worth paying. Sure as st Al Queda (sp?) arent worrying about peoples human rights.

Pointless because the current threat is a global issue and times have changed. The Police were a very different organisation back then, technoligically as well as psychologically. Maybe because I have much more information about whats happening now (as compared to the Govt managed media flow back in the IRA days) I am more aware of the current threats.

[Mark Benson]

Guam said:

256,000 searches how many "terrorists" did this catch?

Quite. Terrorism, the current bogeyman.

the article said:

There were 256,000 stops under the terror law in 2008/09 but just 0.6 per cent resulted in an arrest.

Anyone thinking it's a worthwhile way for the police to spend their time care to speculate how many actual terrorists were convicted out of that 0.6%....?

[st_files]

Mark Benson said:

Guam said:

256,000 searches how many "terrorists" did this catch?

Quite. Terrorism, the current bogeyman.

the article said:

There were 256,000 stops under the terror law in 2008/09 but just 0.6 per cent resulted in an arrest.

Anyone thinking it's a worthwhile way for the police to spend their time care to speculate how many actual terrorists were convicted out of that 0.6%....?

If just one of those 256,000 arrests was a part in stopping a bomb going off (its not just stopping people with bombs clamped on their backs, its also possible intelligence gathering) then I'd say the 255,999 searches that didnt result in anything were worth it.

I would rather a Policeman felt he/she had the right to challenge whomever they felt like rather than them worrying about offending someone's sensibilities - the possibility being that they didnt stop someone who was on their way to set off a bomb. Besides, whats the problem, if you have nothing to hide why would you complain about being stopped?

[Einion Yrth]

st_files said:

Maybe because I have much more information about whats happening now (as compared to the Govt managed media flow back in the IRA days) I am more aware of the current threats.

No gummint managed media flow nowadays, no sirree.

[st_files]

Einion Yrth said:

st_files said:

Maybe because I have much more information about whats happening now (as compared to the Govt managed media flow back in the IRA days) I am more aware of the current threats.

No gummint managed media flow nowadays, no sirree.

Compared to 25 years ago todays media is the wild west. The internet has changed everything.

[hairykrishna]

Mark Benson said:

Guam said:

256,000 searches how many "terrorists" did this catch?

Quite. Terrorism, the current bogeyman.

the article said:

There were 256,000 stops under the terror law in 2008/09 but just 0.6 per cent resulted in an arrest.

Anyone thinking it's a worthwhile way for the police to spend their time care to speculate how many actual terrorists were convicted out of that 0.6%....?

I'd be stunned if many of the 0.6% were charged with a terrorism offence. Remove all the ones arrested for drugs possession and I bet the number of arrests would be close to zero.

[Mark Benson]

st_files said:

Mark Benson said:

Guam said:

256,000 searches how many "terrorists" did this catch?

Quite. Terrorism, the current bogeyman.

the article said:

There were 256,000 stops under the terror law in 2008/09 but just 0.6 per cent resulted in an arrest.

Anyone thinking it's a worthwhile way for the police to spend their time care to speculate how many actual terrorists were convicted out of that 0.6%....?

If just one of those 256,000 arrests was a part in stopping a bomb going off (its not just stopping people with bombs clamped on their backs, its also possible intelligence gathering) then I'd say the 255,999 searches that didnt result in anything were worth it.

There weren't 260000 arrests. There were 15000 or so arrests, and how many of those were convicted of a terrorist offence?

If the police, instead of wasting their time stopping 245000 innocent people (and a 0.6% arrest rate is, in my book, a waste of police time, maybe you think they were gainfully employed but I'd be interested in how you justify a 0.6% success rate gainful) spent their time investigating crime, patrolling the streets and looking for people up to no good, the country might be a safer place to be for all of us - not just the miniscule number (in comparison to say, victims of violent crime, but please, pick your own comparison) of us in danger from the 'terrorist threat'.

Edited by Mark Benson on Wednesday 13th January 14:02

[Mark Benson]

Guam said:

Fun with numbers you can argue any old bks

You've been hanging around the Warmists too long