Somebody in London is stopped and searched every three minutes [Anti terror]

muon · 11 May 2009 at 13:24

Abraham said:
Interested by this, he asked if I had any ID and used that for my name and address and then when I told him the address should be different than that on my driving licence threatened me with a £1000 fine. Could I have said "I have ID but I don't want to show you"? If I had would he really have just let me go along my way?

Basically, its upto the officer to arrest you there and then or leave you alone. You do not have to say anything without a lawyer present.
Afaik.

Obviously its usually sensible to just answer the questions.

gillywibble · 11 May 2009 at 13:26

Freefaller said:
Anybody else feel really de-humanised by all this? Who else feels just like some pawn to be used and abused and just living their lives totally and utterly at the whim and mercy of the powers that be?

Spot on.

Belly · 11 May 2009 at 14:31

Topic: "Somebody in London is stopped and searched every three minutes"

If this person is stopped and searched every three minutes I bet he is getting fed-up with it. If the search takes three minutes to complete, he'd be spending his whole life being stopped and searched? Poor Bloke!

I'm glad I don't live in London

rypt · 11 May 2009 at 14:34

Sigh ... Shotgun policing is ineffective, pointless and useless.

platinum87 · 12 May 2009 at 12:08

if you have nothing to hide than whats the problem?

if you have something to hide than why stop for the police?

^ pretty simple really

jakeke · 12 May 2009 at 12:14

There are definitely some questionable choices being made by powerful people at the minute. It really sucks that these people think they know best with some of their laws and policies and that nobody can really do anything significant to combat them.

Sankari · 12 May 2009 at 12:39

mrk said:
Somebody in London is stopped and searched every three minutes

We need to find out who he is and stop him going into London!

Deadly Ferret · 12 May 2009 at 12:42

EvilOne said:
The minute it stops, is the minute they will try again. It may not find many atm, but it will put the terrorists off from trying anything.

The people who committed the bombings in London were prepared to detonate explosives they had in their possession, but might have been unwilling to carry the explosives on their persons in case there were stopped & searched? :confused:

Here's your sign...

Dj_Jestar · 12 May 2009 at 12:46

Deadly Ferret said:
The people who committed the bombings in London were prepared to detonate explosives they had in their possession, but might have been unwilling to carry the explosives on their persons in case there were stopped & searched?

Here's your sign...

But for anyone wanting to plant a bomb and escape may not be so determined.

Deadly Ferret · 12 May 2009 at 13:14

Dj_Jestar said:
But for anyone wanting to plant a bomb and escape may not be so determined.

Such as who, the IRA?

It's the idiots that subscribe to the Make Allah Happy, Explode Yourself in Public club that are currently active.

Dj_Jestar · 12 May 2009 at 13:16

I was merely highlighting his or her point.

Deadly Ferret · 12 May 2009 at 13:22

Indeed, and I was merely refuting it.

There is no benefit to section 44. It is a waste of money (by virtue of wasted police time) and an intrusion into the lives of the innocent people. In that respect, it mirrors many government policies.

Energize · 12 May 2009 at 13:31

Chris [BEANS];14048826 said:
If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem with being stop and searched??!
Same with DNA being kept on a database and ID cards.

Since when does having something to hide have anything to do with crime? Would you want to be cctv'd having sex in your bedroom? Ridiculous comment.

It leads to huge crime reduction and detection and keeps people like me and my daughter safer.

Except it doesn't.

Chris [BEANS] · 13 May 2009 at 18:03

Energize said:
Since when does having something to hide have anything to do with crime? Would you want to be cctv'd having sex in your bedroom? Ridiculous comment.

How can you possibly compare someone being stopped in a public place and searched to, "being filmed having sex in their bedroom"??
Ridiculous argument.

Energise said:
Except it doesn't.

Erm... It does...
There are plenty of people who carry illicit items. Often these items are found and the possessor dealt with appropriately.
Stop and search means less drugs, less weapons and less stolen items being carried on our streets. If there were no stop and search powers there would be no deterrent to carrying these items.

Lord-Jaffa · 13 May 2009 at 18:05

I have no problem at all with being stoped and searched, its just a few minutes out of my day and if they catch 1 in 10000 people with a knife or gun or something similar then its worth it.

8balled · 13 May 2009 at 18:32

The problem with stop and search goes something like this

Police officer: Can we have a word with you for a moment?

Civilian: Sure.

Police officer: What is your name?

Civilian: Why do i have to give you my name? i haven't done anything, can i ask why you have stopped me?

Police officer: Random stop check

Civilian: Ok. Have i done anything wrong?

Police officer: No, can i ask where have you come from and where are you going?

Civilian: From a friends house and now i'm going home.

Police officer: Do you mind if we search you?

Civilian: Yes, i haven't done anything.

Police officer: We take that as an indication that you have something to hide.

Civilian: But i haven't done anything.

Police officer: Under section 40 of the anti-terror laws we are going to search you or you risk being arrested.

Civilian: Lol Terrorist??

One time, some nice chaps stopped me and a friend on our way home because a burglary had happened in the area, they proceeded to search inside our socks and shoes, best place to carry a tv.

Energize · 13 May 2009 at 19:10

Chris [BEANS];14068475 said:
How can you possibly compare someone being stopped in a public place and searched to, "being filmed having sex in their bedroom"??
Ridiculous argument.

I'm just proving that because you want to hide something doesn't make you a criminal, which is what you were implying. Someone could have personal documents which they don't want the police seeing, very valid reason not to want to be searched.

Erm... It does...
There are plenty of people who carry illicit items. Often these items are found and the possessor dealt with appropriately.
Stop and search means less drugs, less weapons and less stolen items being carried on our streets. If there were no stop and search powers there would be no deterrent to carrying these items.

This thread is about terrorism searches, which as the figures show, the stop and searches are useless for.

Chris [BEANS] · 14 May 2009 at 15:50

Energize said:
I'm just proving that because you want to hide something doesn't make you a criminal, which is what you were implying. Someone could have personal documents which they don't want the police seeing, very valid reason not to want to be searched.

That's down to people not understanding the powers people have. Perhaps fear of the unknown is why people have such a problem with a very useful and well intended few pieces of legislation that give police power to stop and search. Because they don't understand and therefore fear them?
Police can only search in places they could reasonably find whatever they are looking for. I.e. They could not search your jeans pocket if they were looking for an assault rifle. Extreme example but I'm sure you get my point.

So it follows that they could not legally read your documents. I guess they could look at them to see if they contained images or instructions relevant to terrorism but they would need to suspect something specific.
Obviously if you do not feel it was reasonable you can of course complain and details of who to contact would be on the paperwork you are entitled to at the conclusion of the search.

So really, your problem with them looking at stuff they shouldn't is not so much a problem with stop and search, but more with cheeky plod who bend the rules. Different thing and fair play to you on that one....

This thread is about terrorism searches, which as the figures show, the stop and searches are useless for.

Fair play on the fact terrorism searches yield minor results in comparrison to the number carried out, but there is simply no way to tell what disasters may have been averted simply by the deterrent that people in sensitive areas or locations are likely to be stop and searched.
I'm not claiming that a single life has been saved but at the same time you cant say that hundreds of lives haven't been saved.
I'm happy for loads of people to feel put out by stop and search in exchange for the possibility of lives being saved.

Energize · 14 May 2009 at 16:15

Chris [BEANS];14074346 said:
Police can only search in places they could reasonably find whatever they are looking for. I.e. They could not search your jeans pocket if they were looking for an assault rifle. Extreme example but I'm sure you get my point.

So it follows that they could not legally read your documents. I guess they could look at them to see if they contained images or instructions relevant to terrorism but they would need to suspect something specific.

The problem I have (aside from police abusing normal stop and search powers) is

The Section 44 power allows police to search any person or vehicle without the need for suspicion.

Chris [BEANS];14074346 said:
I'm happy for loads of people to feel put out by stop and search in exchange for the possibility of lives being saved.

I'm certainly not, you can justify anything for the greater good.

Wicksta · 14 May 2009 at 16:21

Maybe try writing to your local MP or something if it bothers you that much. If enough people don't like it and complain then maybe they'll do something about it. Good luck.