Notting hill carnival

[Mice!]

4 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

How then do the British Transport Police justify their unannounced knife scanner checks thrown up without warning on Railway Stations across the country?

They usually last about 4 hours and they sit back and watch people try to back away and put EVERYONE from the incoming trains through the scanner. They also keep their Police Dogs handy.

Brilliant, but I'd never heard of it 👍

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

How then do the British Transport Police justify their unannounced knife scanner checks thrown up without warning on Railway Stations across the country?

They usually last about 4 hours and they sit back and watch people try to back away and put EVERYONE from the incoming trains through the scanner. They also keep their Police Dogs handy.

I imagine it's a stand alone operation and/or conducted on railway property, which to the best of my knowledge has it's own byelaws. The point is, it won't be targeted at a specific demographic. They will stop people based on information/intelligence, you gave one example of people acting shifty when they see the checkpoint. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

My point was the BTP "hit" a Station and if all goes to plan, EVERYONE is moved through the scanner.

 

Search EVERYBODY.

[old man]

5 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

My point was the BTP "hit" a Station and if all goes to plan, EVERYONE is moved through the scanner.

 

Search EVERYBODY.

Nope. Nope. Nope. Next stop Stasi.

[12gauge82]

From the way you described it, the difference is, they are looking to elicit a response from potential bad actors and searching based on that, I.e it's intelligence led. They are not targeting all males, or all black people ect. To do that is a very slippery slope towards a police state.

 

[Westley]

12 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

No I was right the first time, it's not how policing works and isn't part of it's core values. The rest of your gripes are totally justified and I think frustrates the general population also. 

I think you would find that Stop and Search IS Policing by 'consent'.......of the bulk of the population.  Those who are against it, are those who are, more likely, offending. I for one can not recall EVER being stopped/searched, except  at an airport or cruise ship. When that happens to me, I am more sorry for the inconvenience caused to the security staff, than to start complaining about it. After all, it is being carried out for MY safety  ?   WHEN were you last stopped/searched, apart from airport etc.  ?    

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, old man said:

Nope. Nope. Nope. Next stop Stasi.

You’ve never been through an airport then where everyone is searched and goes through various checks and scanners (and has to have mandatory state ID in the form of a passport)?

Ever been on a cruise ship?

What about into a governent building like a Court or Council offices?

Ever been to a concert or a nightclub?

Edited September 4 by Mungler

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

From the way you described it, the difference is, they are looking to elicit a response from potential bad actors and searching based on that, I.e it's intelligence led. They are not targeting all males, or all black people ect. To do that is a very slippery slope towards a police state.

 

Targeting criminals is what the police do.

If the ‘now overtly in your face can no longer be ignored “intelligence” is non-white males 16-20 are more likely than not to be carrying a knife - then what? roll a few old white ladies out of bed at 2 am so they can be searched at the same time too and so as not to hurt any feelings?

Hand wringing nonsense.

Indeed. You mention searches lead on police intelligence - what do you think that means? What’s the minimum information you consider the police necessary to hold to act on and what do you think they should have to ignore eg intelligence in the form of prolific offender data, statistics, gang and post code data lead intelligence and information?

.

Edited September 4 by Mungler

[12gauge82]

16 minutes ago, Mungler said:

You’ve never been through an airport then where everyone is searched and goes through various checks and scanners (and has to have mandatory state ID in the form of a passport)?

Ever been on a cruise ship?

What about into a governent building like a Court or Council offices?

Ever been to a concert or a nightclub?

Your conflating condition of entry searches where as part of routine security, everyone is liable to search and suspicion led where you are being searched because the police feel you may be carrying something you shouldn't. They totally separate things. 

11 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Targeting criminals is what the police do.

If the ‘now overtly in your face can no longer be ignored “intelligence” is non-white males 16-20 are more likely than not to be carrying a knife - then what? roll a few old white ladies out of bed at 2 am so they can be searched at the same time too and so as not to hurt any feelings?

Hand wringing nonsense.

Indeed. You mention searches lead on police intelligence - what do you think that means? What’s the minimum information you consider the police necessary to hold to act on and what do you think they should have to ignore eg intelligence in the form of prolific offender data and statistics?

Your either incapable of understanding (I've read your post on here and don't believe that for a second) or are purposely not understanding the several explanations I have given. Disagree by all means, but I'm getting a bit bored typing out the same response every time you ask the same questions in a different way. Unless you have something new to discuss I think I'm out as Ive had more than my say and don't want to derail this thread. 

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Your conflating condition of entry searches where as part of routine security, everyone is liable to search and suspicion led where you are being searched because the police feel you may be carrying something you shouldn't. They totally separate things. 

You're splitting hairs now, what do you think they're looking for at airports/nightclubs etc? 

Search everyone if you think it makes it more fair, but in searching some demographics, it would be a complete waste of time and resources, the police understand this, so don't.

It doesn't make it racist.

[12gauge82]

10 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You're splitting hairs now, what do you think they're looking for at airports/nightclubs etc? 

Search everyone if you think it makes it more fair, but in searching some demographics, it would be a complete waste of time and resources, the police understand this, so don't.

It doesn't make it racist.

I'm not talking about racism. If you allow the police to search without reasonable suspicion, you are granting them powers they've never had before. The ramifications of which would be drastic and open to serious abuse for everyone across the board.

[Rewulf]

8 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm not talking about racism. If you allow the police to search without reasonable suspicion, you are granting them powers they've never had before. The ramifications of which would be drastic and open to serious abuse for everyone across the board.

Come on ! The police have never needed an excuse to search someone if they really want to, or demand ID with no grounds.

It might not be legal to do so, and they're regularly sued for it, but 'giving them powers' they already believe they have ?

[12gauge82]

10 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Come on ! The police have never needed an excuse to search someone if they really want to, or demand ID with no grounds.

It might not be legal to do so, and they're regularly sued for it, but 'giving them powers' they already believe they have ?

Again incorrect. Take ID, if they demand I'd for no reason and you refuse, the only option they have to get it is arrest you. If they do that without good reason, I would think a custody Sgt would kick it out and you could claim damages from them. 

[Rewulf]

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

Again incorrect. Take ID, if they demand I'd for no reason and you refuse, the only option they have to get it is arrest you. If they do that without good reason, I would think a custody Sgt would kick it out and you could claim damages from them. 

Happens allt the time.

They use powers of detainment, while they investigate, then lie by telling you you must ID , completed unlawful, and easily challenged if you know your rights, many people don't, and the police get away with it.

You can be searched randomly under sec 1 of PACE , they just need a petty excuse, 'I believe I can smell drugs sir' ect. 

As I said , you're worried about giving them powers they already think they have.

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Your conflating condition of entry searches where as part of routine security, everyone is liable to search and suspicion led where you are being searched because the police feel you may be carrying something you shouldn't. They totally separate things. 

Your either incapable of understanding (I've read your post on here and don't believe that for a second) or are purposely not understanding the several explanations I have given. Disagree by all means, but I'm getting a bit bored typing out the same response every time you ask the same questions in a different way. Unless you have something new to discuss I think I'm out as Ive had more than my say and don't want to derail this thread. 

I applaud your persistence, I gave up days ago.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I gave up days ago

Probably because you know the argument isn't valid.

The police already have powers to stop and search, they don't really need a reason, and if challenged, they can make one up.

Targeted searches are the issue here, but they already do that too, searching someone's 80 year old granny is highly unlikely to produce a 2 ft long machete or a large bag of crack.

I think the main problem you have is that the target search criteria you imagine is young black men ? But it's highly unlikely that would be the case anyway, and would trigger discrimination laws, its also highly unlikely the police would agree to such actions.

So with no other solutions offered, we just have to accept that stabbings will continue in London on a daily basis, predominantly among young black males, and we can look forward to next year's Notting Hill StabFest 25.

[Mungler]

56 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Again incorrect. Take ID, if they demand I'd for no reason and you refuse, the only option they have to get it is arrest you. If they do that without good reason, I would think a custody Sgt would kick it out and you could claim damages from them. 

Wrong. Ask a policeman.

They ask for your ID and the person refuses then there’s a myriad of options to take it further to the end result required.

’I asked for your ID and you then swore at me, that’s threatening behaviour / likely to cause a breach of the peace’. ‘We’re looking for someone matching your description’.

Do you really think the average copper wants to push the envelope and expose themselves to any criticism if they didn’t think it worthwhile? 

I again argue that statistical evidence and information should not be ignored. If the stats are non white, male, 16-30 in a particular post code are more likely than not to be carrying, then why not follow up on that intelligence with targeted searches of that demographic?

I see we’ve moved from upsetting complex and cultural issues now to police state. 

Just out of interest, where are you on mandatory ID cards like our enlightened European friends? That would take out all of the argument here if people had to identify themselves with their state ID card.

Who knew that at least 12 countries in the euro zone were ‘police states’?

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Probably because you know the argument isn't valid.

The police already have powers to stop and search, they don't really need a reason, and if challenged, they can make one up.

Targeted searches are the issue here, but they already do that too, searching someone's 80 year old granny is highly unlikely to produce a 2 ft long machete or a large bag of crack.

I think the main problem you have is that the target search criteria you imagine is young black men ? But it's highly unlikely that would be the case anyway, and would trigger discrimination laws, its also highly unlikely the police would agree to such actions.

So with no other solutions offered, we just have to accept that stabbings will continue in London on a daily basis, predominantly among young black males, and we can look forward to next year's Notting Hill StabFest 25.

This.

And 10th time of asking - what’s the plan then? What we have isn’t working.

When do we accept that a few eggs may need to get broken to make that omelet?

[Gordon R]

Quote

TV licensing could get warrants issued for a search of every home that doesn't have a TV licence

12gauge82 - as you are a bit of a stickler for detail, just explain how TV Licensing could get the warrant. What magistrate is going to authorise one? I expect your answer will not be straightforward.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Happens allt the time.

They use powers of detainment, while they investigate, then lie by telling you you must ID , completed unlawful, and easily challenged if you know your rights, many people don't, and the police get away with it.

You can be searched randomly under sec 1 of PACE , they just need a petty excuse, 'I believe I can smell drugs sir' ect. 

As I said , you're worried about giving them powers they already think they have.

Again incorrect. Believe it or not, the smell of drugs alone is not enough to arrest or search someone. It could form part of a wider picture though. 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Probably because you know the argument isn't valid.

The police already have powers to stop and search, they don't really need a reason, and if challenged, they can make one up.

Targeted searches are the issue here, but they already do that too, searching someone's 80 year old granny is highly unlikely to produce a 2 ft long machete or a large bag of crack.

I think the main problem you have is that the target search criteria you imagine is young black men ? But it's highly unlikely that would be the case anyway, and would trigger discrimination laws, its also highly unlikely the police would agree to such actions.

So with no other solutions offered, we just have to accept that stabbings will continue in London on a daily basis, predominantly among young black males, and we can look forward to next year's Notting Hill StabFest 25.

More nonsense. 

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Wrong. Ask a policeman.

They ask for your ID and the person refuses then there’s a myriad of options to take it further to the end result required.

’I asked for your ID and you then swore at me, that’s threatening behaviour / likely to cause a breach of the peace’. ‘We’re looking for someone matching your description’.

Do you really think the average copper wants to push the envelope and expose themselves to any criticism if they didn’t think it worthwhile? 

I again argue that statistical evidence and information should not be ignored. If the stats are non white, male, 16-30 in a particular post code are more likely than not to be carrying, then why not follow up on that intelligence with targeted searches of that demographic?

I see we’ve moved from upsetting complex and cultural issues now to police state. 

Just out of interest, where are you on mandatory ID cards like our enlightened European friends? That would take out all of the argument here if people had to identify themselves with their state ID card.

Who knew that at least 12 countries in the euro zone were ‘police states’?

This.

And 10th time of asking - what’s the plan then? What we have isn’t working.

When do we accept that a few eggs may need to get broken to make that omelet?

More nonsense. So your saying if the police want ID or to search someone, there's no point them having rules as they can just breach the law and make something up 😂. That's a pretty weak argument and I think shows up the point your trying to make. 

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Wrong. Ask a policeman.

They ask for your ID and the person refuses then there’s a myriad of options to take it further to the end result required.

’I asked for your ID and you then swore at me, that’s threatening behaviour / likely to cause a breach of the peace’. ‘We’re looking for someone matching your description’.

Do you really think the average copper wants to push the envelope and expose themselves to any criticism if they didn’t think it worthwhile? 

I again argue that statistical evidence and information should not be ignored. If the stats are non white, male, 16-30 in a particular post code are more likely than not to be carrying, then why not follow up on that intelligence with targeted searches of that demographic?

I see we’ve moved from upsetting complex and cultural issues now to police state. 

Just out of interest, where are you on mandatory ID cards like our enlightened European friends? That would take out all of the argument here if people had to identify themselves with their state ID card.

Who knew that at least 12 countries in the euro zone were ‘police states’?

This.

And 10th time of asking - what’s the plan then? What we have isn’t working.

When do we accept that a few eggs may need to get broken to make that omelet?

The plan isn't for me to decide. What I do know is that we shouldn't chuck the principles law and order have been built off for years simply because it would be convenient to tackle a specific crime problem. 

[12gauge82]

41 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

12gauge82 - as you are a bit of a stickler for detail, just explain how TV Licensing could get the warrant. What magistrate is going to authorise one? I expect your answer will not be straightforward.

The answer at the moment is thankfully they couldn't, because you need something more than circumstancle evidence to authorise an intrusion into someones personal life, like restricting their movement, or searching them and their property. 

It's not me arguing to remove all that, it's Mungler and Rewulf. 

[Rewulf]

34 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Again incorrect. Believe it or not, the smell of drugs alone is not enough to arrest or search someone. It could form part of a wider picture though. 

I think youre missing my point, although policing guidelines say its not a good enough reason on its own, that doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/stop-and-search-based-smell-cannabis

Just like not having to ID unless youre arrested, this is abused ALL the time, the police will always try to find out who you are, even to the point of threatening arrest if you dont, its completely unlawful, but it happens.

The police state you fear is here now, with police abusing powers on a regular basis.
Young black males ARE randomly searched for weapons and drugs, as are white and Asian.

The stats speak for themselves, are these 'targeted' searches, or intelligence lead ?

Summary of Stop and search By ethnicity Summary there were 24.5 stop and searches for every 1,000 black people, and 5.9 for every 1,000 white people. there were 9.9 stop and searches for every 1,000 people with mixed ethnicity, and 8.5 for every 1,000 Asian people.3 Jul 2024

 

Stop and search - Ethnicity facts and figures - GOV.UK

[12gauge82]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I think youre missing my point, although policing guidelines say its not a good enough reason on its own, that doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/stop-and-search-based-smell-cannabis

Just like not having to ID unless youre arrested, this is abused ALL the time, the police will always try to find out who you are, even to the point of threatening arrest if you dont, its completely unlawful, but it happens.

The police state you fear is here now, with police abusing powers on a regular basis.
Young black males ARE randomly searched for weapons and drugs, as are white and Asian.

The stats speak for themselves, are these 'targeted' searches, or intelligence lead ?

Summary of Stop and search By ethnicity Summary there were 24.5 stop and searches for every 1,000 black people, and 5.9 for every 1,000 white people. there were 9.9 stop and searches for every 1,000 people with mixed ethnicity, and 8.5 for every 1,000 Asian people.3 Jul 2024

 

Stop and search - Ethnicity facts and figures - GOV.UK

I totally agree there are already instances of police making it up as they go along. Off the top of my head, firearms licensing, non crime hate incidents, 2 tier policing and aparant political interference. But all that is currently not legal and there are many cases of the police being taken to book for it, although not nearly as many as I'd like to see. I don't see how that situation would be helped by making it lawful for the police to have carte blanc to stop and search anyone they want without a shred of evidence. 

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

John Dalberg-Acton. 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't see how that situation would be helped by making it lawful for the police to have carte blanc to stop and search anyone they want without a shred of evidence. 

Of course they can already ?
The idea of stop and search is to find that evidence !
The 'reason' is the key, and they use suspicion and 'intelligence' You can be stopped and searched if the officer believes you are acting suspiciously, OR someone reports you acting as such.

An example of such could be, you see a man outside your house at 3 am, dark clothing, looking round your car, you call the cops, and if they actually turn up, they will likely ask the person to account for themselves, unless he has a good reason , he will be searched under PACE for equipment for possible use in a crime.
Hes reached all the criteria necessary for a perfectly legal search.

[12gauge82]

Just now, Rewulf said:

Of course they can already ?
The idea of stop and search is to find that evidence !
The 'reason' is the key, and they use suspicion and 'intelligence' You can be stopped and searched if the officer believes you are acting suspiciously, OR someone reports you acting as such.

An example of such could be, you see a man outside your house at 3 am, dark clothing, looking round your car, you call the cops, and if they actually turn up, they will likely ask the person to account for themselves, unless he has a good reason , he will be searched under PACE for equipment for possible use in a crime.
Hes reached all the criteria necessary for a perfectly legal search.

I think I've explained that one enough and highlighted several areas you've been factually wrong about. Don't think it'd add much to do it again. 

[Rewulf]

15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't see how that situation would be helped by making it lawful for the police to have carte blanc to stop and search anyone they want without a shred of evidence. 

Is that not factually wrong then ?