Dog Charlie Fox
December 29, 2007 by inspectorgadget
The British Police would like to say ’sorry’ for searching large numbers of people at an Airport for terrorist Bombs. Under the wrong legislation you see. Dash it, when a suicidal, child murdering extremist wishes to smuggle a bomb into an airport, why can’t he do so when the correct legislation is in place!
Honestly, anyone would think the modern terrorist has simply no respect for the law.
Question; if your life had been saved by Sussex Police in this way, would you care? How did we get to the point where protecting our borders from insane killers now requires an apology?
“Sorry old boy; I’m just trying to save your life”
Somehow, I can’t imagine the following conversation:
Somewhere in England - September 1940
Air Vice Marshall Hugh Dowding:
What a great turning point in the Battle of Britain Prime Minister!
Winston Churchill:
Hows that Hugh?
Air Vice Marshall Hugh Dowding:
By God Sir, our fighters shot down thirty German bombers over London!
Winston Churchill:
Yes, but do we have the correct legislation in place?
RAF Spitfire pilots. Not famous for apologising.
I wonder if the correct emergency powers were in place in Rawalpindi on Thursday?
Sums up modern Policing!! we are a nation of people apologising for one thing or another.
Sorry.
’s funny, I thought the whole idea was that no-one was above the law. If the law says you need to have permission, then either change the law or get permission.
Er, what’s the issue here? We have a law (section 44) that gives the police certain search powers provided that certain administrative safeguards are followed. They accidentally weren’t so the force in question apologised for doing so.
There’s no “wrong legislation” or any similar issue. Some twerp forgot to inform the Home Secretary (as required to do so by law) that Section 44 had been authorized, so 239 searches were conducted unlawfully as a consequence.
What do you think should have happened? No apology because “it’s namby-pamby and anyway, we only broke the law”? Or perhaps 239 assault charges should have been brought against the officers who (unbeknowingly) conducted unlawful searches?
Ian - no, you are absolutely correct. We are sorry for looking for bombs. It’s against the law to look for bombs. Sorry.
I would ask why the legislation states we have to inform the Home Secretary, just seems like an unecessary extra hurdle that has no purpose. The Home Secretary knows nothing about policing, in fact she knows nothing about anything, perhaps she should stick to smoking cannabis (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/ncannabis519.xml) and leave, searching, policing and security to the, er, police!!
As for your comments Ian, yes, stuff ‘Mamby Pamby’ its about time we got away from all this woolly government led nonsense and we had ‘laws’ that did not need authorisation at every turn from some non descript political drone.
Of course we need authorisation for everything because the government and several vociferous and articulate sections of the population stopped trusting us to excercise discretionary powers some decades ago.
Thus we have CPS in charge of authorising charges and we now have to be accountable to somebody for everything and keep written records of when we speak to folks. I think we probably stopped policing by consent sometime in the 70’s and payback is a bitch. (Sins of the fathers etc etc) Thems the breaks. Won’t change. Suck it up and get on finding ways to still be effective I say.
How do you keep track of how many people are searched? do you have to fill in form/s for each one?
Or do you use tally marks? as in a ‘five bar gate’, that would seem wholly appropriate for Ruralshire; incidentally the burning of discarded tally sticks resulted in the accidental Burning of Parliament in London in 1834, now theres a thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_marks
I find it scary that McNumpty can pass comment on anything police related…. what an incompetant ****!
I love the snow Guv but has it passed the right legislation?..xx
Gadget
Congratulations on your blog - been reading all year and have just sorted out my e-mail at home
Very slack by Sussex - Perhaps it should have been hand delivered ?? They could have blamed govt -
SOC
If I forget to get a certain piece of paper (road tax disc) I get into trouble. Running a small fleet of 6 vehicles as well as the rest of the business meant that last year I forgot to renew a SORN for a van that was in mothballs (and in the garage under my mother’s flat). Result… I get to pay a penalty fee.
Sussex Police, with all their thousands of administration staff forget to get a far more important piece of paper. Result… nothing happens.
Is there one law for us, and a different law for them? Obviously so. Heads ought to roll… but I guess that they won’t even get a sarcastic email.
I have plenty of respect for individual police officers, who do a difficult, dangerous and thankless job for ever-reducing money.
The idiots and promotion seekers at headquarters, however, have my contempt.
Up here in Scotland, our colleagues at BTP have been using Section 44 to conduct searches at the main railway stations. The reaction of our Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, was not to congratulate the force for the fact they had prevented a terrorist attack, but to criticise them for carrying out the searches! Anyone know of a remote island which we could inhabit with politicians and terrorists, so we could get on with our lives in peace?
I would not condone the wrong use of legislation but at the same time if Sussex had done nothing and a bomb had been activated they ,Sussex, would have been criticised by the press.
That is the fun of being a copper in New Labour’s new Britain, we are damned it we do and damned it we don’t.
Ian, would you prefer that Sussex police apologise to 239 family members that they had died as the result of bureaucracy????. Or that Sussex police are taken to Court for breaching 239 peoples rights to life under the human right legislation as the y were more concerned for bureaucracy.
Its people like you sitting in your ivory tower with your head up your a*** that make me despair.
“suicidal, psychotic child murdering extremist ”
Yet again IG I am disapointed to read that you seem to think all people who are psychotic are “child murders” This is just bang out of order, its like saying all police are small minded bigots who did not have the grades to get in to uni, I do not suscribe to that train on thought but do stop tarring people with the same brush.
There are those of us out here who suffer from psychosis and are reasonable people, who are not suicidal, child murderers and have no intentions of blowing ourselfs or anyone else up!
Fair play - I will edit it out.
Thank you
Gadget, sorry I’m with Ian on this, they are not apologizing for protecting the public. They are apologizing because some of the people who sit in Sussex Police HQ and do nothing but send bits of paper around didn’t send the right bits to the right place. You’re not backward in complaining about the amount of resource which isn’t used for front line work, and when these guys louse up they should say sorry. Not least to the officers who broke the law as a consequence.
If someone at Gatwick saw what the right thing to do was, realized it was easier to get forgiveness than permission and did the right thing anyway, I’m not going to lose any sleep over that.
But I don’t want to live a country where the police are above the law and thankfully it seems I don’t.
Psychopathic might have been a better word – “a person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behaviour without empathy or remorse”
A Psychotic person on the other hand is a person with “a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality.”
Similar words, different meanings. Easy mistake
Funny old thing, isn’t it? To be honest, I think I both agree and disagree with you on this one Gadget.
Firstly, well done to all the police keeping us safe. That’s the main thing and none of the legal wrangling alters that at all. I don’t think anyone involved would want to take anything away from you guys on the frontline.
That said, as a democracy we all must follow the letter of the law - if we get sloppy do we also have to give the public leaway on following the law? I know it is a transgression only in name and certainly not spirit, but these things have a way of spiralling. If we allow one body to make a tiny derrogation from the law, then another one wants a slightly bigger one and you can end up undermining things. Sounds unlikely, but trust me (even if I am a legal academic by trade!) there are many examples and that is why our constitution is so strung up about the rule of law!
‘Deep down in places you won’t discuss at parties, you want us on that wall, you NEED us on that wall’
All very interesting but, was Bloggsy fit or what?
We have a right to know.
Gadget’s Street-Policing Rule Of Thumb:
Nothing to Hide = Don’t Mind Being Searched
Unlikely that 239 assault charges could be brought, Ian, given that the officers carrying out the physical searches were acting in good faith and lacked, therefore, any criminal intent, essential in proving that crime.
Anyway, I smell a rat. These administrative cock-ups happen in all public services from time to time and they’re no big deal in the great scheme of things but how often do the BBC pick up on them? Home office black propaganda trying to sway public sympathy in the pay dispute I think. Expect more of the same in the coming weeks.
“Home office black propaganda” why do you assume that the Home office officials doing this are black? is this another example of the blind leading the blind? Gadget, Sir, you should not allow such racism on this journal I insist.
Bloody hell boss, you are going to start all those bloody amnesty international , bleeding heart, human rights idiots off in a minute.
The problem seems to be the bits of paper that the Home Secretary desires. Delete that section from the law. Empower police to search as deemed appropriate by police for security reasons. Have disgruntled citizens who wish to complain send their bits of paper to the Home secretary. That way Jacqui gets her bits of paper, the disgruntled citizen gets to interact with the Home Secretary and everyone is safe and happy.
‘Twinning’ - you’re such a bore with the racism crap all the time.
In this job, you just cannot win.
As someone said, you damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
How often does this happen wonder ? Probably happens freqently but McNumpty has chosen now to bring this subject up.
I am at the point of giving up entirely.
Two things. Firstly it seems to me that most of the problems with anti-terrorism activity is that it is politically incorrect to know, and understand, AND SAY, who the enemy really is. It took about six years to bring about a decisive end to a very nasty regime in 1939-45. This time round we’ve been at it even longer, and we still haven’t even worked out (officially anyway) who the enemy really is. We are still having wars against nouns.
Secondly, I must protest strongly against the view that the police should be able to break the law with impunity. If its too complicated for the police (who are specialists in the field) to understand and abide by, how the hell do you expect the rest of us to know how to avoid breaking the law? If its too complicated then get the government to change the law so that it can be understood. Get them to earn their corn for a change.
Oh now, so there is an impersonator?
To the Nosmo chappie, have a look at Blogg’s, she talks about positive discrimination in relation to females. You might learn something there.
I don’t come here for bigot like abuse I am afraid. I know what answer I will no doubt get, but ask yourself why there is an impersonator.
Another Ian - we DO give the public leeway in following the law. Otherwise we’d never get anything done.
As for the main topic: when has a stop and search resulted in a bomb/terrorist being found? And as for if you have nothing to hide not minding being search, actually I would find it very inconvenient and time-consuming.
That said, we have to have the powers there for when we do have real intelligence on an attack, and I think most members of public would support that. This is all about the piece of paper, which in all probability shouldn’t be required in the first place. Just because it’s terrorism-related doesn’t mean the Home Secretary should suddenly be in charge of decisions made down on the ground.
Twining,
Rise above it. Personally I thought your comment was tongue in cheek. You cannot be that serious!
IG,
As for you rule of thumb, let’s get back to basics and not be blinded by bits of new legislation.
No.1 Role of Cop - protect life and property.
No.2 Role of Cop - prevent crimes.
No.3 Role of Cop - detect crimes.
Powers - Defined by Common Law and Statute.
If someone didn’t want to be routinely and consensually stopped/searched at an Airport, I think, in today’s climate, you might just consider that person to be 1. a swampy with too much anarchy on their mind and not worth worrying about or a 2. genuine risk to MOPS and thus arrestable (now you can search). Why the need for a piece of daft legislation? Try flying El Al and telling them they cannot search you or your luggage!
There is a ways and means act out there, which is not abuse of power, but the application of common sense for the good of all. The bleeding hearts will be just that if things continue as they are and we end up being not one, but two steps behind the criminals and terrorists.
But, it has to be said that this is another own goal for the Police.
UHDD,
Oh, but of course there’s a bleedin’ form for all stop/searches, not just this bit of legislation.
Check this video out for something similar.
I thought that the “black” in “home office black propogander” thing was refering to “covert”. I think that it says more about the people who instinctively thought it was a racist slur than the author of the comment.
for people wanting to be police officers: http://www.howtodothings.com/careers/how-to-become-a-police-officer
I don’t think that law abiding MOP’s who want to be safe from the actions of islamo-nutters or any other nutters, care about being searched in places like airports and at public events.
They will more likely be confused as to why police have to apply for or have ceretain powers authorised for a specific time. If there is a war on terror then get on with it is the majority (seldom heard) reaction.
Make all such places ‘designated’ for the purposes of the POTA. Make it a a condition of entry to any events likely to attract the attentions of a fanatical self immolating murdering scumbag.
The only people kicking up a fuss will be ‘civil and human rights lawyers’ or people from certain organisations or groups who don’t seem to represent us in the ’seldom heard’ community. A nice little earner these days.
Why ‘Stop and Search’ is such an emotive subject today is beyond me, after all most forces had some version of it from way back, whether the CoLP and MP Acts, or the Town Police CLauses Act (I think).
Most people understand why such a power is necessary. The hand wringing, banging on about rights etc whenever this subject is mentioned seems to come from those communities (or rather those jumping on a nice little earner band wagon and claiming to represent them) culturally disposed to certain kinds of crime and other activities.
At the risk of upsetting the ever sensitive Mr Twining, most people couldn’t give a fig about the rights of such people and would like to be able to go about their business without the risk of being robbed, viciously assaulted, sexually assaulted and even possibly murdered by some gun toting wannabee gangsta, or killed because they have been caught up in the cross fire.
And when we read about such shootings, we wonder why these idiots aren’t locked up for a very long time - well those that survive that is.
Isn’t it amazing that so many seem to survive at an exorbitant cost to the tax payer (NHS, legal aid, prison etc) when they get a bullet in the noggin? Too many Tarantino films I think.
As for apologizing, most people now think those running the police are possibly the cause of so many of todays problems, hand in hand with the social engineers in the law and the political class.
So let’s just get on with stopping and searching those that require a firm hand, yes target those that that fit the profile. Blimey, those queues would go down in airports wouldn’t they?
Inspector Gadget
While I think that this particular matter has been rather blown out of proportion, (probably to try and take some pressure off the government’s own incompetencies) and while I fully support sensible action to preserve life and property and to prevent and detect crime (even if the wrong legislation is being used) I disagree with your “rule of thumb” about searching, expressed above.
Even if one has nothing to hide, there are quite legitimate reasons for not wanting to be searched: a search is inconvenient, it is an invasion of privacy, and being searched tends to be quite humiliating, no matter how cooperative one is.
For example, there always seems to be the “amusing” policeman who goes through your wallet and phone book and passes “humorous” comments about the (totally lawful) contents thereof.
A more appropriate rule of thumb for you to use might be “am I treating this person in the way in which I would wish to be treated, in the same circumstances.”
In this context, it does seem that an increasingly significant number of officers see themselves as members of a Force set up to protect the government from the people, and not enough see themselves as members of a Constabulary existing to protect the public.
And the former seem to be in the ascendant, alas.
But never mind.
Happy New Year!
Michael
I only have one thing to say . . . Gadge, please turn off the b#@*%y snow!!!!!!!!
Oh come on XTP - if you leave my page up for long enough, the snow piles up in a kind of snow drift - you know it makes sense!
BTW it seems the first Twining comment is a fake.
NEXT POST - MORE ABOUT PC ELLIE BLOGGS!
Noddy, thank you, I respect your views and appreciate them. Rising above abuse sometimes isn’t easy, but we keep having to do it. Inspector G, thank you for clarifying that the first comment was not me. That makes a difference. Ranter, I am not against stopping those that commit crime. Over sensitive, no, not at all, just won’t take any academic shit from people that don’t experience the problem and frustrate our real police activity by undermining diversity.
As usual you conveniently miss the point. Ranter you talk about murdering scumbag, well those idiots that are allowed to freely practice racism mentally and emotionally hurt their victims over time. Is that not also a scumbag?
It would be nice to know what idiot is impersonating. They haven’t come up with anything imaginative and this gives people the free right to undermine us. Of course you can listen to the likes of Jarrett and others in the NBPA who really don’t talk about these things and when things go wrong blame the NBPA. That’s just typical. At least when talk about the NBPA I have experiences.
If you want to deal with terrorism you need intelligence in both forms, and you need to understand why British kids are getting involved in terrorists. If you want tot leave this to the stops, it will be too damn late. Of course, Tony Blair, when he made a comment about laying the groundwork in the Middle East for “Condie” never happened, it was just caught on camera.
There are problems within Islam and within Christianity. Aren’t these two the major driving forces behind terrorism? Stopping everyone, well, that may just pee people off, good people and the marginalised kids will react in a dark alley. Who will suffer then? It will be the operational bobby that has been misled. Thank goodness for good bloggers like Noddy, Roses, Annette, ASNT, Responseplod, metcountymounty, Southwest, Gaz, 200 weeks, Big fella, Frankyfact, UNPC, Sergheant Simon. If you think we will get change
from leaders like Ian Blair forget it. We only deal with his staff officer!
Sir, can you delete the last and leave this. There were typos. Thanks. Noddy, thank you, I respect your views and appreciate them. Rising above abuse sometimes isn’t easy, but we keep having to do it. Inspector G, thank you for clarifying that the first comment was not I. That makes a difference.
Ranter, I am not against stopping those that commit crime. Over sensitive, no, not at all, just won’t take any academic shit from people that don’t experience the problem and frustrate our real police activity by undermining diversity. As usual you conveniently miss the point.
It would be nice to know what idiot is impersonating. They haven’t come up with anything imaginative and this gives people the free right to undermine us.
Of course you can listen to the likes of Jarrett and others in the NBPA who really don’t talk about these things and when things go wrong we can blame the NBPA. Why don’t they talk, because they may not understand and like Bloggs says we have people in power that have been pushed because of positive discrimination that has failed. None of this helps those that are victims. That’s just typical. At least when I talk about the NBPA, I have real experiences.
If you want to deal with terrorism you need intelligence in both forms, and you need to understand why British Muslim kids are getting involved in terrorism. If you want to leave this to stops, it will be too damn late. Of course, Tony Blair, we know that when he made a comment about laying the groundwork in the Middle East for “Condie”, this never happened, Blair never said anything patronising.
There are problems within Islam and within Christianity. Aren’t these two the major driving forces behind terrorism? Stopping everyone, well, that may just pee people off, good people and the marginalised kids will react in a dark alley. Who will suffer then? It will be the operational bobby that has been misled.
Thank goodness for good bloggers like Noddy, Roses, Annette, ASNT, Responseplod, metcountymounty, Southwest, Gaz, 200 weeks, Big fella, Frankyfact, UNPC, Sergheant Simon. If you think we will get change from leaders like Ian Blair forget it. We only deal with his staff officer!
> Gadget’s Street-Policing Rule Of Thumb:
> Nothing to Hide = Don’t Mind Being Searched
That doesn’t bear up to logic.
Something to hide implies do mind being searched.
Mind being searched does not imply something to hide.
Michael’s right.
EVERY search is an invasion of privacy. Sometimes that invasion is justified, but it’s why you have to get warrants etc.
Don’t countries divide into two “Democracies” where the government is answerable to the people and the police can only do what people allow them to do - and “Dictatorships” where neither government nor Police are answerable.
Maybe we should just risk being blown up then!! after all we don’t want to inconvenience anyone do we, or invade their privacy etc. What is the lesser evil?
If you visit a large tourist attraction in the states everyone is searched and no-one minds.
Like I said it’s better than being blown into 100s of bits.
I am very sorry IG, but you are completely wrong on this one. One of the duties of the police is to uphold the law. This is essential for the rule of law and therefore our way of life to continue. The police cannot act with impunity, while I agree that this was purely an administrative mistake, a mistake it was and therefore should be put right and if necessary apologized for. If you want to see what happens when state authority is not held to account, try visiting China, a very pleasant place to go on holiday, with lots to see, but as a westerner you will often have a “guide” and the people are not free to even discus politics or some aspect of history.
The people that you seek to protect the public from are intent on destroying out way of life, it is not the job of the police to aid them by acting outside their lawfully designated powers, even in the name of security. Also the old line “if you have nothing to hide ect,” how many of them missed a plane or where delayed due to the ultra vires searches. While I have nothing to hide I find it intrusive to be searched in an airport, especially as carefully packed bags and valuable and fragile equipment must be unpacked and displayed. I also find it offensive that at Heathrow elderly woman in the company of their extended family are forced to bend down and take of their shoes and then shuffle through security, while displaying pills in a plastic bag and having to obey any other arbitrary rule, with no evidence that this increases security. And finally who many of the searches found anything?
Micheal I kind of agree… searching shouldn’t be taken lightly. But theres not “Always” that amusing PC. Thats just an unprofessional tit who gives us a bad name. Most officers with common sense and an aptitude for the job will work out in the first 10 to 15 seconds how far the search is going to go! Theres always the occasions when this isn’t the case and they may get it wrong, but generally, in my expierience, you can quickly gauge the level of invilvement your about to have with a person you stop!
IG. Lets not forget we CAN use Sec 44 anywhere, anytime IF we believe we have grounds! - To anyone not of the cloth The Blanket authority provided by Home office, (or in the case of the met usually a DAC) is granted so that these searches can be conducted WITHOUT GROUNDS during times of heightened security. To that end IAN is right, its poor Admin by Sussex. That said, of the 239 people stopped, most would have been glad of the few minutes reassurance that the police were doing their bit to save lives.
Why on gods earth Sussex Police should be apologising is beyond me. I think whoever was responsible for updating their Legislation should be writing the letters, and then a few internal email apologies for all those officers he dropped in the cack!
Noddy - Simply Brilliant!
Joseph K
Searches are not just to ‘find’ something - they are a disruption tactic.
Generally
Personally, I don’t care what ANYONE says - if you have nothing to hide you don’t mind being searched. Otherwise you are just being precious!
Also
It’s great that we are all back in debating mode!
Twining, the only people killing ‘black’ (i.e. non-white) people in large numbers in this country are other ‘black’ (non-white) people.
Every now and then a deranged member of the BNP or someone with a collection of nazi memorabilia might be involved, but generally it is ‘black on black’, why I believe it is so serious the Met police have a special unit concentrating on…wait for it…’Black on Black’ crime.
In robbery hotspots I believe this alleged disproprtionality is the same, black people robbing other black people.
Racism is not nice at all and generally very vocal racists are scumbags who dislike anything or anyone different from themselves, so they hate foreigners, the elderly, people with obvious physical deformities, people who do well at school etc.
But the only section of the community that objects to being searched and why all the fuss still exists is the ‘black’ community, and it seems they are the ones doing all the robbing, shooting and some are even sympathetic to islamo nutters and other murdering scumbags. Bring in some common sense profiling about the whole thing, oh no, don’t, it’ll all kick off again! Mines a 54″ Samsung Plasma!
I have nothing to hide and don’t mind being searched going in to a football match or other similar event, so i don’t mind being searched at an airport, common sense dictates that it really is the sensible thing to do.
What I find hard to deal with is the scorn poured upon the ‘human rights idiots’ - can anyone tell what is so wrong with Amnesty International, I’ve always felt that they performed a useful and humane purpose, if persuaded otherwise I’ll stop donating money to them…
Also, I think it’s a good rule of thumb that if the police on the law and order side believe they are being held back by ‘wishy washy lefties’ and people on the (unaffiliated) liberal side like myself feel we are being dragged off into a dark Orwellian future, then we’re probably in the middle somewhere, which is exactly where we should be, no?
Actually, could at least someone in ‘the know’ hint darkly that these searches have had some success and that will be some serious prosecutions brought soon? Then I’ll concede that they have some use and the manpower shouldn’t be better used doing something more about, oh I don’t know, the youths that seem to be dying in the streets of my neighbourhood…
(btw, I don’t mean that last point to be facetious - it’s just that sometimes I feel that when it comes to The War In Terrorism it’s a lot more about politics than protection, but then again, maybe that’s something I saw on the telly - The Power Of Nightmares etc)
My dear Mr Gadget:
The point is, that we all have things to hide;
that is, we all have things that we consider to be private,
and not for public display.
The searches we are discussing are not particularly nice,
and Totally Un-PC’s approach, as declared above, is rather preferable to yours,
especially as you now admit (and I really do agree)
that searches are largely a disruption tactic.
What would be your attitude, I wonder, were you to come home
to find that one of your own children
had been subjected to a humiliating street search?
No, it would not be an acceptable option to use your current position to have the officer concerned “spoken to” (nor would it have been proper for your child to have attempted to avoid a search by saying “Do you know who my father is?”
Think of it in those terms, and maybe you will see why the “rule” I propose is better than your rather aggressive one.
And yes, I do have the policing experience to back it up.
Michael
P.S. Besides NI, were you ever in the Trucial States?
Michael
Who says I don’t have a son, and he hasn’t been searched?
I’d tell him to comply, keep his mouth shut unless spoken to and get an easy pass on the ‘attitude test’. Knowing him, he wouldn’t have a problem with this either.
I’m not ‘admitting’ that searches are tactical, I’ve always said it.
Stop being precious and turn your pockets out! And if we all have private thingys or whatever, we don’t all carry them on the street yes?
Steve57
‘What I find hard to deal with is the scorn poured upon the ‘human rights idiots’
Visit a Magistrates Court any day of the week, see the victims, then watch the criminals walk away with a smirk and you will find it easy.
I find it somewhat disturbing that you seem to advocate bypassing acts of Parliament when they don’t suit. These are safeguards not only to protect the public but to prevent abuse by the police and government. The alternative is to descend into a”police state”
Oh, I don’t doubt for a second that a system intended to help the weak is being exploited by these scumbags, it’s always the case, that’s the nature of these people, it stinks and it needs fixing. But it’s a shame when the phrase ‘human rights’ is now used as a slur…
And as for the search business, I’m certainly against being stopped at random with no cause for it - don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t object or cause a fuss (I know the ‘attitude test’
your job certainly doesn’t need any more idiots to deal with. But if I was stopped in an illegal search, I’d appreciate an apology, since when did apologizing become a bad thing?
(heh heh and I am fully aware that if I spent a day in your boots I’d probably change my tune pretty sharpish, but as you said - it’s good that we’re debating!)
Keeping slaves was by act of parliament, as was burning witches, hanging children, etc etc
bypassing acts of parliament when they don’t suit - you mean like, say, bypassing pay arbitration when it doesn’t suit?
or getting rail tickets for your mistress on Government funds?
or having the secretary in a Government office at Admiralty Arch during work time, cash for honours etc etc blah blah
Steve 57 despite what I said earlier about the reason behind stops….
The attitude test plays a large part in any walk of life, it isn’t just policing, its just police are expected to accept people being arseholes without any form of admonishment. If I went into a restaurant and said, “Table for two, now, T*at” I’m sure I’d be refused service. Or if I made it to a table and ordered food in a similar fasion it would be unhealthy to eat what came out of the kitchen.
When I walk through someones door, Who incidentally has “called me” to be there because they can’t police their own lives, I don’t think I should accept their incivility, or when I stop someone, with (or even without - however rare) a reason, I too should not accept incivility just because generally, my powers are now known to a larger percent of the population these days or they’ve “seen it on the Bill”. (a large percent of complaints against police, come from people who thought that they had a god given right to verbally dump on a police officer and then found that to be inherently untrue by vurtue of them getting nicked!)
Its also a fact of life that the civility shown in any encounter, whether police related or not, is generally reciprocated… but in policing, a massive % of our regular clientelle doesn’t have a civil bone in its scrawny body, we spend so much time looking to see what career criminals are hiding, that yes sometimes, when a member of society other than that is stopped, it takes a few moments for the suspcious head to switch gears. You might be stopped twice a year if your unlucky. Or twice a day if your a wrong un… but the officer will be doing 10 to 15 stops a day, the vast majority resulting in some form of confrontation.
Your talking about human nature… not human rights!
Or obtaining a dodgy mortgage or assisting someone to obtain a passport. IG we can make to list go on for ever. Or going to prison for lying. Or breaching your weekend prison release to have dinner with friends. Telling parliament that we were 45 minutes from death.
I have grave concerns about this government’s approach to civil rights, the various rights of the citizens of this country were once upheld by a system of checks and balances put in place to prevent tyranny by the government over the people.
This government seems hell bent on overturning the status quo. The silent majority no longer trust the government, the state nor much of its apparatus.
That said, the police don’t go around searching anybody and everybody for fun. They don’t get out of bed and say “Now how many people can I piss off today”!
People are searched because they generally bring themselves to the attention of officers, or they are in the area of a recent event where such action has to be taken. The arguments around Stop and Search are generally spurious and the issue is badly used by civil/human rights lawyers and other vested interests.
The only time I am ever stopped and searched is going to ports or sporting/entertainment events. I once got stopped and my vehicle was searched, as did almost everyone else, near to where a prisoner had escaped.
In todays climate I have no objection to be stopped and searched especially getting on a plane!
I don’t got to demonstrations, I don’t wear a mask in the street, I don’t carry knives or firearms or drugs. I don’t rob people, I don’t get pissed out of my face and assault someone and film it on my mobile phone ‘FOR A LAUGH’, I don’t beat my wife up and i don’t get on a public transport system wearing an explosive ruck-sac, nor do I dream of doing so etc etc.
I do like to see officers being proactive and I don’t understand these ‘civil liberty’ arguments when they are used in such a silly ,adolescent almost, way.
I do object to the state keeping huge amounts of personal data on me (and maybe losing it), I do object to being spied on constantly (and I’m not paranoid), and i just wish the state would butt out, and let the individual decide a little bit more about their own lives.
I also wish the state would stop importing huge numbers of foreign criminals, would throw the lot out, build some new prisons and mental institutions and look after the people of this country that are taxed senseless and pay for the rest of the world to be housed and medically treated.
I hope that’s not too imperialistically colonialist!
Totally Un-PC
Well said - I feel like posting that whole comment on the front page - maybe I will!
Bob
Absolutely
you read my mind Rantasatic one!
Gadget
I didn’t say you had or didn’t have a son,
nor did I say that he had been searched.
(Please do not paraphrase me in such a way as to mislead others.)
And yes, I do have (lawful) precious things that I carry with me
and do not wish to have exposed to public scrutiny,
especially by the kind of twit
whose existence is acknowledged by Totally Un-PC
(who seems to be an eminently sensible individual,
whose “attitude test” I much prefer to your “rule of thumb”).
Godwin’s Law Warning
Sadly, I am minded of that self declared “King of Scotland” Idi Amin
who said: “there is no need to run, unless you are guilty,
and besides, no-one can run faster than a bullet.”
But don’t take it too seriously;
we are debating,
not trading insults.
Michael
Well said Ranter!!
It is true that there is more emphasis on recording who we search, for what reason and ensuring they are given a hand written copy of all of this. Rather that just getting on with doing the job in the first place. Sadly we are now a band of statistic recording pen pushing number crunchers, when we are supposed to be preventing and detecting crime!!
If the politicians would let us do our job instead of writing about it maybe we could be a bit more fruitful!!
pcsouthwest, the Government don’t want us to do our job because the people ,in general, that we deal with have a lot to gain from this Government as the Government does from them.
“Start with what is right rather than what is acceptable.” Franz Kafka
IG, you justify making someone miss a plane with a disruption tactic, I.e. not designed to find anything or based upon a reasonable suspicion! Dear god Dr Bonham might have never existed. As you are no doubt aware law applies to all, we cannot selectively decide what should or should not be obeyed. (I agree with you about the political corruption) Note I said that an apology for inadvertently action ultra vires was not wrong, and that the executive should not be allowed to act unchecked, not that I thought there should be any sanction. In other words all I was saying was that if the police are allowed to break the law with impunity, there is no rule of law and the terrorist have scored another victory.
Do you have any thought on some of the other points I made such as the proven effectiveness of security measures. Or the desirability of living in a totality, that would certainly object to this blog.
And finally for all those who criticize the HRA, fair play if you have actually read it, if not do not relay on the daily mail, the reporting is often inaccurate if not deliberately misleading. Lawyers may often raise HR issues, but often only with other legal arguments, the decision that the courts reach is not always based upon the HR provisions, although always reported as such. (The deportation of the murderer of Philip Lawrence).
PS we do not agree with what is acceptable.“This is a legally constituted state, where the rule of law has long been established” I believe is the quote but as I am writing from memory I may be wrong so apologies in advance for any inadvertent mistake.
Oh and you provide no evidence that Sussex police have saved anyone by their stop and searches. This computer stops me being attacked by bears, despite having no statutory power, applied for or not and notwithstanding that I live in the south of England. But I have a dossier which indicates that it disrupts ursine activity…..
Oh we can easily stop searching people if you like.
Michael, I think the reason police officers get upset is because we make individual decisions over who to stop, why we’re stopping them and which legislative power to use and don’t need over paid, limelight seeking careerists to apologise for us. The issue of legislation being adhered to at a force level seems somewhat irrelevant to the officer on the street who has always used judgement or ‘ways and means’ as earlier mentioned to get hands in pockets.
Out of interest how many times have you been stopped and searched by police? Or is this a purely academic argument? It seems to me that policing is where legislation that has been discussed and amended in the warm, safe offices of politicians and lawyers, hits the real world with a bang and is therefore always going to be a bit like banging a square peg into a round hole.
Personally I’d love it if the public pushed for a review of the PTO so that some fat cat SMT member cannot direct me to simply stand at a location and randomly search people and instead backed me to use my professional judgement (which the SMT seem so keen to remove). But unfortunately all the ‘interest groups’ and hand wringers have got the government, civil servants and police management into such a state that they’re petrified to target anybody incase the media spin it to be discriminatory.
Oh, IG you have lost it on this one. I never said that there should not be a stop and search policy or aircraft security. All I asked for was for you to a) provide evidence that any measures taken will produce a desirable result and b) obey the law.
Normally I find your arguments well reasoned and often justifiable, even if I do no agree with them, on this we must agree to differ or get into a more serious debate on absolute principles. Either that or you are simply trolling to stimulate debate, and therefore just call me a sucker for a good hook.
IG, I have been reviewing some of the police blogs (DC & Blogs) this evening, please do not put me in the same group as the ignorant, rude, thick police haters who seem to have crawled out from under some godforsaken rock. I am merely disagreeing with you on a philosophical perspective that translates to actual practice, when dealing with MOPs
Plod-er @ 1124pm
Pleae (re)read my post made 2007-12-30 @ 0843.
It is most definitely not stopping and searching that I am against,
nor even searches where “incorrect legislative authority” has been used.
I am a great supporter (and once user) of the “Ways and Means Act”.
What I objected to was IG’s “rule of thumb”
which seemed to me to be rather aggressive.
I had suggested use of “do-as-you-would-be-done-by”
as a more reasonable approach.
But, horses for courses.
Take care.
Michael
Michael
“a philosophical perspective” - how luxurious for you - I’m off to work New Years Eve amoung the underclass - toodle pip!
2007-12-31 @ 1738
Yes, Mr Gadget,
(you are indeed a person with a most philosophical perspective)
I also am “off to work New Year’s Eve among the underclass”.
But I suspect I won’t have as much backup as you have.
My job isn’t so much “rule of thumb” as yours seems to be:
I have to do my job properly and lawfully,
and get out safely,
under my own steam.
Have a good one.
Michael
Mr Joseph K-
“As you are no doubt aware law applies to all, we cannot selectively decide what should or should not be obeyed.”
Meaning no disrespect (and not residing in your Country), but so far as I can tell, “officer discretion” in enforcing the law was part of law enforcement/peace keeping far longer than the mechanistic enforcement of every jot and tittle on the books.
Now, from what I’ve read the last few years about law enforcement in England (Great Britain? UK? Albion? - whatever you call those islands across the English Channel from France) - the concept of officer discretion is not longer being allowed. “Crimes” are being created from incidents where other handling should be allowed (e.g. two small children wrestling for fun being treated as assaults, etc).
Also, legislators find it much easier to make new laws than to repeal old ones, so outdated laws remain on the books virtually forever and only reworded when an egress case makes the news (in my area, California, there is a law that could be read so as to make a crime of the passing of intestinal gas in a church - Cal PC 375 / “officer discretion” keeps it from being enforced that way).
To cut short my rant, there are so many laws on the books (some loosely written) that virtually everyone breaks at least one every day. Officer discretion (backed by “common sense”
usually prevents everyone from being charged with crimes.
Alll this rhetoric makes me think, I wonder what the Colonilaite thought of Gandhi when he walked the walk! I think I know, but no doubt ranter will tell me. I have never heard so much crap.
Colonilaite - was rather cheek in tongue, sorry. I guess some Colonialists were a bit like “Colonilaites.” Or is that tongue in cheek?
Happy New Year Twining.
If I had the faintest idea what you were on about at times I WOULD tell you. That said you do make some good points on your latest blog post re tokenism and the opportunists amongst the BPA. Excellent. But then you don’t need me to tell you! There’s plenty willing to use the race card when it suits and a couple of prime names were mentioned in the comments from others.
As for Gandhi, like Churchill, he was the right man at the right time! How would he get on using his tactics in some of todays mad places I wonder?
[...] respect for Inspector Gadget wavered just a fraction when he appeared to question whether the Police need to follow the law - at least when it comes to searches. His post drew a lot of comments, many saying “of course [...]
Ranter I have no idea about Gandhi at the moment. Yes, he was a great man. I think he would make our Home Secretary squeal!
Ohh argh! There are opportunists in the whole organisation ranter, some are Black, some are white!
Today I was asked my opinion about this issue on the Bent Society blog. I think it is in line to a large extent with many of those who have posted comments here.
It can be found in all its full boringness at http://bentsocietyblog.blogspot.com/
In effect, I think we need to beware the thin end of the wedge because emergencies are always the forerunner of tyrannical emergency powers etc. That said, I’m not opposed to breaching the law when in all reasonableness it is in a genuine emergency to prevent a greater harm.
Given that we can now successfully grow bananas in our back gardens lets be careful we do not turn the UK into a banana republic!