incident this evening at Forest Hill station

bozax · Post by **bozax** » 28 Jan 2009 00:41

You should not be stopped or searched because of:
■ your race, age, sexuality, gender, disability, religion or faith;
■ the way you look or dress, the language you speak; or
■ because you have committed a crime in the past.
this is from btpown web site. now TWB (travelling whilst black) clearly isnt in these provisions. and i 'd say that using a dog to sniff you is still searching
without your consent.
unless its terrorist related (section 44) they still have to have a reason(like they think you are off to have a mass riot or something), not that you havent got a ticket.
interestingly btp say
Unlike other novel detection equipment, such as scanners, consent is not requested before a person is sniffed. According to BTP, this is because the use of a scanner amounts to a search, and a sniff by a dog doesn't. The BTP's reasoning is that a person has to walk though a scanner, whereas they don't have to walk past a dog.
now this is evidently not true as you are funelled by them to pass their dog/s .
there you go another civil liberty plainly ignored bt the boys in blue.(then again BR and BTP clearly are a law unto themselves)
(wait 'till i start on the misuse of the railway companies of their bylaws to enforce a smoking ban on open platforms)

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 28 Jan 2009 09:16

bozax wrote:You should not be stopped or searched because of:
■ your race, age, sexuality, gender, disability, religion or faith;
■ the way you look or dress, the language you speak; or
■ because you have committed a crime in the past.
this is from btpown web site.

absolutely....this is true when any police force use any powers of stop and search.

now TWB (travelling whilst black) clearly isnt in these provisions.

of course it isn't. Are you implying people are stopped and searched because they are black? If you have experienced this then why don't you make a complaint? Or could you provide any evidence that this happens aside from your dubious assertions?

and i 'd say that using a dog to sniff you is still searching
without your consent.

you can say that all you like, but you'd still be wrong. A search actually involves detaining, touching, or moving someone. Caselaw on the issue is, admittedly, sketchy. However, as you are already giving out your smell to all and sundry and you are not detained, interfered with or otherwise inconvenienced by walkinig past a dog then how are you being subjected to a search? Would you consider a police officer looking at you to be a search? If PC blogs saw you with a spliff in your hand would you still think it unreasonable for you to be stopped and searched?

unless its terrorist related (section 44) they still have to have a reason(like they think you are off to have a mass riot or something), not that you havent got a ticket.

No, you are right, you can't be searched for not having a ticket. Stop and search powers require reasonable suspicion. However, if you are arrested for not having a ticket then you may indeed be searched providing s.32 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 apply. Are you alleging that police are searching people for drugs because they have no ticket?

interestingly btp say

Unlike other novel detection equipment, such as scanners, consent is not requested before a person is sniffed. According to BTP, this is because the use of a scanner amounts to a search, and a sniff by a dog doesn't. The BTP's reasoning is that a person has to walk though a scanner, whereas they don't have to walk past a dog.

that is absolutely correct. They do not have the power to make you walk anywhere; this includes forcing you to walk past a dog, through a scanner and so on you are perfectly free to walk wherever you like...but by the same token they are entitled to stand or walk where they like. With a dog if they want to...

now this is evidently not true as you are funelled by them to pass their dog/s .

according to ACPO guilines then funneling people, where they wouldn't have walked that way, or forcing them to use a specific exit where another one exists - wouldn't be appropriate. That said, you are, of course, neglecting to take into account byelaw 9 of the railway byelaws. That effectively give the power for railway staff to funnel you wherever they want. The police are well within their rights to stand at the entrance of a railway station with a dog. They are not interefering with you in any way.

there you go another civil liberty plainly ignored bt the boys in blue.

and what, pray, is being interfered with?

(then again BR and BTP clearly are a law unto themselves)

How so? (not withstanding the fact that BR no longer exist...)

(wait 'till i start on the misuse of the railway companies of their bylaws to enforce a smoking ban on open platforms)

The byelaw relating to smoking on railway premesis is distinct from the more general "smoking ban" contained in the health act 2006....and the law is pretty clear. (paraphrasing, it says that you may not smoke on any part of railway premesis near where a notice is displayed indicating that smoking is not permitted - byelaw 3)

So how is that an "abuse" of byelaws

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 28 Jan 2009 09:52

I know I am old fashioned but I have never had a problem with the idea of being stopped and politely questioned ( and if required ) searched by an officer of the law.
Why have we tied them in so much red tape. There job is dificult before that.
Give our Officers of the Law the Support they need to protect us.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 28 Jan 2009 10:54

Eagle wrote:I know I am old fashioned but I have never had a problem with the idea of being stopped and politely questioned ( and if required ) searched by an officer of the law.
Why have we tied them in so much red tape. There job is dificult before that.
Give our Officers of the Law the Support they need to protect us.

whilst I agree with your sentiment, the police have to be accountable, both to maintain the trust of the community at large (without which they wouldn't be able ot do their job) and in the interests of justice.To quote Robert Peel: "The police are the public and the public are the police."

We can't go back to the bad old days of the "sus laws" - look what happened after swap '81...

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 28 Jan 2009 12:24

I agree the Police should acto without bias in any way , never in question from me. But the red tape is now too much.
Surely we must give our Police ( who are working to keep us safe ) a chance to do their job properly.
Having said that if any individual has a genuine case of complaint then this should be acted on very strongly if correct.
I am a complete loss why a Police Officer cannot search any member of the Public , but of course must be conducted in the correct and polite manner.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 28 Jan 2009 12:57

Eagle wrote: I am a complete loss why a Police Officer cannot search any member of the Public , but of course must be conducted in the correct and polite manner.

you feel that a police constable should be able to search you for absolutely no reason?

Paddy Pantsdown · Post by **Paddy Pantsdown** » 28 Jan 2009 13:45

Or charge you with the following offences:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... ID=6914184

PP

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 28 Jan 2009 14:16

It is easy to be cynical and I do agree the Police should in held to account if they do not behave correctly but surely we have to give them the chance to Police for all our benefit
They are not the enemy but the protectors of society.

leaf · Post by **leaf** » 28 Jan 2009 20:39

of course it isn't. Are you implying people are stopped and searched because they are black? If you have experienced this then why don't you make a complaint? Or could you provide any evidence that this happens aside from your dubious assertions?

Are you serious? have you been living under a rock??

Forgive my flippancy but i think most people are aware that this has been a complaint of young black men for some years now and it wouldnt take much to find evidence of this problem.

as for 'If you have experienced this then why don't you make a complaint?' .......i think as i said lots of people have been complaining this for some time and many have made official complaints.

leaf · Post by **leaf** » 28 Jan 2009 21:00

'In fact, the annual statistics of stop-and-search figures not only suggest the fears of the minority population in the UK are wholly founded but they reveal just how vast the scale of stop-and-search operations are.

About 1 million people a year are stopped—equivalent to 2 percent of the adult population—with the proportion amongst black and Asian people being much higher. Few stops lead to arrests, and still fewer result in court cases or convictions.

In the latest published statistics for 2005-2006, there were 878,153 stop and searches under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), a quarter of which were classified as stops of “non-white” people. Only 12 percent led to an arrest—a very small proportion of the total of 1.3 million arrests in 2005-2006. There are no figures available showing how many convictions resulted.

In the same period, there were 36,248 stops under the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and 44,543 under the 2000 Terrorism Act. Just over 100 people were arrested on terrorism charges—way below 1 percent of those stopped—but again no information is available on the number convicted. Figures for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 showed that none of the tens of thousands of people stopped ended up being found guilty of terrorism.

These figures prove research quoted in the government’s own stop-and-search guidance document that “shows no clear correlation between number of searches and detection rates for crime...or that increased stop and searches have an impact on crime rates.” “The more they are used, the more ineffective they are,” it adds. They have also led the Metropolitan Police’s former chief terrorist officer Andy Hayman to remark, “It is unlikely that a terrorist is going to be carrying bomb-making equipment around with them in the street. So I am not sure what purpose it serves, especially as it upsets so many people, with some sections of our community feeling unfairly targeted.'

Source; http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb20 ... -f13.shtml

ALIB · Post by **ALIB** » 29 Jan 2009 11:16

I was at a Reading v Port Vale football match many years ago (must be mid 1980's). There were queues of fans at the turnstiles being frisked by PC's.
Then someone spotted a WPC at one turnstile. Many of the males fans ran over to her, demanding to be searched. She blushed a light shade of violet before waving the fans through (without searching them).

Obviously there is humour in that story, but the police do have difficult jobs to do. Why make it harder?

Ali B

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 29 Jan 2009 13:08

I agree Ali , if there are rotten apples in the force they should be expelled and charged but please let us assume the police in general are there for the benifit of society.
As you say footy crowds often searched en masse without any form filling. I wonder why they can do it at matches but not in other places.
I know the Police are not perfect but as I said before they are not the enemy.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 29 Jan 2009 17:23

Eagle wrote:I agree Ali , if there are rotten apples in the force they should be expelled and charged but please let us assume the police in general are there for the benifit of society.
As you say footy crowds often searched en masse without any form filling. I wonder why they can do it at matches but not in other places.
I know the Police are not perfect but as I said before they are not the enemy.

You can be searched as a condition of entry to a venue that wants it - they are entitled to put their own conditions of entry on private premesis. If you don't want to be searched then you don't have to go in. This obviously is different from having your liberty interfered with - a police officer stopping you goign about your lawful business in public.

Additionally, if there is an anticipation of serious violence in a spcific area a seniour police officer can invoke a "section 60" (of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act) in a defined area for a defined period of time.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 29 Jan 2009 17:47

leaf wrote:
Are you serious? have you been living under a rock??

No, I am very aware of the controversy surrounding Stop and Search. I would also consider my self quite well-informed around police and legal issues.

Forgive my flippancy but i think most people are aware that this has been a complaint of young black men for some years now and it wouldnt take much to find evidence of this problem.

Ok. But aside from anecdotal complaints and impressions I'd like to see these complaints vindicated through IPCC investigations &c. Just because a disproportionate number of people from a specific group are stopped it doesn't mean that they are specifically being targeted because they are a member of that minority. As I'm sure you are aware the controls in place governing stop and search in the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (and the codes of practice - which also are legally binding) are extremely robust, and any stop leaves an audit trail.

The matter is far far more complicated than "black and white" - and I'm not an expert on all the issues. However, when looking at the "street populations" of areas where large amounts of stop and search take place, when looking at the sorts of crimes detected*, prosecuted and prevent through stop and search tactics then the demographic of "stopees" will invariably change to some extent.

I would wager less stop and search takes place (per capita) in small villages in yorkshire than it does in Lambeth, Lewisham, Westminster, Southerk &c. Therefore the proportion of minotirty groups will be higher as a portion of the "street population" than elsewhere.

Of course the techniques aren't perfect, but how else would you change them? What other strategies are at the police's disposal to combat crimes proactively on the street? One moment police are criticised for not doing enough and being too reactive ("fire-briage policing") and then they are criticised when they are robustly deterring crime and being proactive...

I find this a very entertaining little film that makes a good point:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn4qvaTu8oQ

i think as i said lots of people have been complaining this for some time and many have made official complaints.

I be genuinely interested to read any IPCC reports &c. if you can find them.

bozax · Post by **bozax** » 29 Jan 2009 19:37

(paraphrasing, it says that you may not smoke on any part of railway premesis near where a notice is displayed indicating that smoking is not permitted - byelaw 3)

i said dont get me started. that bylaw was obviously intended for a good reason whenever it came into being. probably to stop things catching fire(i believe it also covers naked flames), but no it has been used to stop smoking where otherwise it would be perfectly legal, also "near where" is the key phrase , how near is near?. there are certainly no "no smoking " signs at the end of the platform on say anerley station. so why can't someone have a fag there? it's in the open after all.
the statement "it is illegal to smoke on this station" seems just to be wrong, what would you be charged with ?, what's the penalty ?, where can you find out, i have asked several train companies and the response is"it's illegal" but no one can supply me with it is what happens next if you get caught.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 29 Jan 2009 19:52

bozax wrote:
(paraphrasing, it says that you may not smoke on any part of railway premesis near where a notice is displayed indicating that smoking is not permitted - byelaw 3)
i said dont get me started. that bylaw was obviously intended for a good reason whenever it came into being. probably to stop things catching fire(i believe it also covers naked flames), but no it has been used to stop smoking where otherwise it would be perfectly legal, also "near where" is the key phrase , how near is near?. there are certainly no "no smoking " signs at the end of the platform on say anerley station. so why can't someone have a fag there? it's in the open after all.
the statement "it is illegal to smoke on this station" seems just to be wrong, what would you be charged with ?, what's the penalty ?, where can you find out, i have asked several train companies and the response is"it's illegal" but no one can supply me with it is what happens next if you get caught.

it doesn't cover naked flames. I think you are thinking of the regulations in response to the King's Cross fire - in regards tot he underground.

The law is perfectly straightforward. You can't smoke "near" (i.e. within a distance from which you could read the sign) a sign that said you can't. If you are on the end of the platform and there are no signs around then you are not breaking the rules.

Byelaw offence breaches can be delt with by way of summons to a magistrates court or, I think, an on the spot fine. (a mags court will fine someone for a breach aswell)

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004

incident this evening at Forest Hill station