Police State ?

[csider]

I can't speak for coppers in the Met as they seem to have a totally different set of rules and ways of policing than anywhere else in the country. What strikes me as odd is that if the account is true the copper involved didn't have to stop the two fellas he could have excerised his own discretion and decided not to stop them if he had wanted, sounds like a cop out (pardon the pun) on his part to suggest that he was simply following orders, I'd say that was bollocks. Unfortunately, discretion in todays police seems to be used less and less, I tutor new PCs and the impression I get from them is that they are so terrified of making a mistake or being complained about that they are afraid to excercise discretion and would rather go by the book or stick to a decision once they have made it. I tell them time and again that it is the single most important skill in their possession and to change your decision or admit you got it wrong is the hardest thing to try and get coppers to learn!

Stop and search is a vital tool for police in detecting and preventing crime but it must be used correctly and reasonably. maybe the copper concerned in the stop of the two black guys could have done it differently. Perhaps he could have engaged them in a general conversation first without it becoming an official 'stop', made conversation about their night out and if they had managed to get some good photos. Maybe then he might have realised they were not a threat and were just ordinary fellas out and about and they could have parted ways amiably without incident. Certainly that approach would work in Brighton but this is London we are talking about and perhaps the official stop approach is much more prevalent given the history of events up there.

Blah blah - cop talk.........full of shit - all of you - imo.

 

[unnameable]

Blah blah - cop talk.........full of shit - all of you - imo.

You should go on Question Time. You would be a popular panellist.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Using abusive language to make one's point is weaker, wouldn't you say?

well .............. to say that having your views "rubbished" is a characteristic of being a police state is a bit odd. Your views are more likely to be rubbished in a democracy where people can mainly say what they like.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Using abusive language to make one's point is weaker, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't say that at all. Winston Churchill - without any doubt the greatest, most dextrous user of the English language; the most versatile and flexible language in the world, which he deployed to enormous effect, in order to save his country at its darkest hour - swore all the time, like the proverbial trooper apparently. So you're quite wrong on that.

 

[clapham_gull]

At present, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, officers already have the power to stop and search people or vehicles in an area seen as being at risk from terrorism even if they are not suspected of any breach of the law

Yes - but you could employ hundreds of officers on a daily basis for the purpose of stopping tourists who are carrying cameras.

I mean - the police officer mentioned that "they could have been taking photographs of buildings..."

I suggest they could have walked down to Westminster Abbey, they could have had a field day.

 

[csider]

You should go on Question Time. You would be a popular panellist.

Wouldnt I just, abut a popular as your books no one has heard of.

 

[Storer68]

Yes - but you could employ hundreds of officers on a daily basis for the purpose of stopping tourists who are carrying cameras.

I mean - the police officer mentioned that "they could have been taking photographs of buildings..."

I suggest they could have walked down to Westminster Abbey, they could have had a field day.

but the difference here is the "even if they are not suspected of any breach of the law". This is a fundamental change to the way law has been established in this country. A policeman no longer needs a reason, other than his prejudice, to prevent anyone from going about their lawful business.

 

[unnameable]

Wouldnt I just, abut a popular as your books no one has heard of.

"No one" has heard of them yet, csider, though most artists, writers, sportsmen, whatever, who achieve anything start in obscurity. (Anyway, the people who have bought my books, and there are a few, have heard of them.)

 

[Collar Feeler]

Blah blah - cop talk.........full of shit - all of you - imo.

If that is your conclusion then I imagine i would probably come to the same conclusion about you if I ever met you. I'm sure we would get along fine.

 

[beorhthelm]

The policeman when asked by the American whether in all honestly he looked like an Islamic terrorist, offered back "well you never know what they look like..."

well both side are wrong. id like to bitch slap the american for assuming that all terrorists are Islamic and not realising that anybody can be Islamic regardless of colour. the police deserve the same for such an insensitive responce that reinforces the above.

there is a more serious issue here, clearly there was more to this and the terrorism act was employed as an excuse as it was when that fellow heckled at the party conference. in the name of terrorism this government has given more and more powers to the police, where they already had plenty, but unlike previous government they have asked them to invoke them and be seen to invoke them.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

As an educated guess, I would say that there was some CCTV monitoring taking place before the stop was actioned, and that there were probably more than just the CSO and the hard-top in the local vicinity. Whilst the Terrorism Act gives the police the ability to stop someone if they cough too hard, they don't tend to use it that way. Depending on what the CCTV op and his incident manager thought they were looking at, they would have actioned the call through a central manager and the police controller would have approved a gentle stop-and-chat. It was nothing major, no-one got shot, and no-one was spread-eagled up against a wall. Quite possibly simple, sensible policing to validate a situation or a question. The "we saw you with a camera" was a limp excuse to get closer and have a better look. Surprised they used the CSO though.

And yes, who says that a terrorist has to look like OBL to get stopped?

 

[clapham_gull]

As an educated guess, I would say that there was some CCTV monitoring taking place before the stop was actioned, and that there were probably more than just the CSO and the hard-top in the local vicinity. Whilst the Terrorism Act gives the police the ability to stop someone if they cough too hard, they don't tend to use it that way. Depending on what the CCTV op and his incident manager thought they were looking at, they would have actioned the call through a central manager and the police controller would have approved a gentle stop-and-chat. It was nothing major, no-one got shot, and no-one was spread-eagled up against a wall. Quite possibly simple, sensible policing to validate a situation or a question. The "we saw you with a camera" was a limp excuse to get closer and have a better look. Surprised they used the CSO though.

And yes, who says that a terrorist has to look like OBL to get stopped?

Within a few seconds the Policeman told the lads they had been stopped under the terrorism act, because they were carrying a camera.

That's the only thing that prompted me to turn round.

Harsh criticism of the American guy on here. I'm not sure how I'd react if I was stopped and within seconds told it had something to do with Terrorism in the centre of London on the basis I was carrying a camera and therefore was under suspicion.

..but the other bloke thought that the police possibly thought the other bloke looked non West Indian, possibly North African having a slighter build than the other.

I guess it was a case of you'd have to be been there, but there was a definate reaction from the policeman VERY quickly (possibly seconds) after talking to the men that they had made a "mistake". Possibly from their accents, possibly from their reaction.

Very little questioning of the two blokes, more a case of having to explain in great depth why they had stopped them.

The way the senior copper went through it (almost to a script and embarressed, apologising at one point and telling the blokes where to make a complaint if they wanted to), it struck me a simple training exercise for the CSO.

Throughout the CSO was trying to avoid eye contact with anyone and at one point had turned his back and was looking the other way.

I was standing inches away and wasn't asked to move away. I can't quite remember what prompted me to ask the Policeman whether this was a waste of time, but what stuck me was that he didn't ask me to mind my own business - he completely agreed !

I'm not one to complain about the conduct of police, I live in an area where I very often see young black kids being questioned by police, because the reality is that, that there are many young balck kids around here. I'm intelligent enough to know that more often than the police have a very good reason to be doing so.

But the incident above was strange to say the least and I hope a one off cock up. As I said before, the solicitor I was, with amazed. Carry a camera in central London and get stopped and asked why you have one.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

All these wide sweeping stop and searches do is demonstrate that the police dont really have a clue. I have always felt that blanket rules are put in place in the absense of any intelligence. Nothing has made me change my mind.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Double post bollox.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

All these wide sweeping stop and searches do is demonstrate that the police dont really have a clue. I have always felt that blanket rules are put in place in the absense of any intelligence. Nothing has made me change my mind.

Not strictly true. The stop and search routines are designed to increase presence and deter people from carrying. It's not so much that they "don't have a clue"- it's more that they will be operating in very tight areas, and the stop-and-search around the perimeters works nicely as a disruptive operation. The intelligence is actually quite good - it's only when it goes wrong that the media and public really get hold of it - there is lots of low-level success, sometimes aided by a lucky S-and-S operation in an area of interest that picks up focused intel.

Unfortunately, it's the general law-abiding public that feels the brunt of the legislation put in place - don't blame the coppers, blame the people that they are trying to catch - they class our general "disgruntlement" as a success in their overall campaign. The thinking is normally that people will get fed up, moan loudly, and the police will ratchet themselves back - giving the enemy/opposition a little more freedom to achieve their aims.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

As I was standing there - I asked the policeman myself why they had been stopped and he was obviously very embarressed by the whole thing, especially when the bloke from Detriot opened his mouth.

The policeman when asked by the American whether in all honestly he looked like an Islamic terrorist, offered back "well you never know what they look like..."

The Detriot bloke was absolutely livid and suggested to me that it was the sort of thing he would expect in Nazi Germany.

The policeman to give them credit, were extremely embarressed and agreed with me that being made to approach a couple of blokes in the west end with a camera was a complete waste of their time.

Most unlike the Met to stand there and debate the rights and wrongs of their actions with a complete stranger. Are you sure they weren't IMPERSONATING police officers? Surely nine times out of ten you'd get the full 'what's it got to do with you sunshine, move along before I nick you for obstruction' routine

 

[Gully]

It may seem odd, but the majority of cops I have met didn't have an attitude, most did the job for the love of it and had a genuine desire to serve the community in which they worked. Maybe it is because I am fairly law abiding and not a scrote with an attitude that my contact has been largely positive. I can honestly say that I have only met a few who didn't fit into that category, they were on ego trips at football grounds (Elm Park and Craven Cottage) and seemed to take great delight in treating us like shit.

 

[Collar Feeler]

Sod all this debate for a lark anyway, I'm off to park on some double yellow lines and grab meself a kebab and doughnuts, I'm then going to speed off at a hundred miles an hour without my sealtbelt on and book someone else up for not wearing theirs.

 

[unnameable]

Read em, all. Shite.

I won't denigrate what little you have achieved, csider, if you refrain from denigrating what little I have achieved.

Aren't we supposed to be on the same side? Aren't we both Brighton fans? I find it odd that your sole contribution to a forum should be to make cheap jibes at people about whom you know nothing.

 

[Gully]

While you are at it feeler, can you book a couple of dozen people who are using mobile phones whilst they are driving...that bugs the shit out of me!