Civil rights campaigners

[ddavis]

Anybody watch Derek the other day?

Without getting into the whole is it / isn't it funny (I find it hilarious and think Ricky Gervais portrays the main character in an excellent light - a loving but simple person who just wants to make old people smile), he touched on an absolutely belter of a point.

A chap is there on community service. Derek asks why...

"It's because I was followed by your white oppressor police and then they nicked me for stealing trainers".
"Yeah, but did you nick the shoes".
"You miss the point bruv, if they hadn't followed me cos I'm black they wouldn't have caught me".
"Yeah, but you nicked the shoes".

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

I asked if she would include advice along the lines of "If you avoid associating with known criminals and their friends, you will dramatically reduce your chances of being subject to S&S.

That, in my book, is a disgusting thing to say. Some people have spent their lives growing up with 'known criminals and their friends' and, despite a desperate lack of opportunities and being surrounded by continuous temptations to break the law, have always been model citizens - and you think that these people should be punished for this amazing achievement by being punished by association? You appal me at times, HH, you really do - please at least attempt to see the world from another person's point of view.

Oh, sit down MTB.

Again I speak from actual experience and not some vague, probably unsubstantiated and baseless, viewpoint.

If you hang around with known criminals, your chances of being stopped and searched are considerably higher as the police target the criminal(s) in your group. This is what S&S is all about; disrupting the criminal plus gathering intelligence on their movements and their associates.

Once an individual is flagged as 'associated with a criminal', then they will also be targeted for disruption and surveillance as the probability is they will be involved in similar criminality to varying degrees.

And as for your belief that individuals sometimes have no choice but to mix with criminals and should not be punished for it, that is beyond ridiculous. Have you put any thought into that?

Even in the most crime-ridden hell-hole estates of East London/Manchester/Glasgow/Southampton, there are alternatives to joining a gang/group of pikeys for the decent law-abiding youth. Criminals are always a minority element in any neighbourhood (surely you must be able to acknowledge that) and a more decent chance in life can be obtained by instead befriending people from the law-abiding majority or from people outside the neighbourhood. These people can be found at school, in groups such as scouts/cadets and so on.

However, if you still choose to hang around with drug dealers and thieves, then you thoroughly deserve to have a flak-vested plod empty your pockets and bags and log your name and movements at random intervals.

[Number 1 Jasper]

I asked if she would include advice along the lines of "If you avoid associating with known criminals and their friends, you will dramatically reduce your chances of being subject to S&S.

That, in my book, is a disgusting thing to say. Some people have spent their lives growing up with 'known criminals and their friends' and, despite a desperate lack of opportunities and being surrounded by continuous temptations to break the law, have always been model citizens - and you think that these people should be punished for this amazing achievement by being punished by association? You appal me at times, HH, you really do - please at least attempt to see the world from another person's point of view.

Oh, sit down MTB.

Again I speak from actual experience and not some vague, probably unsubstantiated and baseless, viewpoint.

If you hang around with known criminals, your chances of being stopped and searched are considerably higher as the police target the criminal(s) in your group. This is what S&S is all about; disrupting the criminal plus gathering intelligence on their movements and their associates.

Once an individual is flagged as 'associated with a criminal', then they will also be targeted for disruption and surveillance as the probability is they will be involved in similar criminality to varying degrees.

And as for your belief that individuals sometimes have no choice but to mix with criminals and should not be punished for it, that is beyond ridiculous. Have you put any thought into that?

Even in the most crime-ridden hell-hole estates of East London/Manchester/Glasgow/Southampton, there are alternatives to joining a gang/group of pikeys for the decent law-abiding youth. Criminals are always a minority element in any neighbourhood (surely you must be able to acknowledge that) and a more decent chance in life can be obtained by instead befriending people from the law-abiding majority or from people outside the neighbourhood. These people can be found at school, in groups such as scouts/cadets and so on.

However, if you still choose to hang around with drug dealers and thieves, then you thoroughly deserve to have a flak-vested plod empty your pockets and bags and log your name and movements at random intervals.

Sad Wumming IMHO .

[miltoninLA]

In the US the constitution provides

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

.
This right is based on English common law specifically Semayne's case. This being the origin of an "Englishman's home is his castle".
Perhaps it's the British government and their lackeys who you need to be keeping an eye on.

[Locky_McLockface]

In the US the constitution provides

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

.
This right is based on English common law specifically Semayne's case. This being the origin of an "Englishman's home is his castle".
Perhaps it's the British government and their lackeys who you need to be keeping an eye on.

"Reasonable" is the key word. It can mean whatever the powers-that-be choose it to mean.

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

In the US the constitution provides

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

.
This right is based on English common law specifically Semayne's case. This being the origin of an "Englishman's home is his castle".
Perhaps it's the British government and their lackeys who you need to be keeping an eye on.

"Reasonable" is the key word. It can mean whatever the powers-that-be choose it to mean.

And also 'probable cause'. That you are either a criminal or have been with criminals, and are in a high-crime neighbourhood, is just that.

They do S&S in the US too. Every traffic stop and a demand to see your licence/insurance is one example.

[miltoninLA]

You seriously need a constitution. And "Reasonable" and "probable" are very well refined in the US and should be equally well defined in the UK. And, not defined at the whim of the police. Although it does seem that some are arguing for a police dictated system, the price of freedom is ... etc etc.

PS Random traffic stops are illegal and will result in the quashing of any conviction, eventually.

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

You seriously need a constitution. And "Reasonable" and "probable" are very well refined in the US and should be equally well defined in the UK. And, not defined at the whim of the police. Although it does seem that some are arguing for a police dictated system, the price of freedom is ... etc etc.

PS Random traffic stops are illegal and will result in the quashing of any conviction, eventually.

'Mericans really aren't in a place where they can lecture others on the strengths of a constitution! Besides, we obviously do have one (all government - and probably society too - would collapse otherwise) just it is not collated within a single document.

Furthermore, the legal prerequisites for a stop & search are clearly set in legislation and all instances are heavily audited. Individuals who are stopped even get a receipt.

Traffic stops are not random in the UK either, probable cause applies here too.

[Miss Tickle's bottom]

Again I speak from actual experience and not some vague, probably unsubstantiated and baseless, viewpoint.

Why do you always assume that your life experiences are more valid than those of people you know nothing about? It's a perfect example of your self-absorbed view of the world.

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

Again I speak from actual experience and not some vague, probably unsubstantiated and baseless, viewpoint.

Why do you always assume that your life experiences are more valid than those of people you know nothing about? It's a perfect example of your self-absorbed view of the world.

Okay, so explain how you have developed such beliefs.

If you do have something to offer, other than yet more tedious insults, I'm always very interested to learn about exceptions to the rule.

(Writing posts on an iPhone while drunk is nigh on ****$* impossible!)

[The Cincinnati Kid]

It's the old racist argument though isn't it. When looking at a crowd of people waiting to get on a plane, if you have to search 5 of them, do you choose the old white lady, the white students or the group of 5 male muslims?

If in some areas 90% of crime, posession of knives etc is by black teenage males then that's the stereotype police will routinely s&s. It may not be PC but it could be effective policing.

See, thing is with this argument is that it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy.
If you only search black teenage males then the obvious result will be statistics that say...yeah...those black kids are most likely to have the knives.
You cannot deny for instance, that in the US and (probably) in Bwitain, the vast majority of persons that use illegal drugs are white and yet the vast majority of those locked up or on some sort of court action for drug use/posession are non white.