Civil Liberty stabbed in the back

“In the last 10 years, since the Somalis and the Congolese came to London, they taught us a whole new level of violence,” he said.

Thor wrote:A ccording to a report in The Daily Mail, the Metropolitan Police in London are setting up mobile metal detectors for surprise scans of citizens in alleyways in Central London. The project was launched in Soho yesterday. This is an unacceptable violation of civil liberties to which the people of the United Kingdom have not consented. The right to go about one’s business untroubled by the law is a basic civil liberty for which the only exception can reasonably be that police have a reasonable suspicion to interfere with your person.

In the picture above from The Daily Mail story, well-dressed middle-aged office workers can be seen being herded through this Orwellian device.

To make matters worse, it is reported, officers lay in wait to ambush anyone who appeared to turn around rather than subject themselves to this intrusion.

The object of the exercise obviously was to tick demographic boxes so that an equal number of elderly women, middle-aged men in business suits, and Soho hipsters can be said to have been stopped compared to the gangstas in hoodies (not that many converge on Soho to begin with). Complaining about the quota-meeting farce is one thing, but the real offence here is that this will do absolutely nothing to reduce knife crime.

Knife crime, it is plain to see even to gangsters themselves, is a problem of gangs. It has nothing to do with the political football of cuts in police numbers, and everything to do with the lack of political will to tackle the gangs of London because it is a political hot potato: almost all the murders are gang-related and almost all the perpetrators and victims are black, and particularly because the escalation of violence is linked to immigration. Even the gang members say so. In an interview with the Evening Standard, a gang enforcer named only as “Wayne” explained:

“In the last 10 years, since the Somalis and the Congolese came to London, they taught us a whole new level of violence,” he said.

Who wants to grapple with this? Who wants to point out than an influx of youths from societies where ultra-violence is normal might be changing the culture here in London and other British cities? No, it is easier to pretend the problem has something to do with police numbers, or police visibility – as if these jaded youth give a hoot about a few more bobbies on the beat. And as for those deluded fools who think that “more youth services” is the answer – as if some new dart boards and pool tables at the youth centre can compete with tax-free earnings of £100 a day or more, for a low-end role in a drug gang. Get real! It’s about business, not boredom.So this latest stunt is a PR exercise and nothing more. 


Well, ‘nothing more’ isn’t quite right because it is a PR exercise at the cost of one of our most basic civil liberties:
the right to go about our business unmolested unless a police officer has genuine reasonable grounds to stop and search us. That is what the law of the United Kingdom holds, and is right to hold because it is not a police state.



But lately the police seem to be doing everything beyond their power to give us the opposite impression.



http://hurryupharry.org/2019/03/06/civil-liberty-stabbed-in-the-back/

Original Quill wrote:I don't see how this is much different from cameras, which are everywhere nowadays.

It's not really 'stop and frisk' because it is not an intrusive search.

It's collecting 'meta-data'...in this case the electromagnetic impulses given off by metal.  A camera collects light.  In either case, there is no physical invasion.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I don't see how this is much different from cameras, which are everywhere nowadays.

It's not really 'stop and frisk' because it is not an intrusive search.

It's collecting 'meta-data'...in this case the electromagnetic impulses given off by metal.  A camera collects light.  In either case, there is no physical invasion.

It's different because you're not allowed to avoid them. If you do, you will be searched.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I don't see how this is much different from cameras, which are everywhere nowadays.

It's not really 'stop and frisk' because it is not an intrusive search.

It's collecting 'meta-data'...in this case the electromagnetic impulses given off by metal.  A camera collects light.  In either case, there is no physical invasion.

It's different because you're not allowed to avoid them. If you do, you will be searched.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:
It's different because you're not allowed to avoid them. If you do, you will be searched.

To be fair, it would have to verfied that claim, whether its part of the Policy.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:
It's different because you're not allowed to avoid them. If you do, you will be searched.

Then it turns into a search.  But that does not make the metal detector itself a violation.

That's a problem with procedures.  They should change that practice.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

To be fair, it would have to verfied that claim, whether its part of the Policy.

"To make matters worse, it is reported, officers lay in wait to ambush anyone who appeared to turn around rather than subject themselves to this intrusion."

All I have is your link.  

Maybe someone from this forum can go give us a first hand account.  

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

"To make matters worse, it is reported, officers lay in wait to ambush anyone who appeared to turn around rather than subject themselves to this intrusion."

All I have is your link.  

Maybe someone from this forum can go give us a first hand account.  

It could very well be true, just saying it needs to be clarified

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

It could very well be true, just saying it needs to be clarified

Ben has time and he's a reporter. He needs to give us a report.  

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then it turns into a search.  But that does not make the metal detector itself a violation.

That's a problem with procedures.  They should change that practice.

So it's voluntary?

That's fine by me then.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So it's voluntary?

That's fine by me then.  

The better question is, is it intrusive?  Only when it's intrusive does it raise rights to privacy.

The point is that the part where the search becomes intrusive (physical search) can be severed off from the use of the metal detector.  As the technology improves, they'll place metal detectors that cover wider areas, and can't be avoided...like cameras.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The better question is, is it intrusive?  Only when it's intrusive does it raise rights to privacy.

The point is that the part where the search becomes intrusive (physical search) can be severed off from the use of the metal detector.  As the technology improves, they'll place metal detectors that cover wider areas, and can't be avoided...like cameras.

Correct. Of I'm not herded through a device that is different. I can expect.no privacy while walking down a public street. But I can expect to be able to turn around or change direction at any point I like.  

Maddog wrote:Wouldn't fly around here.  Texas supreme court has ruled that road side sobriety check points are unconstitutional.

If you can't articulate what I have done to be stopped, and forced through a device, you can fuck right off.  

Lord Foul wrote:I'd have NO problems with it, were it not for the fact the average british cop is as thick as shit and cannot understand the part of the law that says "shall not, WITHOUT GOOD REASON, carry in public a sharp bladed object greater than....blah blah..." and then arrests the working carpenter for carrying a lock knife in his pocket to a job, or the guy going shooting/fishing for carrying a (very) sharp skinning knife etc etc etc, cos it gives him (the cop) a power trip......