Police stopping and searching in Waterloo

All these children don't seem to differentiate between fact and fiction, ganster rap/violent games/t.v. it seems to blur into one..sounding boring i know but when the villein got his comeuppance, a bullet hole would appear in his black shirt and he would drop to the floor pleading forgiveness! now the death scenes are extended, tons of intestines drop out, and the villein gets away..

and yes i know times have changed and i'm just a daft old gel! but it was true...

In her maiden speech to the House of Lords, Lady Manningham-Buller said: "I have weighed up the balance between the right to life - the most important civil liberty - the fact that there is no such thing as complete security, and the importance of our hard-won civil liberties.

"Therefore on a matter of principle, I cannot support 42 days pre-charge detention.

"I do understand different views and that there are judgments honestly reached by others and I respect these views.

"But I don't see on a practical basis, as well as a principled one, that these proposals are in any way workable."

I agree.

Also, I find myself agreeing with Mapmaker's side of the argument, (first time for everything ;o) )- police stop and search is only ok in my opinion if there is a real and current established threat gained from intelligence or a recently committed violent crime, which may well have been the case at Waterloo but we just don't know that from what I can gather. However I totally disagree with this 'if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear' support for stop and search, national id cards etc. For me society in England has eroded its respect for authority and laws and we need to have more responsibility from parents, renew power for teachers to deal with troublesome pupils, put more police on the streets to reinforce it's not ok to ignore minor laws let alone more serious ones and to get some respect back for the bobby, older generation, etc.

They were there again this morning. It was the first time since last week that I looked as I went by, so it makes me wonder if this is a daily event. Unfortunately, I was on a bus but if I had been walking, I would have asked them what they were doing.

Yesterday, in Holborn, I saw 10 bus inspectors accompanied by eight policeman (real ones) effecting a fare-dodging exercise on a bendy bus - fair enough - but the police did not get on the bus when the inspectors did but just stood about chatting and texting on their mobiles. It struck me that if they were there to protect the inspectors (and a ratio of almost 1:1 seemed mind-bogglingly excessive) why did they not get on the bus with the inspectors?

*shakes head in incomprehension, bordering on despair*

La Martinet wrote:

why did they not get on the bus with the inspectors?

*shakes head in incomprehension, bordering on despair*

Because it is not the job of police men to inspect tickets. And I would shake my head in dispair if it was.

they were there as a deterrant - most people who fare dodge don't take the ticket inspectors seriously - but if they see a van load of police stood outside, then they know that if they try and talk their way out of it, or act ignorant, or deaf or whatever, then the police can very easily and quickly get involved. Which means they are more likely to give correct name and address details, and more likely to pay on the spot fines. Possibly a waste of police time (for that many police), but clearly a reactive decision; ticket inspectors are not getting correct details, are not getting paid fines when due to fare dodging, are being ignored, or threatened or abused - lets get the police in, make it look more official.

You will probably see a slight drop in other crimes too, because fare dodgers are also statistically more likely to be commiters of other crimes, so when they get taken off a bus, and their details checked they may be wanted for other crimes, or they may be carrying knives, or drugs, or whatever, and they'll realise either that fare dodging is too risky, as they'll get caught, or they'll decide that they won't carry a knife on the bus, or maybe won't knock over an old lady and knick her purse, because they've been seen already that day dodging bus fare.

No, no that wasn't what exasperated me. It was:

1. That if they were there to protect against possible attack, should they not have got on the bus too?
2. Were quite so many absolutely necessary?
3. The sight of eight of the Met's finest standing about gossiping with no discernible attention to what they were there, presumably, to do.

They were there to catch the fare dodges that spring once they spot the ticket inspectors?

Maybe the driver had radioed in that he suspected someone was carrying a knife?

(I was so tempted to use the phrase "packing heat" there - perhaps I should head for Chatter)

Stíofán wrote:

Also, I find myself agreeing with Mapmaker's side of the argument, (first time for everything ;o)

Amazing, first hint of a recession and libertarian viewpoints come back into fashion... ;)