Police stop and search powers restricted


Mannesty

Link Posted 08/07/2010 - 22:49
It seems common sense (and EU law) prevails. link
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream
Last Edited by Mannesty on 08/07/2010 - 22:49

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 08/07/2010 - 23:07
Thank Christ for the EU. I liked their decision this week on the legality of returning homosexual asylum seekers to countries that would chop their heads off too.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

snappychappy

Link Posted 09/07/2010 - 06:16
Nothing will change, the keywords in that statement are, "reasonably suspect"
My piccies.

dougf8

Link Posted 09/07/2010 - 06:52
"to reasonably suspect the person to be a terrorist. ", I think there will be a few interesting confrontations and some border defining.

However, be careful on the trains, link.

Just an off topic thought, with 4000 APNR cameras, that I can't remember asking for, and an integrated database of insurance cover, one would think it nigh on impossible for there to be any uninsured drivers on the road. And yes, why don't the police, after pushing these cameras through the backdoor, why aren't they saying "insure the car not the driver" as this would wipe out uninsured drivers and reduce insurance costs.
Lurking is shirking.!
Last Edited by dougf8 on 09/07/2010 - 07:07

RayB

Link Posted 09/07/2010 - 08:09
dougf8 wrote:
"to reasonably suspect the person to be a terrorist. ", I think there will be a few interesting confrontations and some border defining.

However, be careful on the trains, link.

How very odd - I was on the East London Line during it's first day of service following closure, the staff could not have been more photo-friendly if they'd tried, both on trains and in the stations generally. Methinks the guard in the article may have been on a power-trip.
Last Edited by RayB on 09/07/2010 - 08:10

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 09/07/2010 - 09:39
More likely they were breaking the rules on overcrowding the carriages, and wanted to cover their arses!
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

dougf8

Link Posted 09/07/2010 - 12:47
RayB wrote:
dougf8 wrote:
"to reasonably suspect the person to be a terrorist. ", I think there will be a few interesting confrontations and some border defining.

However, be careful on the trains, link.

How very odd - I was on the East London Line during it's first day of service following closure, the staff could not have been more photo-friendly if they'd tried, both on trains and in the stations generally. Methinks the guard in the article may have been on a power-trip.

I think the passenger had already complained then drew attention to himself. Its an own goal by the rail company. Some ignoramus who want to swing their authority about. I've never had a problem with railways. The underground has a film unit and there's no problem there. Its the annoying labelling of "terrorist" that springs to the lips so readily as these people (private security also) try to enforce their ideas.
Lurking is shirking.!
Last Edited by dougf8 on 09/07/2010 - 12:48

MrCynical

Link Posted 10/07/2010 - 22:00
Pentaxophile wrote:
Thank Christ for the EU. I liked their decision this week on the legality of returning homosexual asylum seekers to countries that would chop their heads off too.

This doesn't have anything to do with the EU. Both decisions were as a result of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is overseen by the Council of Europe (47 members) rather than the EU (27 members).

The stop and search change was as the result of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (judgement here), the decision on asylum for gay people was a decision by the UK Supreme Court (judgement here - warning PDF).

Dangermouse

Link Posted 10/07/2010 - 23:15
dougf8 wrote:


Just an off topic thought, with 4000 APNR cameras, that I can't remember asking for, and an integrated database of insurance cover, one would think it nigh on impossible for there to be any uninsured drivers on the road. And yes, why don't the police, after pushing these cameras through the backdoor, why aren't they saying "insure the car not the driver" as this would wipe out uninsured drivers and reduce insurance costs.

I think this comes down to the following: All attempts to make it harder to evade the law merely make life more difficult for those who wish to abide by it!
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.

flossie

Link Posted 11/07/2010 - 10:58
dougf8 wrote:
Just an off topic thought, with 4000 APNR cameras, that I can't remember asking for, and an integrated database of insurance cover, one would think it nigh on impossible for there to be any uninsured drivers on the road. And yes, why don't the police, after pushing these cameras through the backdoor, why aren't they saying "insure the car not the driver" as this would wipe out uninsured drivers and reduce insurance costs.

You appear to have fallen for the spin that ANPR cameras were introduced to enforce insurance as any kind of priority, rather than so the police (& MI5) can track people's movements - for five (!) years.
Still shooting in the dark (literally and metaphorically)...
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.