![Security Security](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/security_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Politics Politics](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/politics_64.png)
London Tube Dangerous for Technophiles? 971
TsukiKage writes "Traveling on the London Tube is dangerous these days, it seems - and not because of terrorists. Quick as ever to try and protect against the attack that has just happened, zealous police will detain you at the drop of a hat." From the article: "The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift on to the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back. I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside my jacket and begin to read. The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act."
the defense of liberty (Score:5, Informative)
The MBTA [mbta.com] in Bostonhas instituted a search policy on the commuter rail and subway. They say the station I come into in the morning (North Station) has about 25000 people come in during rush hours in the AM, making it impracticel tosearch everyone. Ithink "random" searches are never random -- people gettargetted.
The ACLU has a detailed page describing how to deal with a search request [aclu-mass.org]. One of the primary differences in the US and UK is clearly illustrated -- I don't mean this as a slam on the UK, merely pointing out a difference. In the US every ctizen is supposed to be immune from unreasonable search [cornell.edu]. Of course the definition of reasonable is opem to debate. But it's only by people pushing against crazy things like these train searches that we are able to defend indivual freedoms.
With the recent supreme court ruling in the Hiibel case [epic.org] it's more important than ever that citzens defend the right that are given to them. I hope other Bostonians will print out a copy of the ACLU's advice page [aclu-mass.org] ann keep it with them when they travel on the T. If you are an American and live in a place that has unreasonable searches, contact your local ACLU and see what they advise.
Regretting that you can't do something in the war on terror? Here's your opportunity. Defend civil liberties at home.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
"I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;"
This was deemed suspicious. (Aren't we told not to leave our bags out of our sight elsewhere?)
-nB
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:4, Interesting)
well at least they gave him a lot of good reasons! In the US they would never explain why you're being arrested unless you happen to meet an extra nice officer, otherwise you'd be waiting to hear why from your attorney.
They do have some good reasons:
--they found my behaviour suspicious from direct observation and then from watching me on the CCTV system;
--I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates;
--two other men entered the station at about the same time as me;
--I am wearing a jacket "too warm for the season";
--I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;
--I looked at people coming on the platform;
--I played with my phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.
think they left out "you're a male" and "you're between the ages 18 to 40" though.
However I think the rest of what happens is absurd. Here's the quick run down:
--they inspect all his stuff
--they take him to the police station and book him (fingerprints, photos, DNA, etc)
--they put him in a cell for hours
--they search his apartment (WTF??) and take all his computer equipment (!!!!), private photos, address books, and other stuff they dont even know about
--he's questioned for hours and released nearly 24 hours after first being arrested (!!) AND THEY KEEP HIS CELLPHONE!
This should have stopped after the inspected his bag AT THE STATION and realized there was no bomb.
Good thing i live in the US.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:4, Informative)
Uh. Yeah. MOST people I see on the London transport network try their best to avoid any eye contact with anyone, and seeing police in London is so common that they're hardly worthy any extra notice.
--two other men entered the station at about the same time as me;
Uhuh. Because that is really unusual at Southwark during the evening rush... For those unfamiliar with it, Southwark is the closest tube station to Waterloo East, and thus a significant interchange point along one of the main rail lines in/out of central London as well as being in the middle of an area with a significant number of large office buildings.
--I am wearing a jacket "too warm for the season";
Except that it was a cold day...
--I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;
Ok, so carrying a bulky rucksack a week after the failed attacks on the 21st was perhaps asking for some extra attention - and the way I understood it he wouldn't have complained if they'd let him go when having checked out his rucksack. But keeping it with him at all times? Anyone travelling regularly into London can more or less recite the security warnings that go out over the speakers at every damn tube and rail station every few minutes telling us in a few different wordings to keep our belongings with us at all times to avoid uneccesary security alerts or they might get removed or destroyed by the security services... Whenever I have a rucksack or suitcase with me, I hold on to it at all times - I'd rather not have my laptop blown up, thank you very much.
--I looked at people coming on the platform;
Hey, one of my favorite pastimes when waiting for a train. Waiting is boring. Looking around you is a fairly natural way of making time pass.
--I played with my phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.
Seriously... That just describes about half the travellers on my route to work.
But we agree that the rest of what he went through was ridiculous. Makes me wonder why I've never been stopped considering I've carried bulky rucksacks with me to/from work several times a week, but I guess being blonde and blue eyes they don't think I'm capable of doing anything bad.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Interesting)
A little context here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, note what the police have said caused them to pursue the case... The fact that he had a shortwave received and an RS-232 breakout box.
This guy could have been almost any
We don't really need the London police's side of this story because we know their frame of mind around the time this action was taken. Around this time, they held an innocent man down on a tube train and put at least 5 bullets in his head and chest at point blank range. At the time they made all sorts of outrageous claims, many of which have found to be stretching the truth, and some of which have turned out to be outright lies.
I don't trust my police force any more, so I'm more inclined to believe the 'victim' of this tale.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Funny)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:4, Informative)
Girl arrested over Bollocks to Blair shirt [horseandhound.co.uk]
22 September, 2005
Police arrested a 20-year-old gamekeeper for wearing a "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt at a game fair last weekend
A girl was arrested for wearing her "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt at the Midlands Game Fair last weekend. Charlotte Denis, 20, a gamekeeper from Gloucestershire, was stopped by police as she left the Countryside Alliance stand because of the "offensive" slogan.Shocked and dismayed to be made a public spectacle, Denis tried to reason with the officers: "What do you want me to do? Take my top off and wear my bra?"
At this point, two officers marched Denis towards a police car. "They grabbed me as if I was a football hooligan," she says.
Although the "Bollocks to Blair" slogan was in evidence all round the Game Fair, police maintained it was the first time they had seen it.
"They had to walk past a huge banner in order to get to me and there were lots of other people wearing the T-shirts," explained Denis.
A tearful Denis was driven to a mobile police unit. "I asked the officers how they could arrest someone for wearing a T-shirt and they told me it was because it would offend a 70-80-year-old woman," she said.
After agreeing to wear a friend's coat, Denis was released without charge. But the incident ruined her day: "You don't expect to be treated like that at a country fair," she said.
Denis bought her T-shirt at Badminton Horse Trials last year, as well as a matching badge she wears on her coat.
"Bollocks to Blair" merchandise is manufactured by Splash and first appeared last year.
"The demand has been crazy," said Splash director Toby Rhodes. "The slogan is an expression of anger in the countryside -- which we are not trying to incite. We originally thought it a bit too direct for us but it has been popular with all ages. I've been told that some police officers wear the T-shirts under their uniforms."
"It's complete nonsense," said the Countryside Alliance. "The police surely have better things to do with their time than protect the Prime Minister's modesty."
This news story was first published in Horse & Hound (22 September, '05)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:4, Funny)
Officer: You were caught going 80 in a 35 zone. I'd like to search your car.
You: That's unreasonable search and seizure.
Officer: Since you said that, I assume you have something to hide.
You: Okay, but don't search my knapsack. I don't want you stealing the 50 pounds of pot I'm carrying.
Officer: Excuse me?
You: And don't check the trunk. That's where I keep my automatic weapons.
(The officer gets noticeably uncomfortable.)
You: And there's a hundred pounds of high explosives in the back seat.
At this, the officer calls for backup. A S.W.A.T. team comes in and takes you out of the car and searches it. They find nothing.
Officer 2: I thought the other officer said you were armed with automatic weapons and a nuclear device, and were trafficking marijuana.
You: And I suppose he also said I was speeding.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that while I'm at work, I drive a van to haul equipment, I get searched almost everytime with that. I can partially understand that,
Depends on "reasonable". (Score:5, Informative)
The TPA is supposed to have safeguards, preventing wanton abuse by the police - otherwise they'd just call everyone a terrorist and sort out who was what over the week they get before having to present some evidence. The police can't just arrest anyone they happen to feel like. Well, they can, they're just going to get bollicked by the courts if they try, as happened in the aforementioned case.
This is no different from in the US, where anyone can physically be arrested by the police and subject to whatever searches the police feel like. The Constitution is just paper, it can't physically intervene. All a person can do is plead their case in court and hope for a sensible judge. (More than a few convictions in the US have been overturned on appeal, because the Miranda rights were violated - deomonstrating that it can take several rounds before anyone pays attention.)
It's also important to note we don't know ALL of the facts of the case. For all we know, British Intelligence may have tipped the police off that an attack was likely on that route, sometime soon. In which case, you're dealing with an entirely different scenario to one where the police were acting spontaneously, without due cause. All we can do, at this point, is guess as to the motives involved and the information the police had posessed. (I shall refrain from drawing inferences about the demonic nature of anti-terror squads that posess.)
Re:Depends on "reasonable". (Score:3, Insightful)
This makes it ok? Jesus Christ we are all doomed... What happened to this guy is NOT ok even if they knew for a _FACT_ someone was going to blow up a subway line. I would rather die free- killed by a terrorist- than live in the sort of society that con
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:5, Informative)
Let me be blunt: they go by race. Completely. Girl in line in front of me at customs seemed to be of indian or pakistani descent, but spoke English clearly enough that I assumed she was raised in Canada and was likely a Canadian citizen.
Of course, they went completely through her bags and took quite a while with her. My wife and I went through quickly, as did several other non-middle-eastern folks. There was a family of 5 that simply took forever because they were quite obviously recent immigrants.
Right or wrong, there is no doubt that "random selection" has become a euphemism for racial profiling.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:4, Funny)
My experience is that it's not necessarily racial profiling, so much as whoever-the-agent-thinks-looks-suspicious profiling. For some of them, that is race, but often it's just whoever looks unusual and/or poor. In my experience, this tends to randomize whether or not I'll get hassled at all pretty effectively.
I am a US citizen, but I went to university in Canada for three years, so I have a good chunk of experience going over the border.
Taking Greyhound is a good way to fall into the "poor" category, even if you're not. Every time my dad took Greyhound to visit me, they would do a bunch of extensive searches. I took the Amtrak bus instead (because it was cleaner, and maybe $5 more for a ticket), and I don't think I was ever searched - including the time I had a 4 foot long duffelbag full of hard cider clanking around in it on my back.
The only time I saw someone non-white get searched on Amtrak was a Chinese lady (as in a citizen of China) who not only didn't speak English and didn't have a travel visa, but her only piece of "ID" was a letter from the US government explicitly DENYING her permission to enter the country.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Interesting)
This will entail the intrusion of the government on your civil liberties in one form or another.
Now, if you're willing to completely exonerate the government from wrongdoing--say by passing a law that says the government can't be held legally responsible for incidents or accidents tha
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
I think someone would be a coward if they were so willing to hand over control of their daily life to the "authorities" in the vain hopes that somehow they would be protected from all danger.
It doesn't take a lot of courage to bend over in front of any authority figure who claims to be "keeping the children safe".
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you would, but those of us who live in the Reality-Based community want the police and government to use effective techniques against terrorists, not facades of action that serve simply to show they're "doing something" [ineffective], while violating our rights in the process.
If you wish to give up your rights as a citizen and allow the government unrestrained power, please move to a country that is more aligned with your viewpoint, s
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
It's tempting, because profiling based upon race, gender, age, religion, and political affiliation are effective measures for combatting crime from specific and known types of person. For example, men are a couple orders of magnitude more likely to commit any violent crime than women are, so at first glance it seems to make sense to focus all your investigative efforts on men; it'll yield the most bang for you enforcement buck, right?
It works, but the price is too high. I have much greater fear of living in a society where it's a crime to be male, or young, or dark-skinned, or muslim, than a society that suffers very rare and mild terrorist attacks. (Killing Americans at 0.001% the rate of common car accidents.)
Terrorism Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terrorism Act (Score:3, Insightful)
what's in a name? (Score:3, Informative)
Et cetera, ad nauseum
Re:Terrorism Act (Score:3, Informative)
Thankfully, much of the bill has a sunset. If you ask me, all bills should have a sunset. It forces us to renew the
And then... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And then... (Score:3, Insightful)
The police state grows out a desire for power on the part of the state (obvious) and the inability or unwillingess of the populace to draw boundaries of acceptable limits of authority. The difference, especially in the US, is that the liberals think t
Damned if you do damned if you don't..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damned if you do damned if you don't..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Damned if you do damned if you don't..... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you had read the article, you'd see that the cops grabbed him because of him using a cell phone then pulling out a piece of paper and a lap top while he was wearing a jacket and a ruck sack.
This is what is known a "stupidity" because the next round of terrorist attacks will involve guys dressed in suits and carrying briefcases. That way, they will get past the idiots doing the "profiling" who don't have any idea how to profile correctly.
It is easier to get past a badly done profiling system than it is to get past a system of random checks.
If I were that guy, I'd do a quick test and wear the same outfit to a different station, do the same things BUT wear thick glasses and a yarmulke and see if he gets picked up again.
If he does, then the cops are being consistent (even if they're doing it wrong).
If he does not then the cops aren't providing ANY protection against ANY attack.
Insightful my ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
This actually makes the population less safe because police are focusing their attention on the wrong things and wasting precious resources chasing shadows. While they are busy jumping all over innocent bystanders, it will provide the real criminals the distraction they need.
Way to go!
Re:Damned if you do damned if you don't..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most folks are in favor of stopping and questioning suspicous people, and then checking their bags if necessary. It was the several hours of wasted resources and time after that fruitless initial search that was not only intrusive and rude, but a diversion of police resources from potentially stopping a real terrorist.
Re:Damned if you do damned if you don't..... (Score:4, Insightful)
If this keeps up, it's only a matter of time before a third kind of story pop up: Suicide bomber was investigated and released shortly before detonnating himself.
monday morning quarterback... (Score:3)
"well he was clearly suspicious, he should have been stopped, detained, and questioned."
Except this guy wasn't suspicious. You're really trying to tell me that not looking at a cop, looking at the people that go on the train, reading a piece of paper, wearing a raincoat, and checking your cellphone for messages is "suspicious"? This is gotten to be insane. Even added up they amount to normal everyday behaviour. If the police think they're going to stop terrorism like this, they've gone completely bonker
this is so, so, so scary... (Score:4, Interesting)
just wonder if I wiped that copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook" I downloaded in curiosity five years ago from usenet... not to mention the fact that my education and armed forces experience gives me the capability of designing and building timer devices... and of cooking up explosives...
Re:this is so, so, so scary... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) look suspicious, but innocuiously so (like the author)
2) get harassed
3) scream for your consulate and turn it into an international fiasco.
4) sell your 15 mins of fame for . . .
5) profit!
-nB
immediately handcuff you? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the en-mass encirclement of a single person (unnecessary use of intimidation/force), and the incarceration (handcuffs!) of a citizen w/o any evidence of a criminal act is preposterous. I am unsure of the legal system available to those in the UK, but at the very least I would consult a barrister to confirm what you real rights are... many times police officers use their authority to intimindate people into compliance, even if their own behaviour is illegal.
Re:immediately handcuff you? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess it depends on where you live. To me, no officer has any business asking me what I'm doing if I'm not obviously doing something that warrants his suspicions. Then again, I'm a true American and not one of these post-9/11 dickheads that is scared to fly, drive, or cross the s
Re:immediately handcuff you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even shooting someone in the head 7 times because "h
Wikipedia is the problem! (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously though, that's messed up. Were you reading the paper in a threatening manner? I can't see them doing that to people for *no reason* (sure, maybe for an *invalid* reason, but there's a difference...)
This could be abused to the breaking point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This could be abused to the breaking point (Score:5, Interesting)
Count that out. That's 3 seconds inbetween shots:
BANG!.. one.. two.. BANG!... one... two BANG!.. one.. two.. BANG!
And that's just 4 shots, there's no way this was anything but cold blooded murder. WAKE UP PEOPLE! You have more to fear from your own government than from terrorists.
Great New World!! (Score:5, Insightful)
As Benjamin Franklin once argued: A nation that gives up freedom to gain security deserves neither.
Re:Great New World!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently they wen't even working at the time. Yet the response is that "more survailance is needed".
Any of us could come up with a plot and blow up some public building if we put our heads to it. What's a LOT more annoying than the remote chance of dying in a terrorist attack is the increasing curbing of civil liberties for the sake of 'public security'.
Which may
Re:Great New World!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't matter. There are loads and loads of examples of the police here in the UK catching people where CCTV footage was the key. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it in news bulletins, documentaries, special reports, etc. CCTV works, and the majority of people in the UK approve of it and like having it in their neighborhoods. And that includes me.
With the potential for being harsh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be scared to be wearing my mp3 player + headphones in the Underground. What if someone yelled "STOP!" and I didn't hear them?
Re:With the potential for being harsh... (Score:3, Funny)
It was 28th July... (Score:3, Insightful)
On Thursday 21st July there were four attempted bombers with backpacks.
Are you really surprised that they were extra careful with people with backpacks on Thursday 28th July?
Re:It was 28th July... (Score:5, Insightful)
therefore everyone wearing a backpack is a terrorist
nice logic you got there, let me suggest you some more:
drug dealers use cell phonse to sell drugs
therefore everyone with a cell phone is a drug dealer
gang members wear hoodies and bandanas
therefore everyone with hoodies and bandanas are gang members
clearly we must ban all backpacks, cell phones, hoodies and bandanas. only then will we succeed in having a truly free society!
Re:It was 28th July... (Score:3, Insightful)
UK gone bonkers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Victim's website (Score:5, Informative)
This is also published on the victim's website. [gizmonaut.net] Also on there is a description of the suicide bomber profile [gizmonaut.net] the police use - which many geeks will also fit.
The British gov't? Restricting your rights? Never! (Score:3, Insightful)
It is sad that Americans have now, slowly but surely, allowed a domestic government to do the very same things that we fought for independance from.
I was searched quite politely on the Tube (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't know why Mr. May had such a hard time of it. Sounds more like an abberation than a trend, and it's impossible to contruct a trend line from a single point of data.
Crow T. Trollbot
Flood them (Score:3, Interesting)
the folly of staying silent... (Score:5, Insightful)
The following is a beautiful quote which i find as relevant today as more than half a century ago...
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." Quote by Martin Niemoller
Here, most of the educated folk realize the folly of the patriot act (voted in, even though most of the voters had not even read the document). My professors, collegues, bosses, all educated people know the damage acts like the patriot act can do and are yet silent.
As the article seems to imply, the day isnt that far away, when THEY come for YOU!
BeBox seizure? (Score:3, Funny)
Brave New World! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, eventually you might find yourself in the position of having to defend yourself from foreign nationalists bent on paying you back for some of the supression, meddling, back-alley dealing, intimidation, bombing, killing, etc.. that you got you to the top of the food chain in the first place. Well, all those nukes you built won't help you there - unless you find a single country to drop a few onto. But that country you just invaded provides a great launching point for even 'more' meddling and 'democratization' - it'll cost you a fortune but you're hooked on oil and after all, the end justifies the means. We're the mighty and proud United States of America after all - the land of the free!
Damn, I'm so fucking pissed at this world - I could puke everytime I watch the news...
Re:Brave New World! (Score:3, Insightful)
if foreign meddling = terrorism then the US should be seeing south american suicide bombers daily in the US.
so uh, where are they? (crickets chirping) uhh.. hello? (more crickets)
you misunderstand the nature of this enemy. islamists are attacking people and countries who have never had anything to do with th
Were his rights violated (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Were his rights violated (Score:5, Informative)
As of 8 September (over a month after his arrest), some of David's possessions had not been returned. I don't know whether they have yet - he doesn't say.
The investigation was thorough, quick, and ultimately vindicating.
Maybe you have built up tolerance of bureaucracy, but I don't call 9.5hrs from arrest to release "quick", especially seeing as he didn't get to call his worried girlfriend until 3hrs later, and get a drink of water until 4hrs later. Further, he hasn't yet received a letter officially stating that he's off the hook.
Re:Were his rights violated (Score:3, Insightful)
Being forcibly detained and held into the middle of the night is "a little hassle"? No.
Being pulled aside, forced to answer some questions, and maybe missing the train, would have been "a little hassle". He was put in handcuffs and carried off by armed men.
Christ. I guess that's the sorry state we're at now, eh? We ought to just be grateful the police aren't "debilitating" us. That would be bad.
Steady on (Score:3, Interesting)
Having said all that, the man shot at Stockwell was plainly murdered in cold blood, and I believe charges should be brought.
ObDisclosure: I'm a Londoner (born), grew up elsewhere, spent my 20s there until moving away after 9/11. (A month before 911 I was working next to the Nat West tower... and I frankly admit that the WMD stories were frightening me. Still do, as a matter of fact; it's only a matter of time before amateur WMD of some sort kills 5, 6 or 7 figure numbers of people somewhere in Europe or the USA.
PS final note - I was once jumped by the Special Patrol Group (wrong place/time), forced to lie on the ground with cuffs on, searched, briefly questioned and released. At the end they filled in a couple of forms & handed me reciepts, they explained that these were so that -they-, the police, could be identified if I wanted to complain about them; that the record of the stop & search would stay on file for six months, and would be destroyed after that. Assuming that this was accurate (which I think is probable) I think that's the way it should be. I now have a rather sensitive job; I'm not security cleared but others I work with are, and I may have to be formally vetted / sign the Official Secrets Act at some point. I don't expect the search incident to cause any problems with that. However, I've just realised I'd better post this anonymously...
W...T...F...? (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, so what that the terrorists had backpacks? The next set could have bombs in the soles of their shoes (US Flight that had that happen after 9/11). So anyone with shoes is suspect? The terrorists could've had an egg salad sandwich. All egg salad purchases are suspect? This makes NO sense. How many people go through the Tube each day with a backpack? It can't be that few!
Similiarties do not constitute guilt, and should not constitute suspicion.
There are two sides to every story (Score:5, Insightful)
-everphilski-
Did I miss something? (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, it would be just silly if everyone was so up in arms over the fact that someone was take aside, temporarily restrained, searched, and then allowed to proceed. He wasn't abused. No one beat a confession out of him. He wasn't shot.
I have been selected for a random search when boarding airplanes over the last two years. Each time I thank the screeners, and I am quite enthusiastic about being searched. When the search is done, I thank the screeners again, for I know they're doing something to protect me. They aren't trying to trample my rights, they're trying to keep me alive.
One thing conspicuously missing from the writer's "account" of the search was why he was handcuffed. This kind of thing does not happen to everyone who has a knapsack in the London Underground, but it does happen if you're belligerent when they ask to search you. Of course, if the writer was belligerent or combative towards the police, do you think he'd actually mention that fact? Of course not. That would get in the way of the agenda.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Funny)
cause? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the direct cause is terrorists. Or, have you forgotten about the attacks? They are clearly winning because you've turned on your own country.
Re:Not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line is a lot of police forces around the planet are turning into bands of thugs, and the reason they're getting away with it is exactly comments from people like "it's not so bad, they didn't kill him like the other bloke"
Bands of Thugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, from the article, it seems to me like, at least at the start, it wasn't necessarily completely unreasonable for the police to stop the guy and check his things. Although, it does seem like they should have had a bit more cause than just that he didn't give them a smile going through the gate, and had a rucksack and jacket.
The point of unreasonableness came when they inspected his stuff, found NOTHING, and still arrested him. And then, going through his apartment, taking his stuff, building up this dossier and putting it in the national computer, all when he had done *nothing* wrong.
If the police stopped me in a subway or bus station, checked the contents of my bag and frisked me, sure I'd be a little upset about the treatment, but I'd get over it, realizing they're just trying to keep everyone (including me) safe. But to just carry on the way they did when they determined he wasn't a threat, seems truly unreasonable.
But that unreasonableness comes down from the politicians, it sounded like, from the Terrorism Act that was passed by them, not from the police themselves. Sounds to me like they were just doing what they were instructed to do from above.
Oh, and, I think the grandparent was being sarcastic, man. Not serious.
Re:Bands of Thugs? (Score:3, Insightful)
They did it to save face. police embarassment because they made a mistake is unacceptable and there will be consequences. it's too bad innocent citizens have to pay in order to satisfy police egos.
Re:But hey... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe you could realize that most liberals don't hate America, they just want to make it better. You can't make things better unless you look at what's wrong. It also helps to look at what other countries are doing that is working better. Despite the success the Bush Administration and Fox News have had in turning 'liberal' into some sort of insult, most of them are pretty reasonable people.
Britain is in over-reaction mode, just as the US was after 9/11. Unfortunate, but not suprising. They may get a bit more carried away since they are lacking some of the guarantees our constitution provides, but that doesn't negate other things that they're doing well. Spazzing out as though it did is just silly.
This should just serve to illustrate how important our civil liberties are, especially in times of crisis. This is why the patriot act was and still is a mistake. Further, the U.S. government is never above criticism. That is our right and our duty as citizens. During wartime, the government should be held to higher standards, not lower ones.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for socialist? Well, only compared to the US. It's a social democracy, with much less of the "social" side than mainland Europe. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrat [wikipedia.org] for a good explanation. Yeah there's a welfare state, but it's not comprehensive, there are merely aspects of it present. Mostly European countries are social democracies - they aren't actually massively left wing on a global scale - being centerist really. Ireland and Britain more so than the others. You could say "centre-right" and "centre-left", but really compared to global extremes (US, Japan, China, Cuba), Europe is pretty middle-of-the-road politically.
What does "restrictive gun laws" have to do with the idea of a socialist Republic? It's perhaps an indicator of authoritarianism rather than liberalism (although on this particular topic, I would say "sanity rather than insanity"). But your comments make no logical sense.
So as regards your observation that "posts here in
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree that education is the sole determining factor. I believe the difference is rural vs urban.
I am a City Councilman in a small town in Idaho (population 5,000). My experiances in this office have colored my opinions about how people approach government. I experianced life in major urban areas only during my 6 years in the military. I am college educated. I am the child of college educated parents. My father was a social worker, my mother was a teacher.
My thesis is that urban populations are raised more dependent on government services. Water, roads, public transportation, schools, recreation, police, fire, social services and so on. When there is a problem, it is usually government related and they expect government to solve the problem. To a smaller extent, rural populations see less government in their daily lives. Local governments have leaner budgets and there is never enough money to go around. So rural people learn to look to themselves and their neighbors for solutions first.
I'm sure its more complicated than that, but that basic viewpoint is very strong. The personal belief that less government is better vs more government is better is very strong. Two people the same education and opposing viewpoints can look at the exact same incident and arrive at diametrically opposite opinions about what was the root cause of the problem and what would be the best solution. And in reality both may be exactly right. What is the proper solution to fix the problem in an urban environment vs what would fix it in a rural environment.
That is why I am an advocate of States rights and local governments. Federal solutions and programs tend to be monolithic and are compromises. They rarely, if ever, meet the needs of everyone. Local solutions tend to be better tailored for their communities. But again, my opinion is colored by my experiances. But I am open minded enough to admit that.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
UK law is quite clear - you can use reasonable force in the cause of self-defense. You can't, as he did, lie in wait for a burglar then shoot him in the back as he runs away from you. There is no self-defense case there.
It's not really surprising that assault with a firearm carries a higher penalty than a failed attempt at burglary.
Phil
Re:Lucky. (Score:3, Insightful)
He never said what colour his skin is. Seems like he would have when describing his clothes.
Re:Lucky. (Score:3, Informative)
Well...
Here he is wearing sunglasses at an anti-war protest in 2001 [gizmonaut.net].
And here he is again at the same protest [gizmonaut.net].
Here he is with the past editors of .EXE magazine [gizmonaut.net]
and here he is weilding a very large knife in an obviously threatening manner [gizmonaut.net].
Does he look dangerous enough to stop? You be the judge.
Re:Lucky. (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that all he did was wear a "suspicious" jacket, look at the stairs he was walking down and carry a rucksack, that's quite a lot. What if he had looked like someone from an Arab country and ran to catch a train, too? I wouldn't at all be surprised if some over-eager officer had decided to shoot him dead in that case.
What may be even worse is that nothing's actually gained this way. Sure, there was a terrorist attack on the tube this summer, but honestly, do you think that the terrorists are gonna attack it again now? I don't know, but if *I* was a terrorist, I'd target something else next - an amusement park, a sports arena, a shopping mall, but certainly *not* the tube again; it's obvious that that one's being watched much more closely now.
But that's just the point: a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Guarding the tube doesn't do *anything at all* as far as the overall threat is concerned - it merely makes it more likely that other targets will be selected.
What's more, this story makes it clear that the police are pretty much running around like the proverbial headless chickens - that they're acting completely irrationaly. And *that* is something that makes it all that easier for the real terrorists.
Do you feel safer now? I certainly don't. I feel less safe because of random idiotic police actions like this, and I also feel less safe because I know that those responsible are not looking at the big picture and resorting to ineffective measures - counter-effective ones, even, as stuff like this not only not makes things safer, but actually makes everything *less* safe.
Re:Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
See, with a constitution you get cool stuff like the following:
Re:just some balance here (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people are well aware of the difficulties of dealing with terrorism, and the UK is leaps and bounds ahead of it than the US is, so drop your pants and switch on Fox ;)
"balance" would include compensation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:just some balance here (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideal we're supporting is a willingness to live with danger in order to live free. That is what our country was based on.
Re:just some balance here (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand?
It's because I am about a billion times more likely to be negatively affected by bad or rights-limiting policy than I am to be killed by a terrorist.
I'd rather take a 1:1,000,000,000 chance on not getting hit by a suicide bomber while living a nice life than take a 1:2 chance that I'll suffer at the hands of the government so that they can ensure (and really, they can't even do that) that I won't get hit by a terrorist.
Re:just some balance here (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather take a 1:1,000,000,000 chance on not getting hit by a suicide bomber while living a nice life than take a 1:2 chance that I'll suffer at the hands of the government so that they can ensure (and really, they can't even do that) that I won't get hit by a terrorist.
Well said. Further, I'm far more worried about getting killed whilst crossing the ro
Re:thank you, statistics troll (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think I need to add anything.
Re:just some balance here (Score:3, Insightful)
The more pragmatic issue is that there's little evidence that this idea actually works in the first place. Even if things were as simple as the public transfering freedoms to the state made terrorim less likely, which self evidently is not the case. There is a very real possiblity that the "terrorists" would simply apply to join the police.
More importantly. (Score:5, Insightful)
ANY US citizen is more likely to be killed in a car crash than by a terrorist.
But terrorism is the current boogyman that various governments are using to extend their control. Check out the "Red Scare" and Joe McCarthy to see what we went through before.
And anyone talking about how other people would say that the cops were wrong if they didn't stop a terrorist is and idiot who has no understanding of security or statistics.
Re:Pppft (Score:5, Funny)
See, the "Terrorist Act" is where they can search you without probable cause and arrest you if they think you look suspicious in the UK.
Then you have the "Patriot Act", that is completely different. That's where they can search you without probable cause and arrest you if they think you look suspicious in the US.
See? The differences are remarkable.
Re:Due to excessive bad posting (Score:3, Interesting)
I read the article and they really fucked this guy over. He will be stigmatized for the rest of his life, no matter what he looked like. How many others have they done this too?
Re:Profiling is not a bad thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, profiling is a dirty word because it is an asinine way to investigate criminal activity. Only an idiot would follow a profile once it has been established, and the ability of determined criminals to evade the profile is relatively simple. In this particular example, a terrorist now knows to make eye contact with the station police, stand in and blend with a crowd (don't go to the wall and drop your pack to search its contents), and ac
Re:Patriot Act (Score:3, Insightful)
"Driving while black" is exactly the same thing you're describing. Police think that young black males are more likely to commit crimes than the average person. So they arrest, detain, harass, and pull over young black males more frequently. According to your reasoning, this makes perfe