King's Cross tube: now it's metal detectors

[Azrael]

Both your first two suggestions amount to the same as my option 2 - abolish anything based on suspicion and introduce something based on knowledge. That, as I have said, would not work. You may as well give up altogether.

An arrest is based on "reasonable suspicion" so it's not demanding knowledge. If it was that'd demand higher burden for stop & search than a full-blown arrest, which would of course make no sense.

If your "probable cause" is not knowledge, what IS it. Give some examples of what would, in your opinion, be sufficient "probable cause". If it is anything less than knowledge I will bet it is the same as the current situation, just using different words.

It's a much higher standard: "reasonable" suspicion is a lot lower than having evidence that something is more probable than not. (You only need evidence it's probable, not that it is, so it isn't demanding certainty.) For example, fitting a profile might amount to reasonable suspicion; there has to be specific evidence in a person's actions to merit probable cause.

And though new technology is tempting, do you really think that the videoing you suggest would (a) be anything like swift enough and (b) would survive challenges of "Why you videoing me, what power you got?". I would suggest that stopping and searching someone is less of an intrusion of their liberty than videoing them and then stop and searching them.

We're videoed every minute of every day in a far less controlled manner, so the second argument doesn't really stand up.

As for speed: say 15 seconds of video, 20 seconds to e-mail it over, 15 seconds playback for the magistrate and a decision within a minute. All told, that's two minutes from videoing to authorisation, three at most. Not an unreasonable amount of time to trail a suspect. Or introduce a power to hold a suspect for five minutes while you get authorization, which would allow them to put their side over to the mag.

The answer is to ensure that current powers are used properly and that they public have faith in that. There is much which could - and should - be done to improve the situation (or to confirm that it is being done legally, as is the case most of the time). The answer is not abolition.

The power itself is inherently flawed. The threshold for Stop & Search is so low it allows searches based on an officer's prejudices, not hard evidence.

And that isn't suggesting officers are all racists. I've been stopped several times on the underground: three when wearing a combat jacket and jeans, another two while carrying a large package. Whenever I wear a smart jacket, a collared shirt and don't carry a large package, I'm ignored.

That suggests to me this "reasonable suspicion" justification is spurious. No actions on my part justified the search, only the officers' perceived image of a criminal. It's slightly less ridiculous than waiting for someone wearing a striped jumper and carrying a bag marked SWAG to step through the barriers. Friends have backed up my experience: dressing in a certain way, or being a member of a certain minority, makes you a target. Your would-be murderer only has to dress smart and act relaxed and he's got a very low chance of a bust.

 

[detective-boy]

For example, fitting a profile might amount to reasonable suspicion; there has to be specific evidence in a person's actions to merit probable cause.

But it wouldn't. Read the PACE Codes of Practice. What is actually required in law seems to be what you are calling "probable cause". And it is quite specifically NOT set so low as to include actions based on the officer's prejudices. You are at least twenty years out of date.

We're videoed every minute of every day in a far less controlled manner, so the second argument doesn't really stand up.

Not in a specific face-to-face manner we're not.

Your anecdotal evidence of a couple of occasions on the tube and the experiences of a couple of mates, fascinating though it is, is not really worth a toss. If you want to base an argument on that go and do some properly controlled research. The research which has been done suggests that the perceived improper use of the stop and search powers does not stand up to detailed scrutiny.

 

[Azrael]

But it wouldn't. Read the PACE Codes of Practice. What is actually required in law seems to be what you are calling "probable cause". And it is quite specifically NOT set so low as to include actions based on the officer's prejudices. You are at least twenty years out of date.

The codes (which I have read ta) may state that "Reasonable suspicion can ... exist without specific information ... on the basis ... of generalisation stemming from the behaviour of a person", but the reality at King's Cross prove I'm not so much as twenty days out of date. Of course the codes say singling someone out for the race or dress is wrong; but "reasonable suspicion" is so low a standard an officer can do that and come up with some other pretext to justify the search.

At King's Cross people were being stopped randomly; all I was doing to mark me out of the crowd was carrying a large package, which was at least more than other people being pulled over. (Lamp's working fine ta.) How do you have a "reasonable suspicion" about someone's "behaviour" when they're walking through a tunnel unless you're profiling them in some way?

"Probable cause" isn't my invention, it's an American legal term. Unfortunately the only decent link I can find just now is at Wikipedia. It's higher than "reasonable suspicion" because suspicion alone, however "reasonable", is not enough, there have to be some hard facts to show your suspicion is probable.

Not in a specific face-to-face manner we're not.

There's so many cameras now we might as well be. Provided it was destroyed on the spot I can't see a problem. (Although given the police's habit of "forgetting" to destroy personal records I can see why some might be wary.)

Your anecdotal evidence of a couple of occasions on the tube and the experiences of a couple of mates, fascinating though it is, is not really worth a toss. If you want to base an argument on that go and do some properly controlled research. The research which has been done suggests that the perceived improper use of the stop and search powers does not stand up to detailed scrutiny.

If you think anecdotal evidence that shows a pattern isn't "worth a toss" thank God you're not a statistician!

Let's have some links for the evidence that complaints about Stop & Search are founded on myths.

 

[detective-boy]

If you think anecdotal evidence that shows a pattern isn't "worth a toss" thank God you're not a statistician!

Let's have some links for the evidence that complaints about Stop & Search are founded on myths.

You have heard of the concept of statistical relevance, haven't you? Half a dozen experiences from a couple of people would hardly be considered a representative sample when about 800,000 (1999/2000) stop searches are conducted every year.

Can't find any of Marion Fitzgerald's stuff on the web at the moment but this is a summary of some other Home Office research on the subject of stop and search:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/polstop.pdf

Section 5 on page 5 for the sort of stuff I was referring to.

 

[shave]

Detectors to deter or stop idiots carrying knives on the street are welcomed by me. Long may it continue.
The current media hysteria at the moment surrounding this issue is well overblown, though.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

This is what's needed

 

[shave]

Have you seen the scanners at Heathrow? They're a bit like that, only they're not green and they don't show bones. So they're nothing like that at all. Great. As you were.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Have you seen the scanners at Heathrow? They're a bit like that, only they're not green and they don't show bones. So they're nothing like that at all. Great. As you were.

How stupid. The ones in Total Recall were great. They could probably pick up drugs as well

 

[Dan U]

fuck metal detectors, they are an admission of defeat.. same as in schools.

any evidence from america where they are more widespread about how many terrorist attacks they have folied?

anyone see the 'news' that waterloo and victoria are going to be fenced off by concrete blocks for 'security' reasons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5051670.stm

i dont want to live in a fortress city - one of the joys of london is its freedom, something its been nice to regain since the dark days of the IRA.

the OB need to smoke a bit less pot i reckon, far too much paranoia going
on

 

[Azrael]

You have heard of the concept of statistical relevance, haven't you? Half a dozen experiences from a couple of people would hardly be considered a representative sample when about 800,000 (1999/2000) stop searches are conducted every year.

I never said they were "statistically conclusive", I said you couldn't dismiss them as not being "worth a toss". (Damn that statistical technobabble!) They're diverse enough to suggest a pattern and justify further research. Statistical relevance can be founded on a small sample in the right circumstances.

Can't find any of Marion Fitzgerald's stuff on the web at the moment but this is a summary of some other Home Office research on the subject of stop and search:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/polstop.pdf

Section 5 on page 5 for the sort of stuff I was referring to.

No actual figures there, just some vague conclusions: "Asian people tended to be under-represented (with some exceptions)". (What "exceptions"? Where? How extensive?)