Police in Brighton checking residents IDs to make sure they are not terrorists

[detective-boy]

So why in 'my world' would they not be able to do this. It’s a fallacious argument as the conclusion doesn’t follow from the straw man premise you have ascribed to me.

I wasn't clear - I was referring to this specific situation - because there is no law which permits them to knock and doors and check if open source information about residents and businesses is correct they would be unable to do so. That was your absolute starting point - there is no law allowing them to do it, it is outrageous, it is in excess of their powers, it is a breach of the residents right to privacy.

Indeed if they had vast amounts of wealth and time they could, otherwise they will be resigned to 'moaning' on forum boards

Whilst access to justice is excessivley difficult and expensive, in this case there would be no shortage of organisations willing to play if it really were as bad as you suggest (Liberty; Equality and Human Rights Commission; any number of pro bono cause solicitors ...)

Court action is only one way in which the police respond to things they are doing wrong, more often it's a political infulence applied by citizens via democraticaly elected representatives.

In relation to their focus, and how they go about their business, yes. But please God not on whether their actions are legal or not. Politicians are no better than (and frequently worse than) the average person in the street in knowing what is lawful!

I simply say they they are collecting IDs. If they are then cross-checking it then it's a form of mass survillance.

You can certainly portray it as such. I would simply argue that it is one which is justified in the circumstances.

 

[detective-boy]

What if you work cash in hand and don't have a bank account though?

How would you have any bank cards to lose if you didn't have a bank account (unless you're a thief, in which case you deserve to be nicked ...)

 

[detective-boy]

They are blatantly trying to exceed their authority and like detective twat should be told to go and fuck off.

They are blatantly not and like TopCat they should be told to go and fuck off.

Nice to see that:

(a) you still brook no argument with views you hold
(b) you think you're fucking God Almighty
(c) you think (probably with good cause, to be honest ) that you can breach the FAQs with impunity and fuck about with user names as you wish.

 

[detective-boy]

Concrete barricade to stop car bombs, armed police, detector arches on way in and secure zone around the actual building. Even stop and search around the streets nearby is reasonable.

....

What I find so objectionable is the blanket approach to the surveillance, and the fact that it infringes on people who are doing nothing but staying at home within their own property.

I find this quite hard to get my head around:

You are AGAINST the police taking the electoral roll, etc and going door to door to see if it's still current (and no doubt taking the opportunity to ask if residents have noticed anything odd recently in neighbouring properties), with a view to identifying any premises where an intelligence-led (the oddness/inconsistency reported from this process being the intelligence) surveillance operation may be merited. Total invasion of privacy: knock on door, quick chat on doorstep and confirming what the cops know already fro publically accessible sources (or what you will shortly be making known anyway one way or another if you've just moved in).

But you would SUPPORT the police preventing people going about their lawful business because they've blocked a particular road or searching through their pockets as they go about that business or putting them through a search arch when all that they have done is gone to work / pub / get a pint of milk. Maybe repeatedly, day after day until the conference is over.

Surely those latter steps are far more invasive than the first? (I'm not saying they could not be used by the way - they probably will be to some extent - it's the inconsistency in approach I have difficulty getting my head around)

 

[moon23]

You've invented that bit. All it means is that some other means of verifying you're not planning a mortar launch pad may be needed - documents from a previous address, checking with the landlord or whatever.

No-one is going to be arrested / targeted simply because they don't have documentation with their details on it available - it's just that that will be very quick way of checking out the vast majority.

Except in 2005 a women was arrested trying to get home to her flat in Sussex heights and held for 6 hrs whilst her ID was established by the police. I can remember it at the time!

 

[detective-boy]

I really don't think they checked addresses.

Fabulous! Now the conspiraloons are telling me I didn't do what I actually remember doing ...

Surely this is a new level of fuckwittery even for Urban ...

 

[moon23]

I find this quite hard to get my head around:

You are AGAINST the police taking the electoral roll, etc and going door to door to see if it's still current (and no doubt taking the opportunity to ask if residents have noticed anything odd recently in neighbouring properties), with a view to identifying any premises where an intelligence-led (the oddness/inconsistency reported from this process being the intelligence) surveillance operation may be merited. Total invasion of privacy: knock on door, quick chat on doorstep and confirming what the cops know already fro publically accessible sources (or what you will shortly be making known anyway one way or another if you've just moved in).

But you would SUPPORT the police preventing people going about their lawful business because they've blocked a particular road or searching through their pockets as they go about that business or putting them through a search arch when all that they have done is gone to work / pub / get a pint of milk. Maybe repeatedly, day after day until the conference is over.

Surely those latter steps are far more invasive than the first? (I'm not saying they could not be used by the way - they probably will be to some extent - it's the inconsistency in approach I have difficulty getting my head around)

I'm saying that later approaches would be acceptable to manage access into a very small site that it was reasonbly easy for people to avoid whilst going about their daily life as oppose to people going to visit the conference.

 

[moon23]

How would you have any bank cards to lose if you didn't have a bank account (unless you're a thief, in which case you deserve to be nicked ...)

*sigh* You wouldn't have bank cards to lose if you didn't have a bank account. That's the point.

 

[detective-boy]

(c) you think (probably with good cause, to be honest ) that you can breach the FAQs with impunity and fuck about with user names as you wish.

Anyone like to know my lottery numbers for tomorrow ... thought not ...

 

[detective-boy]

Except in 2005 a women was arrested trying to get home to her flat in Sussex heights and held for 6 hrs whilst her ID was established by the police. I can remember it at the time!

Again, withoput more detail it is impossible to comment on whether that was right or wrong ... but it seems unlikely to be connected with anything like what is being proposed here.

There is no offence (not even terrorism related) of having no ID. There is no power of arrest simply for not having ID. But there IS a power of arrest for all offences where ID is unknown / not verifiable so that alternative means of proceeding (e.g. by summons) can be effectively taken. So maybe she had committed some other offence for which she was arrested. If the arrest was unlawful not only would the arresting officers be in shit but so would the custody sergeant who has to confirm lawful detention on arrival at the station (or release immediately).

 

[detective-boy]

*sigh* You wouldn't have bank cards to lose if you didn't have a bank account. That's the point.

But joesvimp HAD lost bank cards:

I lost my driving license and cash cards the other week

THAT was what I was responding to.

 

[moon23]

Without the facts of what was said, to whom, when and about what it would be wrong to conclude whether that was right or wrong. But there have been instances connected with demonstrations where the police have acted improperly. I presume that individual is pursuing a complaint / suing the police for what they have done if it is as portrayed and not just whinging about it on a bulletin board ...

From what they say on the board they are just glad to still have their own job. I would encourage them to do so, but most people don't have the energy to take things as far as they should, and NGO organizations that provide legal advice and support are not comprehensive.

 

[jæd]

*sigh* You wouldn't have bank cards to lose if you didn't have a bank account. That's the point.

Not having a Bank Account would make your live very complicated and prone to theft. You'd have to make sure your house-mates wouldn't be inclined to break into your room while you were at work. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone, ever, that didn't have a bank account somewhere...

 

[jæd]

It's the principle of not having to have ID if you so choose that is at stake.

Unless you are John Conner its just a lot of pointless hassle. You wouldn't be able to a huge array of things.

 

[moon23]

Again, withoput more detail it is impossible to comment on whether that was right or wrong ... but it seems unlikely to be connected with anything like what is being proposed here.

There is no offence (not even terrorism related) of having no ID. There is no power of arrest simply for not having ID. But there IS a power of arrest for all offences where ID is unknown / not verifiable so that alternative means of proceeding (e.g. by summons) can be effectively taken. So maybe she had committed some other offence for which she was arrested. If the arrest was unlawful not only would the arresting officers be in shit but so would the custody sergeant who has to confirm lawful detention on arrival at the station (or release immediately).

You live in an idealized where everyone always follows the rules. As far as I can recall (I was living around the corner at the time) she was arrested under anti-terror legislation whilst trying to access her own flat on account that she couldn't prove she was a local resident and some paranoid copper thought she was a terrorist.

It's connecting as it happened at the Labour conference in Brighton in 2005 and it relates to providing ID and if you don't provide ID it being seen as suspicious.

 

[jæd]

You live in an idealized where everyone always follows the rules. As far as I can recall (I was living around the corner at the time) she was arrested under anti-terror legislation whilst trying to access her own flat on account that she couldn't prove she was a local resident and some paranoid copper thought she was a terrorist.

It's connecting as it happened at the Labour conference in Brighton in 2005 and it relates to providing ID and if you don't provide ID it being seen as suspicious.

Perhaps they should have some kind of scheme were people could register before the event using bills, bank statements and so forth. Perhaps the police could go around to people's houses and sort it out beforehand so this kind of thing doesn't happen. They might need to tell local residents beforehand, so I reckon some kind of DVD presentation would be handy...

 

[detective-boy]

I would encourage them to do so, but most people don't have the energy to take things as far as they should, and NGO organizations that provide legal advice and support are not comprehensive.

Which could be used as the explanation for the vast majority of poor police performance ... individual officers / supervisors / managers not being arsed, not knowing what they should know, not having access to legal advice and support which is comprehensive ...

They system only works if all parts work together. It is no good expecting the police to sort everything out themselves - they are human like everyone else and it simply won't happen - you may as well wish for the moon on a stick. Everyone needs to play their part ... and that means people with legitimate grounds for complaint complaining; it means NGOs (and statutory agencies) with oversight roles pursuing them with vigour; it means the media recognising and seeking to fulfil their role in educating and (accurately) informing the people; it means politicians understanding what is and what is not within the gift of the police, holding them properly to account (at all levels) for what is and working to fill the gaps with other agencies or arrangements for what is not ...

 

[detective-boy]

You live in an idealized where everyone always follows the rules.

No, I don't (although I would take issue if you were suggesting that the basics of PACE were ignored with impunity and that arrests could be made wth no-one overseeing the reasons, authorising detention, etc.) - several posts in this very thread acknowldge shortfalls in how policing is delivered.

I could equally state that you live in an idealised world where no-one arrested by the police has ever done anything wrong ... but that would not be accurate either.

I'm simply saying there are some reasons to doubt that it was as simple as that as it as the arrest HAS to be explained to a custody sergeant who HAS to be there and that if it was, it would undoubtedly be unlawful and both arresting officer and custody sergeant would be in the shit.

 

[Azrael]

Using your argument, there would definitely be no "bobbies on the beat", after all, they only come across a crime in progress once every 8 years (or something similar to that).

I support beat policing because I believe it deters, and stumbling over a crime every few years doesn't contradict that. An important difference with this situation is that a constable plodding through the streets with restricted powers raises zero civil liberty concerns. I'm suspicious of dragnets in general, but if police knocking on doors and asking for ID did disrupt terrorism, there might be an argument for it.

 

[detective-boy]

Perhaps they should have some kind of scheme were people could register before the event using bills, bank statements and so forth. Perhaps the police could go around to people's houses and sort it out beforehand so this kind of thing doesn't happen. They might need to tell local residents beforehand, so I reckon some kind of DVD presentation would be handy...

No way ... that might imply that there was some learning from past experience and the police and the experiential learning cycle only have a very tenuous relationship ...

 

[detective-boy]

... but if police knocking on doors and asking for ID did disrupt terrorism, there might be an argument for it.

It does (at least as provably as the bobby on the beat deters crime ...).

 

[moon23]

Not having a Bank Account would make your live very complicated and prone to theft. You'd have to make sure your house-mates wouldn't be inclined to break into your room while you were at work. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone, ever, that didn't have a bank account somewhere...

I have.

 

[moon23]

It does (at least as provably as the bobby on the beat deters crime ...).

How do you know? I'm not a criminal pychologist but would not have thought anyone serious enougth to pose a threat would be put off by police checking IDs in a central area. Wouldn't it make sense to establish some kind of safe house within a distance not too close but no so far away that transporting the bomb would be difficult. A nice quiet surburb for instance where you could travel in on the bus or walk through mass crowds where it would be hard to detect you?

Take for instance the London Bombers, they didn't all live above tube stations did they? Nor did IRA bombers live next to their targets. In fact living next to your target seems about the dumbest thing you could do as a terrorist.

Face it this plan involve a Stasi-like going around asking everyone to provide papers it's pretty rubbish at stopping any potential threat.

 

[Awesome Wells]

what if you don't have a passport or driving license? Automatically a terrorist?

 

[detective-boy]

How do you know?

I don't "know" ... that is exactly my point - there is no way of "knowing" (any more than there is any way of knowing / proving that a bobby on the beat deters crime (as opposed to makes people feel better)).

But:

(a) it is known that attackers have infiltrated neighbouring buildings to use as the launch pad for their attack in the past (in relation to ordinary crime, not just terrorism ... for fuck's sake the old bill even do it themselves!)

(b) common sense suggests that if you wish to launch (e.g.) a mortar attack then you have to be somewhere in range and with a clear trajectory or to plant a bomb to take out the venue you need to be as close as possible to it, probably, next door or if you wanted something to go bang to disrupt the proceedings you'd need to be within the immediate vicinity

You seem to be missing the point that what the police are probably looking for is not some sort of bomb factory / safe house but a place from which an attack could be launched INSIDE the security cordon (which would thus render all cordon controls useless as they would already be inside the secure area ...

 

[detective-boy]

what if you don't have a passport or driving license? Automatically a terrorist?

what if you don't read the thread before posting? Automatically tedious?

 

[moon23]

what if you don't have a passport or driving license? Automatically a terrorist?

In practice we all know that is how it will work, unless you are able to find some way of 'proving your innocence' to the police. Bascially a load of vunerable people will end up getting hassled by the police as they waste their time.

 

[moon23]

I don't "know" ... that is exactly my point - there is no way of "knowing" (any more than there is any way of knowing / proving that a bobby on the beat deters crime (as opposed to makes people feel better)).

But:

(a) it is known that attackers have infiltrated neighbouring buildings to use as the launch pad for their attack in the past (in relation to ordinary crime, not just terrorism ... for fuck's sake the old bill even do it themselves!)

(b) common sense suggests that if you wish to launch (e.g.) a mortar attack then you have to be somewhere in range and with a clear trajectory or to plant a bomb to take out the venue you need to be as close as possible to it, probably, next door or if you wanted something to go bang to disrupt the proceedings you'd need to be within the immediate vicinity

You seem to be missing the point that what the police are probably looking for is not some sort of bomb factory / safe house but a place from which an attack could be launched INSIDE the security cordon (which would thus render all cordon controls useless as they would already be inside the secure area ...

Mortar attacks are not within the profile of the current terroist threat we are facing, but I take your point they could be launched from a faciltiy nearby. Wouldn't you need to search every house though? I don't see how simply asking for ID will do anything anyway. I mean for all the police know there could be someone hiding in the back room with a full weapons arsenal whilst the person at the door hands over their ID.

 

[Awesome Wells]

what if you don't read the thread before posting? Automatically tedious?

reading it certainly was.

 

[moon23]

what if you don't read the thread before posting? Automatically tedious?

To be fair we are laying down posts for them to wade through