Police in Brighton checking residents IDs to make sure they are not terrorists
- Thread starter moon23
- Start date
I've already explained how - as a former police officer my professional judgment is that there IS a sound purpose to the operation and, with minimal intrusion into people's privacy, it is a reasonable preventative measure to take against one particular potential method of attack (from premises adjacent or nearby).
You may or may not agree with that.
As for stop and search, some of the purpose behind it - putting anyone intent on an attack on the back foot because they know there is a chance of being stopped; making it more difficult for them to succeed - is very much the same. BUT, unlike stop and search, there is a defined area and purpose here. And, if you had read my previous posts, you would know that I do not agree with how the s.44 stop and search power is applied and used - in a defined location for a defined period (e.g. around the conference centre during the conference in our current example), yes, I can see it has a sound operational purpose, but across whole counties, continuously, no. It simply is too random to have any meaningful effect at all and the damage it causes in other ways (public confidence, tempting officers to use it to avoid the requirements of reasonable grounds to suspect required by normal s.1 PACE stop and search, etc.) is simply not worth it.
I'm sure they'll be conforted by the fact that if it DID happen there'd be loads of Urbanites on the streets, supporting their approach ...Dibble would look bloody stupid if bin laden turns out to be living in a nice flat with a seaside view. Or somebody who wants to kill our dear leader and is actually planning to have ago is inside the security zone.
I'd agree in principle ... but what were talking about here is NOT the "removal" of any liberty ... it is a relatively minor intrusion into a liberty which, on balance, is proportionate to the threat it is intended to reduce.
ALL liberties can be interfered with under the Human Rights Act (and always have been able to be interfered with under Common Law, and can be interfered with in all jurisdictions in the world to a greater or lesser extent) provided that the interference is lawful, necessary and proportionate and that there is accountability for the interference (i.e. someone can take the State to Court if they believe it was not lawful, necessary or proportionate). There are not, and never have been, and absolute liberties (with the possible current exception of the prohibition of torture).
Who, and which post, are you referring to?
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
If you read my previous post, I mentioned that people living on council estates are more likely to be long-staying residents and tenants of a closer knit community. If you've lived in a place for a few years, you get to know the familiar faces. And new, unfamiliar faces stand out.
And so I mentioned the possibility of a bunch of asian or whatever students moving into a house share on an estate like Moulsecoomb, and how any curtain twitchers would likely clock the newcomers.
I don't know if you know Brighton In Bloom, but I lived there for a year and studied engineering.
Moulsecoomb estate is outside the city centre, and it's opposite the part of the campus that houses the engineering department (or was, I don't know if the department has moved buildings). (The arts department is closer to the sea front, in the city centre. Or, again, was, I don't know if this is still the case.)
I raised a hypothetical situation whereby some engineering students of foreign/swarthy appearance might move into a house on the Moulsecoomb estate, (because funnily enough that's precisely what some of my engineering classmates did, moved into a house on the Moulsecoomb estate for the second year) but fast forward to the post-9/11 world a well-intentioned long-staying resident, who was familiar with many families and other residents on the estate would notice some new young men of foreign extraction had moved into the locality, and if the police came knocking on their door asking for information about unusual activities or anything you think is suspicious, or even anything you don't think is suspicious, but is out of the ordinary, let us know and we'll be the judge of that kind of thing...
I specifically mentioned the Moulsecoomb estate because of its proximity to the Brighton University's engineering faculty building, because quite a few students would be attracted to living there if they can find a house, because it's so close to campus.
And also, bear in mind the context of other properties in Brighton, closer to the seafront there are loads of old regency houses split up into flats and bedsits. The people in those properties, and the streets housing those properties, are more likely to be transient as many of them will be private renters as opposed to property owners, and will have less of a sense of community and will be less likely to 'clock' new neighbours, because they likely won't know their neighbours, so less likely to think they might have any potentially 'useful' information.
I lived in a nice village in Cheshire years ago, apart from the neighbour on one side, we didn't know anyone living in our street, people kept themselves to themselves. If the police had come knocking and asked if anyone had moved in or out, if we'd seen any new faces recently, we wouldn't have had a clue. I live on an estate in central Manchester now, and must know at least a hundred of my neighbours, many of whom are friends, and if the police came knocking and asked about interesting characters I'd have more of an idea as to who was new and whatever... (although given the last time I spoke to the police I nearly ended up in a witness protection programme, I'd actually probably tell them to fu(k off, but that's by the by).
I'm just speaking from personal experience about the reality of communities. Some are close knit. Some aren't. And people living in close knit communities, like social housing estates, are probably more likely to know their neighbours and to notice comings and goings. Unless they're Hyacinth Bucket. Or I might be wrong. In which case it might be nice if people actually came back at me with valid arguments about how people living on Barratt/Wimpey estates and in flats and bedsits in split up houses live in a closer knit community and know their neighbours and the local characters better. Instead of just calling me a fu(kwit and a (unt as the previous poster did.
If I'm totally wrong about people living on council estates living in closer knit communities and being more likely to clock comings and goings, then by all means, point me in the direction of information that proves my own personal experience to be wrong, and I'll stand corrected.
starfish
No dialogue. Just plot.
Who, and which post, are you referring to?
TBH i dont really know. Had a bit too much to drink last night & my memory is a bit fuzzy
. Am fairly sure it wasnt you though.TBH i dont really know. Had a bit too much to drink last night & my memory is a bit fuzzy
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
That's true if you define liberty as an abstract concept like privacy, or a right to family life, like Strasbourg does. If instead you define liberty as specific guarantees that bind the state, like trial by jury, it's entirely possible for it to be absolute. An "intrusion" on said guarantees in effect removes them. The US Bill of Rights operates on those grounds, and so does the Bill of Rights, 1689 (which gives absolute freedom of speech to MPs in the form of parliamentary privilege).
I suppose police knocking on people's doors and asking for ID wouldn't violate anyone's liberty, so long as they felt free to refuse. I'm just not sure it's effective, and could worry people needlessly.
So could something going bang in a big way and blowing the fuck out of them ...
You can never guarantee the prevention of anything ... but you can consider what is reasonable to do in the context of any particular recognised threat ... and in defining "reasonable" there are lots of considerations to bear in mind.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
So could something going bang in a big way and blowing the fuck out of them ...
As I said earlier in the thread, if this dragnet prevents terrorism, there's an argument for it (since it doesn't seem to violate any rights). I just question if it does work. The flipside is, if it distracts resources from more worthwhile approaches, it might be easier for the would-be murderers to make things go bang.
As it is pretty much impossible to prove what has been prevented ... and even harder to prove which actual actions prevented it there is no way of being sure if it does work. The only option is to listen to what those professionals charged with the task of preventing things say about whether something is or is not a worthwhile exercise (and, if you wish raising specific questions / aspects / views) and then, having heard why they say it is appropriate, engage in the debate as to whether any downside (e.g. cost, disruption, invasion of liberties) is worth it.
If you are not a professional engaged in the preventive activity you simply do not have the experise to judge whether or not it is likely to be effective - would you, as a non-doctor, start arguing with a doctor who claimed that a particular drug would have an effect on an illness ... ?
Of course not ... but everyone seems to think that they are an expert at police work and it's dead simple. They're not and it isn't.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
If I had concerns about its use, you bet I would, especially if other doctors disagreed with my doctor. Similarly, not only do police disagree amongst themselves, other legal professionals like lawyers disagree with the cops. Casting the net wider, police from different countries have marked disagreements with each other.If you are not a professional engaged in the preventive activity you simply do not have the experise to judge whether or not it is likely to be effective - would you, as a non-doctor, start arguing with a doctor who claimed that a particular drug would have an effect on an illness ... ?
Professionals aren't infallible, and have all kinds of agendas that may colour their judgments. I'm more than ready to listen to professionals, but I reserve the right to disagree if the evidence doesn't appear to back them up. You say it's impossible to prove what's been prevented. In which case, how do the police themselves know?
With all due respect to the lawyers ... they are NOT professional police officers or investigators - you wouldn't go to a cop to conveyance your house - why think you could go to a lawyer to tell you how to deliver policing? As for police debating amongst themselves, fine. And hence the public would have a range of professional opinions on which to make a judgement. I doubt very much that you'd find many professional police officers arguing that what is proposed is (a) not a reasonable preventive step to take and (b) a reasonable and proportionate intrusion of privacy when balanced against the gain.
They don't. That's why it's a professional judgment. How does a lawyer know that you'll win when they advise you you have a good case: they don't, it's professional judgment.
In that case I respectfully disagree with him. If the primary purpose of the police were to prevent crime, then the police should be in favour of removing all civil liberties which in any way stop them from doing performing that role. Actually that does explain certain attitudes we've seen recently.
Instead I would suggest a slightly wider aim, something along the lines of facilitating a peaceful public life free from harassment, be it from criminals or from the state itself.
All this is quite apart from the fact that a government party getting disproportional protection in exchange for disproportional harassment of the local public is questionable in my view.
That might apply to each individual step, but that's why people are talking about a slow erosion of our liberties. At some point you have to say "this tiny insignificant step is one tiny insignificant step too far".
The problem arises when people start making silly laws and start claiming that silly things are proportional/necessary.
As such I think there should be absolute liberties, the prohabition of torture is a good example.
Are you not disagreeing with yourself too? How do you suggest that the police "facilitate a peaceful public life" without at least some preventative role and powers?
I think you are falling into the usual trap of many civil libertarians which is to create a false dichotomy between freedom and a police state. If we are to have peaceful public life, free from harassment then we will always need to have some interference with personal freedoms ... but nowhere near enough to say we have a police state.
The trick is to get the balance right - so that the levels of interference with personal freedoms are proportionate and are only used when necessary. Broadly speaking that is where the UK is - at present we seem to have tipped towards excessive interference in some ways but at other times things have tipped the other way but I don't think we've strayed very far from the midpoint for a very long time.
The difficulty with this balance is that it is not a clearly defined point. What is "necessary" and what is "proportionate" is sometimes (quite often) a subjective decision dependant on your standpoint (or, more often, the level of understanding you have of the facts behind the reasoning). This is complicated further by the fact that the protection of one persons rights almost always involves interference with another persons (and this works both ways - if the police stop someone doing something to protect the rights of a "victim" or if they decline to stop someone doing something, regardless of the fact that the "victim" considers their rights are being infringed by that activity). Frequently the state (in the form of the police and the Courts) are faced with what is pretty much a paradox and "no win" situations are not at all unknown.
Against this complexity, simplistic "the police should do this" or "should not do that" arguments (as are often deployed here) are bound to fail. We (as a society) need to grow up and learn to use the language of balance and compromise when discussing what is and isn't appropriate or necessary, both in terms of the powers that are made available and in how they are used. Broadly speaking it is fine to identify a trend towards more infringement and control (as now) or in the opposite direction, but that does not necessarily mean that all the provisions being passed are excessive any more than if the trend were in the other direction, all the activities being allowed to continue unchecked needed to be curtailed. When dealing with individual provisions, the facts of the individual situation need to be considered. Even more importantly, when dealing with an individual case where a particular provision has been used or not used, it is essential to consider the particular facts of the case because, regardless of the bigger picture, it may have been an entirely reasonable and proper course of action to take in that precise situation.
(This lies behind my invariable refusal to jump to conclusions about whether some action taken (or not) is "right" or not until we know the full facts, or at least sufficient to be pretty sure what actually happened and my frequent (entirely misunderstood and invariably portrayed as "defending the police") posts suggesting alternative possible explanations for what may have happened to lead to the little we know.)
No, I'm saying that preventing harassment (even by the police themselves) is just as important as preventing other unpleasant things like muggings and murder. Yes, that means there needs to be a balance - something which I perceive is being lost in this case.Are you not disagreeing with yourself too? How do you suggest that the police "facilitate a peaceful public life" without at least some preventative role and powers?
points at thread titleWhat sort of thing are you actually referring to?
Sorry - I hadn't realised that the terrorists had now developed a bomb which can take out all the nasty new Labour politician tossers whilst leaving everyone else entirely uninjured ... hence I did not view the carrying out of some tasks intended to help prevent an attack on the Conference as being purely for the protection of the government. My mistake ...
At least you've recognised it and were able to admit it.My mistake ...
Similar threads
- Poll
