T Nation

UK: Section 60 Powers


So does the public in the UK generally support the use of Section 60 powers (powers that enable constables in uniform to stop pedestrians and vehicles and search them without any “reasonable suspicion” of wrongdoing)?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23484515-details/Airport-style+scanners+on+the+streets/article.do

[quote]Does anyone get the irony here? “Police are to use hundreds of airport-style and hand-held weapon detectors in the crackdown on [u]knife crime[/u].” Ban guns and what do you get? a “crackdown” on “knife crime”(?)…Don’t get me started[/quote]…

Getting back to the original question: NYC has an anti-gun law (the “Sullivan law”, racist in origin directed against Italian-Americans who were stereotyped as knife carriers…Hmm sounds familiar?)…This gives the NYPD the ability to stop and frisk citizens for carrying firearms without a NYC issued pistol permit (which is defacto impossible to obtain without “connections”). Nearly every foul-up (shooting, lawsuit, etc) NYPD gets into is based on these intrusive (unconstitutional) stops, which ride the thin line between criminal profiling and racial profiling, and of course, the low man on the totem, the street cop, usually ends up getting screwed because of it.

I predict the same thing is going to happen with this similar law in the UK, where the average subject has lost what few individual rights they had after the WW1 era (but that is another thread, eh?)…Bad mojo, Bubba’…

It’s all relative. After Jean Charles de Menezes, I suppose people are more concerned about getting shot 8 times. Probable cause and privacy become secondary concerns.

The London Met used to have a stop and search policy but it was abandoned because it inflated the crime figures involving black people.

Because in London black people were more likely to be involved in gangs and petty street crime so the police stopped more black people and found knives and drugs etc etc

Which sort of is the point but the liberals feared that it would show all Blacks as theives and muggers so it was abandoned…

I am considered to be fairly right wing (pro Death Penalty etc) but I am all against the state having tyrannic powers against the people of the state.

If the government got its way anybody suspected of terrorism could be held under house arrest for 60 days while “investigated”.

The British are stupid what else is new?

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The British are stupid what else is new?
[/quote]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how the “arrogant jerk” stereotype for Americans is perpetuated.

[quote]lixy wrote:
It’s all relative. After Jean Charles de Menezes, I suppose people are more concerned about getting shot 8 times. Probable cause and privacy become secondary concerns.[/quote]

For those that don’t know, Benezes was the Brazilian electrician shot by a British police anti-terrorist hit squad in a case of mistaken identity. So the thinking is, “Okay to frisk me, just don’t shoot me”?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069796.stm

To be clear, I didn’t post this query to make Brits look idiotic. I’m wondering whether they are generally supportive of searches without reasonable suspicion.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The British are stupid what else is new?

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how the “arrogant jerk” stereotype for Americans is perpetuated.[/quote]

The correct term Lixy is “ugly American”. My parents and grandparents were born and raised in England. However several of my greatgrandparents were Irish and I know about the potato famine. So I’ll say what I like.

Years of stupid policy decisions by the British government has created the conditions of lawlessness that they are now infringeing civil rights in order to try and remedy.

A good analogy to what is going on in Britain would the use of drugs on the elderly where they are given one drug for a condition, but then they have side effects. So then they are given a second drug to couteract the side effects of the first drug.

But then the second drug has side effects that then requires a third drug which in turn will require a fourth drug, then a fifth etc… This is how the elderly end up having to take handfuls of pills every day.