Don't want to be illegally searched by the police? You must be a criminal!
Do you live in Largs? Maybe you have to use public transport? Then....you must be a criminal!The train station in Largs has been fitted out with an airport style scanner which will scan passengers who wish to travel on trains.
Presently under Scots and English law, no one need submit to a search by police unless the police have reasonable cause to suspect that a person has, will, or is in the process of, committing a crime.
These intrusive scans are therefore, in theory, voluntary.
However, as reported on the Scotland Today news show, the attitude of the police appears to be at odds with the law.
As Scotland Today reported, "While passengers can't be forced to go through the detectors, refusal to do so may be treated as a reason for officers to undertake a search."
In other words, if you do not 'voluntarily' submit to have your person searched by machine, then the police will (completely illegally) claim that this gives them 'reason' to search you anyway, against your will.
Remember, the police only have the right to search you under very specific criteria.
They can only search you if they have reason to believe that you have, will, or are committing a criminal offence against the law of the UK.
Simply declining, and refusing to explain why you are declining, is not in itself sufficient cause for the police to have 'reason'.
Unfortunately, this breach of law, perpetrated by the Police State, and reported in the state controlled media, is all too commonplace in todays Britain.
The Police State is watching you!
posted by Winston Smith at 7:13 pm
5 Comments:
I posted this on my blog in reply to a comment pointing to your site
"If Britain were truly a Police State, then there wouldn't be anywhere near the amount of crime that there is now. The definition of a police state is one where the government use the police to maintain and enforce political power.
While there are idiots out there who are voting for Tony Bliar and his cronies, they don't need the police to maintain their positions.
I was interested in the article on metal detectors at railway stations. I would point out that railway stations are the property of Network Rail and although they are "public places" the network have the right (whether you like it or not) to prevent access to their property. If you refuse to be searched, you can be denied access to the station, in the same way as people attending football matches.
Personally, I think that these detectors are no more than a publicity stunt. Those who choose to carry weapons (which I note you have not condemned or commented upon) could quite easily go to another railway station to gain entry to the network. For example, in Birmingham, there are over a dozen mainline stations within a very small area and only the biggest one has a regular police presence. If there was an operation at New St, it would take minutes for someone seeking to avoid detection to walk to another station."
Thanks for commenting Stan.
Going by your very own definition of a Police State, I'm sure that you would concur that this governments continued hounding and harassment of Brian Haw is a clear attempt to use the police, and the wider system of the justiciary, to stifle legitimate political protest against the actions of the government. For further details, please visit http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/344006.html . I shall quote a small portion of the text here. "On Sunday 3rd July a singing woman outside Downing Street, wearing a small placard about bullying, was threatened with arrest, which would involve her child being taken into care." And yet, the Institute of Directors businessmen held an unauthorised demonstration within the designated socpa zone earlier this evening, and no-one got reported or arrested. http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/06/343789.html . Hmm, one law for the rich.
Your analogy of comparing train passengers to football fans is also somewhat erroneous I feel. The vast, vast, overwhelming majority of train passengers will never ever engage in any behaviour which could even be remotely described as offensive, whereas, if you have ever policed a train full of Scottish or English football 'fans', you will know that they are considerably more rowdy, and much more likely to be involved in violent clashes than ordinary train passengers.
Of the 240 people who were duped by Police into submitting to this most intrusive search, none, that’s right, absolutely not one single person was found to be carrying anything which they shouldn't have, although some passengers did complain at being forced to vacate the train they were on to 'voluntarily' be scanned. Soon enough, he will probably be forced off the train to show the Police Officers his 'papers'.
You have said that this is a publicity stunt in your opinion, a better description would be a psy-op in my opinion.
Much as I am accused of failing to address the matter of knife carrying, the government refuse to address the matter of why people feel the need to carry them.
The essential point which I am making is that submitting to these intrusive procedures is now no longer voluntary if people wish to access essential public services, such as public transport. The peoples right not to be searched has been taken from them by stealth. The government has used, as you concur, the fact that the Stations are now in the hands of private owners to initiate this policy, probably payback for all the years of squandering public money on a decrepit and non existent transport network, so that shareholders could be paid. The Rights of the People have been taken from them.
Thanks for that, I've been worried about the government's tighening grip on our civil liberties with things such as ASBO's, ID Cards and people being sent to prison without on trail on suspicion, when governments become too powerful they infringe civil liberties.
I think you may have misinterpreted part of my comment.
I wasn't comparing train passengers to football fans, the vast majority of who are decent and law-abiding.
I was comparing the access to railway stations and access to football grounds. Although the public pay to access both, albeit for different reasons, the operators of both locations reserve the right (recognised in law) to refuse entry.
You may not like it (I'm guessing you won't) but if someone refuses to allow themselves to be searched before entering what is essentially private property, then they run the risk of being refused entry.
This doesn't solve the problem of those who carry weapoms as a matter of course. Due to previous abuses of power, police officers are now virtually unable to legitimately search on the streets, which explains the proliferation in knife carrying, knife attacks and knife murders.
With civil rights come civil responsibilities. Unfortunately, those who bleat about their "rights" are the ones who are most likely to violate the rights of others, by stealing, assaulting and generally annoying everyone around them.
It's a brave new world, isn't it?
The difference being that attending football is an entirely voluntary practice, engaged in by a relatively small number of people, whereas travelling by public transport is unavoidable for a large number of people, in order to access essential public services.
Those persons who carry knives as a matter of course will still carry knives as a matter of course. Do you seriously think that they will not have considered the prospect of not passing through the metal detecting equipment?
Oh, and I think that you will find that the people most likely to be involved in the abuse of rights are right wind jumped up mini hitlers who believe that they can violate the law which they are supposed to be upholding.
I thought the police were supposed to be public servants?
Post a Comment
<< Home