# Anti -Terrorism patrols



## Tez3 (Apr 27, 2008)

As this is now in the public domain I'd be interested to know what people thought! 

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=562318&in_page_id=1770


----------



## tellner (Apr 27, 2008)

Ah, another stupid bit of security theater. And another chorus of the Blair/Brown taking liberties song. 

Wonderful.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 27, 2008)

Actually what is it is a simple exercise in putting manpower in places where it's needed. People have long complained that police officers since the advent of the motor car no longer patrol the streets enough. The MOD police specialise in anti terrorism so are the best people for the job of watching out for terrorists. They are in police uniform funnily enough as they *are *police officers although the reporter doesn't seem to think they are, they can also deal with any other type of crime, many people have reported that seeing uniformed officers doing street patrols out of their vehicles is a welcome return to what they see as proper policing. 
Whatever the government or the higher ups think the public perceives street patrolling to be the best way of policing an area. They like the comfort of seeing the uniforms out on the street. The problem for the police however is that crime prevention cannot be quantified and made into statistics to appease the politicians.
The MOD police also has officers out in Iraq teaching the police force.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 27, 2008)

Having a beat cop pounding the pavement is a great idea in most neighborhoods.  It puts most petty criminals off and brings comfort to the general population.  I don't think it's gonna deter a terrorist attack at all as most terrorists won't care who's around when they pull the pin.  As for searching tourists... why?  I know that the article said "that fit a certain profile" but what activities trigger a search?  Snapping a photo in front of Big Ben certainly shouldn't be a reason for a search.  This sounds like an idea that's put together with the best of intentions but too easy to abuse.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 27, 2008)

Its good, as long as it is to fill a legimitate operational requirment in the defence of MoD interests.  If they are just being used to shore up the civvy police then its disgraceful.



> Commons Home Affairs Select Committee chairman Keith Vaz called for an urgent investigation.
> 
> He said: "I will be asking the Home Secretary to clarify what these officers are doing, *whether they are fully qualified to do this work* and how much scrutiny they are under."



Has no one shot this idiot yet?  I'd like to bet they are _at least_ as qualified as the normal police.  Why is he asking the Home Secretary anyway?  They're not under her jurisdiction.  Jackie Smith is another who needs a damn good shoeing.  Has an agenda against the armed forces, that one.

Rant over.  Sorry.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 27, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Its good, as long as it is to fill a legimitate operational requirment in the defence of MoD interests. If they are just being used to shore up the civvy police then its disgraceful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Rant on, we have ranted plenty lol! Of course the bloody MODplods are qualified, what do they think they are, imposters in a police uniform? there's even a chief constable! 
http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/a...ntelligence/mdpga/ministryofdefencepolice.htm

The government has put unqualified people out in uniform in the street calling them community support officers, they have little training, no police powers and people are questioning the use of proper police officers just because they are employed by the MOD!


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 27, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The government has put unqualified people out in uniform in the street calling them community support officers, they have little training, no police powers and people are questioning the use of proper police officers just because they are employed by the MOD!



That is the first time I've smiled today.  Even got a laugh.  How right you are, its funny cuz its true.  

I quite enjoyed the Andrew Marr show this morning, did you catch it?  They are spending so much time saying that the Liarbor party is behind Broon that they must really be plotting his downfall!


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 27, 2008)

It's the same here I think as in New York they have armed officers with submachine guns patrolling the subway system. 
Gone are the days of officers walking the beat and eventually getting flat-footed. In Nashville Tenn. I saw several officers riding those personal transports called segways around downtown. Couldn't help but shake my head at them. Guess they didn't want to burn off all those calories from the doughnuts and bagels. 
But call it a political move to show that they're doing something to protect the citizens from those nasty ole' terrorists. Or call it a sincere effort on their part to protect the citizens from those nasty ole' terrorists. 
It's something at least... isn't it?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 27, 2008)

The profiling part is the part thats more difficult for the Home Office police to do as they have such a wide range of things and people to look out for, the MOD Police have a smaller range and it's easier  remembering known terrorist faces for them. It's not so much a case of randomly picking someone who fits a profile more of knowing who to look for from the Intelligence agencies of which the MOD has a couple! You'll find links to them on the link I posted, I love open government lol! That's in addition to the more well known Agencies of James Bond and legend!
I should point out that many of the MOD Police Officers are actually ex Forces, some are ex spec ops who are used to anti terrorist procedures and may be of more use spotting terrorist activities than others. Remember too that we are still on the watch for Provo and other N Irish terrorists, not all have subscribed to the peace agreement and we regularly get threats. It's not necessarily the Middle Eastern suicide bombers we are looking for.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2008)

What is the extent of normal police powers in the ability to carry out searches of pedestrians?  The article doesn't mention any, only that they are searching people with a "particular profile".  If someone is being stopped and searched because they are wearing a _keffiyeh_ or taking pictures of Big Ben, then that is quite worrying from a civil rights perspective.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 28, 2008)

*Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984*

Section 1 of PACE is the most commonly used power and gives the police power to stop and search people and vehicles for stolen goods and offensive weapons on the basis of reasonable suspicion.
*Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 *

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, gives police the right to search people in a specific area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that there is the possibility of serious violence or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon.
This law is used mainly to tackle football hooliganism and gang fights.
*Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 *

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives police the power to search people for equipment that could be used to commit a terrorist act. Police can search anybody anywhere under this law, and they do not need reasonable suspicion to do so. It is under this law that police conduct random searches in train and tube stations.


Stop and search is a pain in the you know where! The paperwork involved is horrendous as you have to fill out a form in front of the person you've searched. Personally my criteria for stopping you is that you have to be male, well dressed and very good looking lol! Seriously though I think you have or develop an instinct for dodgy behaviour. Terrorists rarely look or dress like your stereotypical bomber. There are things to look for like what appears to be many layers of clothing, it seems the idea is to blow yourself up but to maintain as much of your body together as you can so you can go whole to heaven hence layers of clothes, of course they could equally be shoplifters!


----------



## Big Don (Apr 28, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> What is the extent of normal police powers in the ability to carry out searches of pedestrians?  The article doesn't mention any, only that they are searching people with a "particular profile".  If someone is being stopped and searched because they are wearing a _keffiyeh_ or taking pictures of Big Ben, then that is quite worrying from a civil rights perspective.


Yeah, because paying extra attention to those who are demographically most likely to commit acts of terrorism makes no sense.

Searching those who are as likely to commit terrorism as my dog is to win an oscar next year, makes little sense and most importantly, it wastes time and resources that could be doing something useful. 
Does the woman being searched in this picture look like a likely candidate for terrorism?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives police the power to search people for equipment that could be used to commit a terrorist act. Police can search anybody anywhere under this law, and they do not need reasonable suspicion to do so.



Thanks, I did not know what the grounds were in the UK.  Apparently, there aren't any.  I'm sorry to see that.  It certainly doesn't distinguish the actions described by these Ministry police in the article as different from other police officers though.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 28, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, because paying extra attention to those who are demographically most likely to commit acts of terrorism makes no sense.



Since I don't enjoy bannination or stern notes from moderators, I won't take up this argument in this folder.  I would be happy to do so in The Study however.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 28, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Does the woman being searched in this picture look like a likely candidate for terrorism?


 
Actually, yes. 

While I can't go into more detail, I can mention that on at least one occasion in the last 5 years, weapons have been found hidden in the frame of a wheelchair by the TSA. Additionally, it's likely that we'll see Islamic terrorism from Chechnya or the Balkans, and those people may well look-and talk!-like Mr. & Mrs. _Omaha Nebraska._ Lastly, anyone can purchase an authentic nun's habit or cleric's garb and other accoutrements from [CM Almy, to name just one example-or get a pretty fine duplicate from a costume supplier.....


....so _demographically most likely_ just isn't going to apply in the near future.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 28, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Thanks, I did not know what the grounds were in the UK. Apparently, there aren't any. I'm sorry to see that. It certainly doesn't distinguish the actions described by these Ministry police in the article as different from other police officers though.


 
There's no difference between us and the other police officers other than we are better looking rofl! :boing1:


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 29, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Thanks, I did not know what the grounds were in the UK.  Apparently, there aren't any. * I'm sorry to see that*.



I can see where you are coming from, however if you have nothing to hide then what does it matter?  I'd rather upset a few people than see some fanatic spead them all over a wall somewhere.



> other than we are better looking rofl!



Look Tez, a flying pig!


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 30, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> I can see where you are coming from, however if you have nothing to hide then what does it matter?



Again, I have no desire to break the rules of this folder by answering this question.  If you would like to start a thread in The Study, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you.  Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your position.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 30, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Again, I have no desire to break the rules of this folder by answering this question. If you would like to start a thread in The Study, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your position.


 
I'm not sure that it would be breaking the rules-law enforcement personnel in this country have to abide by search rules that are defined by our Constitution. There are circumstances where individuals voluntarily allow the abrogation of those rights, however, and air-travel is and always has been one of them.....


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 30, 2008)

Flying pigs indeed, that's fighting talk lol!

Police officers in this country have to abide by the  law. The UK has no written constitution, the nearest we ever got to one was the Magna Carta.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 30, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I'm not sure that it would be breaking the rules...



The rules of the folder prohibit discussing the political or social aspects of law enforcement.  I have already been burned once for doing so here and "destroying the morale of LEO's", so I won't do it again.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 30, 2008)

As a mere 'civvie', I can second Irene's informed professional views with those of one who sees things from the 'other side', so to speak.

British Bobbies do an excellent job under increasingly difficult circumstances.  All you have to do is follow a couple of simple rules:

1) Don't break the law (even the dumb ones)
2) Don't use your cheek - they're vastly tolerant (far more than I would be) but there are limits.

The concept of 'rights' is a tricky one in Britain, as I've mentioned before.  Generally speaking, we have what 'rights' the government of the day decides we have, subject to the approval of the Crown.  People, especially youngsters who have grown up on a diet of American TV cop shows, have some misguided ideas about 'rights' to go with the very real (and absurd) over-protection they have from the consequences of their actions.

When it comes to being questioned by a policeman/woman, it serves you far better to "Yes sir/mam" it than argue the toss.  Co-operate and the worst you suffer is a bit of inconvenience (and the sense that your taxes are doing some good) - so why kick up a fuss?

I know this must sound really odd to our much 'freer' American friends because you have legally defined rights and powers enshrined in your Constitution (how's the dissolving of that going by the way?) but to us Limeys it's no big deal to be 'oppressed by the man' .  It's been the same for a long time - at least now they don't use sabres on us .

The big counterbalance, to elaborate, is the Crown itself.  The government gets too out of bounds and Mrs. Queen can quite legitimately sack the lot of them.  If they don't like it then it's a bit tough for them because the military swear their oathes to the Crown, not the government.  So as long as we've got a decent King/Queen we're okay :tup:.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 1, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> As a mere 'civvie', I can second Irene's informed professional views with those of one who sees things from the 'other side', so to speak.
> 
> British Bobbies do an excellent job under increasingly difficult circumstances. All you have to do is follow a couple of simple rules:
> 
> ...


 
The one time it's ever happened to me all's it took was a bit of "yes sir/no sir", and then the cop explained what was up, and I decided to get a little use out of the episode, and asked, "hey, y'know, what in particular *was* it about me that tripped your trigger?" and that broadened MY education as well.


----------

