London Tube Dangerous for Technophiles?

TsukiKage writes "Traveling on the London Tube is dangerous these days, it seems - and not because of terrorists. Quick as ever to try and protect against the attack that has just happened, zealous police will detain you at the drop of a hat." From the article: "The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift on to the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back. I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside my jacket and begin to read. The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act."

Comments

the defense of liberty

[fishdan]

The MBTA in Bostonhas instituted a search policy on the commuter rail and subway. They say the station I come into in the morning (North Station) has about 25000 people come in during rush hours in the AM, making it impracticel tosearch everyone. Ithink "random" searches are never random -- people gettargetted.

The ACLU has a detailed page describing how to deal with a search request. One of the primary differences in the US and UK is clearly illustrated -- I don't mean this as a slam on the UK, merely pointing out a difference. In the US every ctizen is supposed to be immune from unreasonable search. Of course the definition of reasonable is opem to debate. But it's only by people pushing against crazy things like these train searches that we are able to defend indivual freedoms.

With the recent supreme court ruling in the Hiibel case it's more important than ever that citzens defend the right that are given to them. I hope other Bostonians will print out a copy of the ACLU's advice page ann keep it with them when they travel on the T. If you are an American and live in a place that has unreasonable searches, contact your local ACLU and see what they advise.

Regretting that you can't do something in the war on terror? Here's your opportunity. Defend civil liberties at home.

Re:the defense of liberty

[nubnub]

I come into South Station and for weeks after London my commuter train would get stopped in Norwood for about five minutes while police with dogs walked the aisles of the train. Not once did the searches inconvenience me or anyone else on my train in any form, not once were they violating anyone's rights. They mostly seemed to be looking for unattended bags. I think most of the police presence in South Station and North Station is for show, and the rest is to make sure the trains are searched between the time the trains come in and the trains leave.

Re:the defense of liberty

[Pxtl]

I'm a white Canuck who crossed the border on a trip by Greyhound (never again) to Chicago recently, and I don't know if they claim to do "random" checks or review "suspicious" people only or whatever.

Let me be blunt: they go by race. Completely. Girl in line in front of me at customs seemed to be of indian or pakistani descent, but spoke English clearly enough that I assumed she was raised in Canada and was likely a Canadian citizen.

Of course, they went completely through her bags and took quite a while with her. My wife and I went through quickly, as did several other non-middle-eastern folks. There was a family of 5 that simply took forever because they were quite obviously recent immigrants.

Right or wrong, there is no doubt that "random selection" has become a euphemism for racial profiling.

Re:the defense of liberty

[vidarh]

--I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates;

Uh. Yeah. MOST people I see on the London transport network try their best to avoid any eye contact with anyone, and seeing police in London is so common that they're hardly worthy any extra notice.

--two other men entered the station at about the same time as me;

Uhuh. Because that is really unusual at Southwark during the evening rush... For those unfamiliar with it, Southwark is the closest tube station to Waterloo East, and thus a significant interchange point along one of the main rail lines in/out of central London as well as being in the middle of an area with a significant number of large office buildings.

--I am wearing a jacket "too warm for the season";

Except that it was a cold day...

--I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;

Ok, so carrying a bulky rucksack a week after the failed attacks on the 21st was perhaps asking for some extra attention - and the way I understood it he wouldn't have complained if they'd let him go when having checked out his rucksack. But keeping it with him at all times? Anyone travelling regularly into London can more or less recite the security warnings that go out over the speakers at every damn tube and rail station every few minutes telling us in a few different wordings to keep our belongings with us at all times to avoid uneccesary security alerts or they might get removed or destroyed by the security services... Whenever I have a rucksack or suitcase with me, I hold on to it at all times - I'd rather not have my laptop blown up, thank you very much.

--I looked at people coming on the platform;

Hey, one of my favorite pastimes when waiting for a train. Waiting is boring. Looking around you is a fairly natural way of making time pass.

--I played with my phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.

Seriously... That just describes about half the travellers on my route to work.

But we agree that the rest of what he went through was ridiculous. Makes me wonder why I've never been stopped considering I've carried bulky rucksacks with me to/from work several times a week, but I guess being blonde and blue eyes they don't think I'm capable of doing anything bad.

Re:the defense of liberty

[Philip K Dickhead]

How about an illegal shirt?

Girl arrested over Bollocks to Blair shirt

H&H staff writer

22 September, 2005

Police arrested a 20-year-old gamekeeper for wearing a "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt at a game fair last weekend

A girl was arrested for wearing her "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt at the Midlands Game Fair last weekend. Charlotte Denis, 20, a gamekeeper from Gloucestershire, was stopped by police as she left the Countryside Alliance stand because of the "offensive" slogan.

Shocked and dismayed to be made a public spectacle, Denis tried to reason with the officers: "What do you want me to do? Take my top off and wear my bra?"

At this point, two officers marched Denis towards a police car. "They grabbed me as if I was a football hooligan," she says.

Although the "Bollocks to Blair" slogan was in evidence all round the Game Fair, police maintained it was the first time they had seen it.

"They had to walk past a huge banner in order to get to me and there were lots of other people wearing the T-shirts," explained Denis.

A tearful Denis was driven to a mobile police unit. "I asked the officers how they could arrest someone for wearing a T-shirt and they told me it was because it would offend a 70-80-year-old woman," she said.

After agreeing to wear a friend's coat, Denis was released without charge. But the incident ruined her day: "You don't expect to be treated like that at a country fair," she said.

Denis bought her T-shirt at Badminton Horse Trials last year, as well as a matching badge she wears on her coat.

"Bollocks to Blair" merchandise is manufactured by Splash and first appeared last year.

"The demand has been crazy," said Splash director Toby Rhodes. "The slogan is an expression of anger in the countryside -- which we are not trying to incite. We originally thought it a bit too direct for us but it has been popular with all ages. I've been told that some police officers wear the T-shirts under their uniforms."

"It's complete nonsense," said the Countryside Alliance. "The police surely have better things to do with their time than protect the Prime Minister's modesty."

This news story was first published in Horse & Hound (22 September, '05)

Victim's website

[Bogtha]

This is also published on the victim's website. Also on there is a description of the suicide bomber profile the police use - which many geeks will also fit.

Depends on "reasonable".

[jd]

Under Common Law in the UK, you generally can't be prosecuted for doing anything that any reasonable person might do. This was used very successfully by a man claiming to be the reincarnation of King Arthur, who had been prosecuted along with some of his "knights of the round table" for 'travelling together with a common purpose' - an action prohibited under the Criminal Justice Act. The Law Lords considered his defence that he couldn't go on quests under the CJA a better argument than the Government's.

The TPA is supposed to have safeguards, preventing wanton abuse by the police - otherwise they'd just call everyone a terrorist and sort out who was what over the week they get before having to present some evidence. The police can't just arrest anyone they happen to feel like. Well, they can, they're just going to get bollicked by the courts if they try, as happened in the aforementioned case.

This is no different from in the US, where anyone can physically be arrested by the police and subject to whatever searches the police feel like. The Constitution is just paper, it can't physically intervene. All a person can do is plead their case in court and hope for a sensible judge. (More than a few convictions in the US have been overturned on appeal, because the Miranda rights were violated - deomonstrating that it can take several rounds before anyone pays attention.)

It's also important to note we don't know ALL of the facts of the case. For all we know, British Intelligence may have tipped the police off that an attack was likely on that route, sometime soon. In which case, you're dealing with an entirely different scenario to one where the police were acting spontaneously, without due cause. All we can do, at this point, is guess as to the motives involved and the information the police had posessed. (I shall refrain from drawing inferences about the demonic nature of anti-terror squads that posess.)

Re:Were his rights violated

[cowbutt]

Everything he owned was returned to him.

As of 8 September (over a month after his arrest), some of David's possessions had not been returned. I don't know whether they have yet - he doesn't say.

The investigation was thorough, quick, and ultimately vindicating.

Maybe you have built up tolerance of bureaucracy, but I don't call 9.5hrs from arrest to release "quick", especially seeing as he didn't get to call his worried girlfriend until 3hrs later, and get a drink of water until 4hrs later. Further, he hasn't yet received a letter officially stating that he's off the hook.