Maybe UK readers can correct me, but my understsanding is that stop-and-search in the UK falls under two headings.

1) Under a ‘reasonable suspicion’ standard for a wide variety of statutory offenses, from poaching to failing to install an energy-efficient ball-cock.
2) Under a ‘no-specific-suspicion’ standard for a number of statutory powers (‘terrorism’ and some serious crimes) on the authorization of a more-senior police officer. In other words, the police can give themselves the power to stop and search anybody and everybody at will and with no reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing.

Do I have that right?

llater,

llamas

I bet this gets smit.

My part of London, 2 mile from Tottenham, the generic term for the little angels is ‘spook’. (With the hoodie up it’s difficult to tell if there’s actually anybody in there.) Add the baggy trousers half way down the arse, the gold chains, the unlaced trainers & the rest of it & you have the Noo Yoik gangsta look & the possibility of anything from a bag of weed to an Uzi. Mostly the police don’t stop & search unless they’ve overwhelming superiority in numbers & an escape route. Within a couple of minutes there’ll be a crowd of ‘concerned citizens’ surrounding them.

Incidentally, there seems to be an idea that the looting was an unusual occurrence. It isn’t. There’s a low level buzz of it going on all the time. Ram raiding of closed shops. Bunch of youths ‘steaming’ a shop. Woman I know had about ten of them hit her business once. Till contents, goods, her own possessions at knife point. Cars trashed & torched. Muggings. Neighbour of ours got stabbed on her doorstep at 8:00am.

Heavy handed policing? At 9:00pm on a Saturday night, the total police availability for the area covered by Tottenham nick was 2 cars.

Why’d you think I moved down here?

However, as they are all basically cowards (and recently disarmed on orders from the State government) I find the application of loud curses in good, fluent, street Spanish, demands to know why I am being interrogated and, finally, calling their bluff by telling them I will speak to their chief about why they demanded a 5000 peso bribe (when they did no such thing but Chiefy will want his 50% cut, see?) they usually back off, with worried expressions over the big-cojoned gringo who may actually know people who could make BIG TROUBLE for them (not their boss, but his boss’s boss, the narco-gangs).

Makes me grateful, somedays, to think I am outta’ here in a few months.

Their view of themselves as victims is reinforced by their social workers who get their ideas from articles in the Guardian.

Hahaha. Second time a Samizdata post has made me smile today. Nicely put, a trifle unkind perhaps, but possibly quite true.

Society should have a very serious debate about Police powers and their use. Banning stop and search is the prerogative of a free people and if that is what is the people want, they should get it. But it is imperative that the likely cost in a rise in crime is understood too.

Except that they didn’t. Public display was still a crime. The police stoped them. Asked them to empty their pockets. If they did, they were now guilty of public display. No sympathy for druggies who followed police orders even when they otherwise followed the law.

Wouldn’t catch a lawyer of course. The correct response is. “Am I under arrest”. If the answer is no, then refuse to empty your pockets and walk away. If the answer is yes, then say “I want my lawyer” and don’t say another word while following all directions. Even petty lies resulting from a faulty memory can result in an obstruction of justice felony, and refusal to follow a lawful order is also a felony.

They should have a class in high school that basically covers how not to fall for simple police tricks. Oh wait, I guess that would defeat the purpose of government schooling.