We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Armed and dangerous: yet more ‘security’ A brigadier general (retired) writes to The Times:
Last week, a security scanner at the Waterloo Eurostar terminal detected a credit-card-sized toolkit in my overnight case as I set out for Paris on business. …
Read the whole thing. It is not long.
I am reminded that we are only a fortnight since St Crispin’s day.
He that outlives this day and comes safe home
Will stand a-tiptoe when this day is named
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t’old age
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors
And say, “Tomorrow is Saint Crispian.”
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say, “These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.”
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day.
What did you do in the “War on Terror,” Daddy?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Somewhat irrelevant to the main point, but the British Army has no such rank as Brigadier General; he’s a Brigadier. In the British Army, Brigadier is the most senior field rank, in the US Army, Brigadier General is the most junior general rank.
Similar thing happened to me at Heathrow.
Though in my case they confiscated the ‘dangerous’ , blunt, 1-inch blade, and put the rest of the kit in lost property.
Pity he didn’t refuse the caution and let a court decide.
Now he’s got a record. I hope he doesn’t plan on travelling to the US.
The rank is indeed ‘Brigadier’, but I am under instructions to write for an international audience. Hence uncapitalised ‘brigadier general’.
Until the ranks were clarified and made consistent across the British Army in the ’20s, what’s now a Brigadier was a Brigadier-General to distinguish him from a brigadier who was merely the officer in charge of a brigade and might be a Colonel. Cf. the entirely analogous ‘commodore’ a status, not a rank, in the RN till the 20th century.
Brigadier is the equivalent of 1* General, if anyone is more confused than when we started.
So no surprise that there is such a “shortage” of police resources. Why this could not be delt with at the terminal in minutes I don’t know.
“Penny wise, pound foolish” springs to mind.
I note with amusement that the Times article I called up came with an ad below the story for Swiss Army Knives. I carry one not because I am an international man of mystery, but because it is…sensible.
I too always carry a swiss army knife, at all times.
I never have any trouble with it at airports because I always put it in the hold.
The trouble with these security clowns is that there is no logic to their rules. It was only I few threads ago that I was talking of my wife’s travails with nail scissors and mascara. But at least she didn’t get arrested.
I bet the Brigadier had a pocket full of pens and pencils that were completely ignored, and if his army training was anything like en ex para friend of mine, he will know how to kill people just as quickly with them as with a 5cm blade.
Also interesting is that he was cautioned under an Act that dates from 1953, so it has nothing to do with our present panic with terrorism. Presumably I can be arrested, under the same Act,walking down the street with my penknife in my pocket.
What you also miss is that this is for the Eurostar terminal. This is a train. What did they think he was going to do – hijack it? Crash it into the Eiffel Tower? What danger was he posing exactly?
I once travelled as a foot passenger on a ferry from Portsmouth where they made us go through an X-ray machine. Meanwhile next to us were rows of cars driving onto the ferry packed full of cutlery, gas canisters, fireworks, perhaps firearms too, with no checks at all. So why make us do that?
I resent the Eurostar because of the extent to which the designers have strived to make it look and feel like an airport, stripping it of the romance of train travel. I love stations in places like Vienna where next to your urban service you have one which happens to be going to Istanbul or Copenhagen, and no-one tries to strip you of your nail clippers if you get in it.
This is a train. What did they think he was going to do – hijack it? Crash it into the Eiffel Tower?
Don’t be so cavalier. Dem suicide bombas could drive a train into the White House.
Once again: It’s because people let assholes get away with shit. That simple.
I also hate the airline-isation of train travel. I remember the first time I got an “airline style” ticket for a trip from Leeds to Newcastle! So much less convenient than the little orange ones that fit in your wallet. I don’t know why they do it. Nobody has regarded flying as romantic or classy for decades. It is a dull, tedious, uncomfortable ordeal. And the security (especially in the US) is beyond parody. At Ft Lauderdale they made a guy remove the little Nike trainers from his toddler and the kid’s baseball jacket and put them through the X-ray. I was weraing a heavy shirt but that didn’t count as “outerwear” even though I could have hidden a lot more under it… What I really object to is the worry when I’m in the queue because if they search your bag and you can’t remember exactly what is in it you could get into trouble. I almost had a WiFi finder swiped from me at Philly recently simply because the woman had no idea what it was. Her colleague did and accepted my explanation though I had to demonstrate it. Which is a bit odd because if it had been a remote-control for a bomb something would have gone boom there and then. Some of the things on the banned list are weird. Like RAB’s wife I have never understood how nail clippers could ever be someone’s weapon of choice. Who are they trying to catch? MacGyver? Scaramanga?
They’d improve security by passing penknives out to all passengers and requiring them to accept them.
The suicidal, medieval, brain-dead policy of stripping people of weapons has got to stop. The red tape that prevented me from having a gun in my possession in the twilight of September 10th, 2001, and thus made it too dangerous for me to remain near the side of an isolated road, is extremely likely to have prevented me from identifying some of the Islam-infected scumbags that were either centrally or peripherally involved in the mass murders the next morning, originating from Boston. Further restrictions make quotidian carrying impractical, I’ve since found….
Another case of the Police ‘trying it on’:
“Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse.
Definition of an offensive weapon:
‘Offensive weapon’ is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use. The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury.”
Who says so? Only the Crown Prosecution Service(Link), that’s who.
Lesson: never ever allow yourself to be “persuaded” to accept a caution without getting good legal advice first. [Disclaimer: IANAL]
Jules
The “Dont know what it is” rings a bell with me Nick.
Whilst my wife was having her cosmetics confiscated, in my hand luggage, when we went to Italy, was the ipod, digital camera, various chargers with cables (very handy for garroting someone with!) and the fm transmitter for using the ipod in cars etc.
Now these are still illegal per se in this country. I could be arrested for mere possession . Yet my handluggage was searched and the transmitter totally ignored.
Why? cos they didn’t know what it was, and didn’t ask.
Quite frankly folks, something that can transmit a signal ten or fifteen feet (i.e. from your seat to whatever nasty you have put in the hold) would be top of my list for things confiscated, over nail clippers and cosmetics.
As I said before, we travel frequently, and all this nonsense does not make me feel one percent more safe, just 1000% bloody angry!!
I was on a jury where the defendant was charged with being in possession of a knife while walking along his local High Street on a Saturday afternoon.
The chap fixed up people’s computers for a living, and regularly carried a folding knife. Only 2″ long it was short enough to be permitted, but for the fact it had a mechanism to “lock” the knife in place (where the “short length” exemption doesn’t apply). His explanation for needing a locking knife: “If it folds back on your finger while in use it’ll cut you”. Well, quite. The knife had little serations suitable for stripping wire.
The defendant was 35 years old and, by that age, had never been charged with an offence (previous convictions and indictments being information the jury get told nowadays).
I’m sure he was also invited to accept a police caution (and thereby gain a criminal record), but he decided to place his trust in the jury instead. I’m glad, and indeed proud, to report that his trust was well not misplaced.
Guy Herbert asks
I voted to acquit.
I must admit that the question of the brigadier’s penknife and whether it is or is not an offensive weapon under British law is not something I will spend a lot of time thinking about. What I do find fascinating, though, is that the British police has time and money enough to spend on enforcing such niggling little regulations but does not have enough money to provide constables with adequate transportation, to the point where criminal suspects must, out of the goodness of their hearts, provide the constables with taxi fare in order to get them back to where they are supposed to be. I suppose that charging convicts by the day for the use of their cells is coming soon to a prison near you, with Fodor’s and Lonely Planet publishing guides to the best British prisons and pointing out the various amenities offered by each one.
I was in Korea recently, and while chatting to French colleagues in a bar this subject came up. Turns out one of the guys had bought a jacket in London with some kind of ‘Swiss Army’ branding. He’d travelled from Heathrow, had a stopover in Dubai and arrived at Incheon International without being stopped once. It was only when he got to the hotel room did he discover the jacket came with a Swiss Army knife chained inside one of the inner pockets.
It hadn’t been detected once. Big fucker too. Must have been an 8cm blade, as well as all the scissors and stuff they come with.
Better Porridge?
Go Slade!!!
Book now to avoid dissapointment
we all know how slow the Criminal Justice System works.
“What did you do in the “War on Terror,” Daddy?”
“There is no such thing as War on Terror. It’s a guy called Bush who lied and cheated to get to the Arabian oil.”
“Wait for your brother to accompany you to the store, dear. And don’t forget to put on your burqa.”
“Yes, most gracious fourth mom”.
The last time I checked, admittedly around a decade ago, such a tool kit would not have counted as an offensive weapon (unless actually used as such) due to the short length of the blade. He should never have agreed to a caution.
I am sure he agreed for the sake of necessity of convenience, rather than having thought through the eventuality of his now having a criminal record for possession of a dangerous weapon – something that could now prevent his being permitted on board an airliner, entry into the USA or, perhaps soon enough, even entry onto any train.
I wrote recently of the case where a man took a plastic penknife that he used for cleaning his pipe into the passport office in Pimlico with him and was effectively given the full ‘terrorist suspect’ treatment, despite the police giving him the all-clear. Personally I have never regarded British Transport Police as proper policemen despite their being the oldest (1825) continual police force, their loyalty is neither to the public nor the state but only to the relevant transport authority and its staff.
I’m reminded of the American Airlines pilot (the Captain), back in 2002, whose nail clippers were confiscated prior to boarding. What did airport security think he was going to do, sieze control of the plane?
These “security” organizations must have a team of experts working 24 hours a day thinking up ways to be terminally stupid.
CFM
Until recently I traveled by air domestically over 26 weeks a year, and agree that it is no fun at all.
However, being a cranky sort, I had ‘diabetic’ imprinted on my photo drivers liciense. I have since carried a sugar testing kit with a 5cm Buck folding lock-back knife in it and have always been let thru. I tell them it’s to cut myself to test blood – and the idiots believe me.
I also wrap my knee in an ace bandage and carry a cane that would put a dent in an Abrams. That, a corfram pen, a chain with a one ounce (decorative) weight around my neck, and a DVD with edges sharpened with a dremel tool usually fill out my kit.
40 years ago for a hunting trip, I would walk on a plane, hand my cased rifle to a stew and she would keep them up in front. Handguns were kept on my person. I refuse to be unarmed by the guv’mint…even more so now.
For what it’s worth, having a police caution never made it any harder for me to travel to the US….
Idiocy at work, of course. During the recent ‘no liquids in handluggage’ scare, I succesfully carried a bottle of highly explosive suncream from Kashmir to Heathrow by the simple mechanism of forgetting I had in in there. It even got missed by a physical bag check on the steps of the aircraft. Lucky I’m not a terrrist….
People entering the US under the visa waiver scheme must declare criminal records. I don’t think the US authorities have any way to check but if you are caught out in a lie the consequences could be very severe.
More to the point for the brigadier is whether his name gets put on any sort of no-fly list. The compilation of these lists is totally opaque.
I suppose that charging convicts by the day for the use of their cells is coming soon to a prison near you,
It already has. But only for those falslely convicted. And BTW the Home Office is working on trying to deny compensation for wrongful conviction in future to anyone not “of previous good character”, or to anyone who wins their appeal but is gaoled in the meantime. Apparently this is “fairer”.
RAB,
Also interesting is that he was cautioned under an Act that dates from 1953, so it has nothing to do with our present panic with terrorism. Presumably I can be arrested, under the same Act,walking down the street with my penknife in my pocket.
Yes. But the plain motivation of the arrest was the present “terror” panic. (Or general state of terror.) It has been widely noted how broad the second limb of the definition in the 1953 Act is, and hitherto it has been used quite flexibly. Umbrellas have been charged, and pepperpots.
The history is informative, because the 1953 Act was itself the consequence of a moral panic about youth gangs weilding flick-knives and razors, very little different to the current “knife” panic. (It is important to distinguish particular heads of panic, regardless that that is the general modd about everything.) That’s why the intent-only branch: the framers of the 1953 Act were worried about pre-empting yobs going prepared for fights or muggings with normal domestic objects. A Boy Scout’s sheath knife wouldn’t have worried the authorities at all before the ’80s, maybe even the ’90s if found in the hands of a Scout. Nor would craft tools in the hands of craftsmen, before the “soccer firm” panic of the ’80s.
If you have an actual knife, rather than nail-clippers, today, the relatively mild and equivocal 1953 Act is unlikely to be applied. There are specific knife offences of the last decade carrying a mandatory prison sentence, and the Government is making a song and dance about increasing it.
Wow…I thought British victim disarmament was about guns. Knives, too, eh?
What’s with the business of accepting a caution and ending up with a criminal record? Hello, due process?
Y’all’s nanny state is way too stifling. I’m not sure I could ever come back again. It’s frightening.
Mary Contrary,
Oddly enough. I fix computers for a living too. I frequently wander the streets tooled up with a variety of things which are potentially lethal. I also openly carry a couple of things on my belt such as a Leatherman clone and penkinfe.
I frequently have in my bag tools which you would not normally associate with computers – such as a hammer and a very large screwdriver. I have worried about these being taken the wrong way. Most people suspect stripping a computer requires no more than something like a jewellers set of screwdrivers. Usually that’s the case but if you’ve got an ancient P-II where the screws have “set in” main force (and a whole lotta torque) is required to take the side-panel off. And when it comes to getting out the few usable components from a complete wreck a hammer is often very useful. I try not to use it in front of the punters. They expect something more “technological”.
Anyway point is, your story scared me. I’m glad you let the guy off. Two thumbs up!
Quite what was “in the public interest” in bringing that case in the first place is beyond me. I suppose it is out of misguided “fairness”. If their gonna give chavs a hard time for carrying then they have to give everyone else a hard time as well. It is a perverse and typically NeuArbeit principle that being beastly is OK as long as you’re beastly to everyone without discrimination.
I’m glad I’ve read this thread because hitherto I would’ve probably accepted the caution if this had happened to me and then grumbled to the missus.
Yes well done Mary! You can always count on the sound sense of a British Jury. Which is why trial by jury must be retained in ALL cases!
Like Guy I am legally trained, but have been out of the game for many years. Fraud cases are a category where our Fascist Government would dearly like to drop juries from because they are “Too complicated” for the general public.
I remember sitting in a fraud case that went on for months and was very complicated. The jurors were the usual mixed bunch, and frankly a couple of them were as thick as two short planks, but a Lecturer and two teachers had made it onto the Jury, and would run a seminar for the rest of their fellows to get them up to speed on the evidence they heard the day before, in time to hear that day’s evidence. The came to the right verdict in the end.
Why I mentioned the 1953 Act Guy, was because his government has introduced about a thousand new criminal offences, and countless prevention of terrorism bills, and yet they reach for one they had all along to persecute the Brigadier! Makes you wonder what the point of all that legislation is.
Nick, never ever accept a caution!
RAB,
You make an excellent point about jurys. Yes, there will be folks on a jury who are dim. But then my mother has twice been called for jury duty and she was fascinated by the dynamics and yes, the smarter folk do tend to have more influence. And by “smarter” I don’t mean “better educated”. I just mean more savvy. She was impressed by how twelve random Geordies came to the right conclusion.
The jury system is sound because it is free from political interference if it really is twelve randomly chosen folks.
As far as fraud is concerned – well I know a bit about that. My uncle is coming out on Dec 4th from a spell at Her Majesty’s keep and while his fraud trials (this is his second set of, as he calls it, “holidays”) have been technically very complicated I don’t believe they were ever beyond the ability of an average jury. In fact I think that jury trials forcing the prosecution to at times bring complex legal arguments down to brass tacks is a good thing. Because when it really comes down to it the issue is wether an alleged fraudster really ripped people off rather than committing some technical violation of the law. At least that should be the case.
BTW. My uncle is guilty as sin and therefore was rightly convicted by a jury twice.
His story (and further adventures) are available by request. They are amusing.
To be convicted once is unfortunate
To be convicted twice looks like carelessness.
Have a word with your uncle when he comes out
and offer him the same advice a Judge of my aquaintance had for a burglar up before him, who had been caught red handed by the simple expedient of following his footsteps in the newly fallen snow, from the broken window and missing telly of his neighbours house back to his back door.
“I am giving you six months to re-consider you job options. You’re really not cut out for this sort of thing are you son!”
In certain professions such as Optician ( my wife), the General Optical Council (like the BMA) are now on the list for receiving ‘updates’ from the police for any reported crimes or cautions of their members )not sure how they kknow that). She told me that they can disbar an Optician if reported for anything criminal or even a caution. Its probably unlikely for such an offence – especialy as she carries small tools on her like these- useful for loose screws in glasses.
From reading various Police blogs (such as David Copperfields) I get the impression that the Police these days have little discretion in acting on such things- they have to or are in big shit themselves so its not quite their fault but those who direct them.
But the way things are going, I feeel absolutely no compunction in lying to any policeman if it gets them off my back. I feel that they are forced to treat us like criominals (eg compulsory DNA) so why not behave that way…
Offtopic, but did you know if you stay in a Travelinn and want to pay cash you have to have ID? So false ID seems as if it is a good thing to have!
It’s sunday night, I’m a little better for wine
and this is off topic. So management, please indulge me!
I was thinking of Nick M’s tale of his uncle.
I am itching to hear the story, but in the normal course of things there are few opportunities to tell such things.
We all have stories that are true but almost
unbelievable that have happened to us or friends of ours. So why not share them?
You already have a Quote of the Day , why not a TALL STORIES spot once a week month whatever?
Sounds like a good idea, RAB.
You will notice that in the 1953 Act the key words are “lawful authority or excuse”. A lawful excuse for carrying a weapon might be to uphold the Queen’s peace. I expect the powers that be did not expect Teddy Boys armed with bicycle chains to use that line of defence, but it has to be there, because the police have no special powers to carry truncheons, they simply have the lawful excuse that they are acting to uphold the Queen’s peace. It is often said the police are civilians in uniform, who are merely paid to do what we all have a duty to do. Obviously, they don’t like to mention this fact, because otherwise the sheeple might decide they too can carry weapons for their defence, and the defence of the Queen’s peace, and that would never do, would it?
It is often said the police are civilians in uniform, who are merely paid to do what we all have a duty to do.
It was the case once. No more.
Maybe your average man-in-the-street could not nowadays claim “lawful authority or excuse” for carrying a (potentially) offensive weapon.
However a brigadier, even after retirement, holds a permanent warrant from Her Majesty which requires him to defend her interests and that of her heirs and successors. So if challenged he might claim that, though he was not carrying a device intended as a weapon, if it was in fact judged to be a weapon it was only for the purpose of upholding the Queen’s Peace.