/ Possession of an offensive rucksack

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Richard Baynes - on 22 May 2013
Walking home from a late work session on Monday in Glasgow, I walked past a police van coming out of a side street a few hundred yards from the railway station I'd just got off at. He then follows me and starts asking what I'm up to. The answer was: "I am on my way home to get some painkillers for this really bad toothache" so you will understand I was fairly testy with him. Whether or not I was right to have an "attitude" as the PC half my age had the nerve to suggest, the most interesting thing was the reason why I was stopped. "It's late and you're carrying a rucksack."
I happened to have taken my day-sack to work that day rather than my smaller work bag ... So watch out if you're on the way home from the climbing wall, just been dropped off after a long day in the hills, a rucksack is obviously grounds for suspicion.
Tim Chappell - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:


I'd just have said "Be my guest, officer. Have a rummage."

Works especially well if you've just been hill-walking in the rain so the sack's full of manky socks, banana skins, and half-eaten Hobnobs :-)
ex0 - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

I've been stopped for the same thing. I was walking on a road ajacent to a railway and was told I was stopped because they said my bag was suspicious at that time of night (it was only 10:30 or so) and they needed to make sure I wasn't planning on tagging any of the trains in the station, or something. =/
Blue Straggler - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Sounds reasonable.
Blue Straggler - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Maybe Richard doesn't have the same harcore pain threshold that you do, for really bad toothache.
Blue Straggler - on 22 May 2013
In reply to ex0:

People tag at all times of the day. I caught some kids tagging a building near my house at 7pm on a summer evening once.
jonny taylor on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
Maybe I'm just not used to living in a big city, but my impression over the last few months is that the police in Glasgow are pretty big on speculatively stopping people, especially car drivers - they were pulling people over at random on university avenue yesterday and there always seem to be pairs of motorcyclists on the prowl. Is this a glasgow thing?
Steve John B - on 22 May 2013
In reply to jonny taylor:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
> Is this a glasgow thing?

Living in Glasgow counts as "reasonable grounds for suspicion" last I heard.
GrahamD - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Half eaten Hob Nobs ? how is that possible ?
davidbeynon - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
>
>
> I'd just have said "Be my guest, officer. Have a rummage."
>
> Works especially well if you've just been hill-walking in the rain so the sack's full of manky socks, banana skins, and half-eaten Hobnobs :-)

I always keep a few rat traps in my bag for this sort of occasion.
krikoman - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes: Considering the most recent terrorist bombs have been people with rucksacks, isn't it better that the coppers are more vigilant?
gethin_allen on 22 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes) Considering the most recent terrorist bombs have been people with rucksacks, isn't it better that the coppers are more vigilant?

So everyone carrying a rucksack is a terrorist, They should get themselves over to pen y pass, last time I was there I saw hundreds of people with suspicious looking rucksacks.

Tim Chappell - on 22 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:


Provided I'm not in a hurry and provided the copper's polite to me, I have no objection at all to being stopped and searched (non-penetratively).
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Were you searched?
wilkie14c - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
It's nothing to do with bombs or terrorists it is simply because with a rucksack, a burglar can run, climb fences etc as normal. Ruckkies are the bag of choice bad men
krikoman - on 22 May 2013
In reply to gethin_allen:
> (In reply to krikoman)
> [...]
>
> So everyone carrying a rucksack is a terrorist, They should get themselves over to pen y pass, last time I was there I saw hundreds of people with suspicious looking rucksacks.

Are you a complete cock? He was outside a train station.

Where have the last bomb gone off - Oh, that's right public transport.

I expect you'd be one of those that when something happens complain that the police should have been able to prevent this.

Maybe they know something that you don’t, maybe they have information that someone is planning an attack.

Maybe by stopping someone and asking to look in their bag they might stop you being blown up!!


ex0 - on 22 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:

I don't think that's a good enough reason to invade privacy and inconvenience someone like that. Not that that's the point, police can't stop and search someone without probable cause, and carrying a backpack by itself can't possibly count as probable cause.
BruceWee - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes: Last time I got pulled over in Glasgow I was driving home around 03:00. I was pulled over and kept in the back of their car for about three quarters of an hour while they very carefully (and slowly) checked all my details and breathalysed me twice.

All this time you could hear calls coming over the radio for people being assaulted, fights, and all the other joys of kicking out time on a Saturday night.

As far as I could tell they were just looking for something to keep them busy so they didn't have to deal with any actual police work. So who knows, maybe there was something more important he was trying to avoid doing.
tototv - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Someone out there must have a tale about chalk being mistaken for cocaine?!?! How many have us have walked out the climbing wall a bit around the face and nose?
johncoxmysteriously - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

How can you possibly have lived to your age without having discovered that the police stop people walking around at odd hours with rucsacs and ask to have a look in the bag?

And a good thing too.

And, since you mention it, obviously you weren't right to act like a cock. Policemen are people doing a job who are not in a position to be rude to you back. It's inexcusable not to treat people in that position with courtesy.

jcm
ads.ukclimbing.com
HB1 - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes: as the song goes . . .


. . . one sunday as I walked from Charing Cross to Waterloo
Two policemen suddenly appeared and would not let me through
I asked the what they wanted, and they answered "We want you!
For clutching the bag suspiciously. A guilty thing to do . . . "


. . . etc. etc. . .


krikoman - on 22 May 2013
In reply to ex0:
> (In reply to krikoman)
>
> I don't think that's a good enough reason to invade privacy and inconvenience someone like that. Not that that's the point, police can't stop and search someone without probable cause, and carrying a backpack by itself can't possibly count as probable cause.

maybe he was in possession of an ugly face.
dissonance - on 22 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:

> Are you a complete cock? He was outside a train station.

pretty much every time I have been to the train station there tends to be lots of people with rucksacks. I think its something to do with that going somewhere thing.

> Where have the last bomb gone off - Oh, that's right public transport.

several hundred metres away late at night?

> Maybe by stopping someone and asking to look in their bag they might stop you being blown up!!

or maybe not. Remind me how many have been caught by random stop and searches?

Although admittedly it would be nice if they did do full body searches, or just shoot on sight, those people who insist on dragging around those crappy handled bags cunningly angled to trip people up.
knthrak1982 on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Happens to me all the time. Maybe it's because I always climb in my lucky striped clothing and Black mask. Also my rucksack is branded with the name of that popular gear manufacturer SWAG. Bloody coppers:)
rallymania - on 22 May 2013
Clarence - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

I occasionally get stopped and searched, must be the rucksack and beard combination. Since I can't drive and live a mile away from the bus stop it makes sense to take a 65L rucksack to do the weekly shopping but about three or four times a year I have to ask the officer to hurry up before my vegetables defrost. C'est la vie, I don't mind if it theoretically stops me being dismembered by shrapnel on the shopper hopper but I do wish the coppers were a bit more polite about it all.
Mike Highbury - on 22 May 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>Policemen are people doing a job who are not in a position to be rude to you back.

Since when did the cops turn all courteous?
cap'nChino - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Clarence:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
> I don't mind if it theoretically stops me being dismembered by shrapnel on the shopper hopper but I do wish the coppers were a bit more polite about it all.

My thought exactly. They are just doing their job. But I do find they are overly aggressive when they ask questions. I suppose it comes with dealing with the darker side of the public most of the time.

johncoxmysteriously - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Mike Highbury:

All right, not in a position *safely* to be rude to you back.

jcm
cap'nChino - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Mike Highbury:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> >Policemen are people doing a job who are not in a position to be rude to you back.
>
> Since when did the cops turn all courteous?

Manners cost nothing and will generally get you further I find. Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for a bit of gentle police brutality when the time and need is right.
flaneur - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Just follow these simple instructions and you'll be fine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haiHGlo7O4o
ex0 - on 22 May 2013
In reply to cap'nChino:

If you want to really piss them off refuse to give your name or address when they ask for it. They'll lie and say you have to give it, but you don't. :)
gethin_allen on 22 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:
Just winding you up for being a total knobber thinking that because some people chose to blow up a few bombs in rucksacks that everyone carrying a rucksack is therefore likely to be a terrorist.

If you are going somewhere for more than a few hours you are likely to be carrying some luggage, be that a rucksack or whatever. Shall we ban people travelling with luggage? or should we ban loitering? or just ban people from going anywhere. That way we can just lock ourselves up in our bedrooms where the bad people can't hurt us.

Scrap that, let's all just kill ourselves now, that way we don't have to endure the fear of being blown up by evil people.
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to the thread (and the OP) :

I'll ask again - were you searched?
Clarence - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

What constitutes searched? When I am stopped I usually get "lets have a look what you have in there" or a line to that effect rather than a formal search down the station or a police officer unpacking my sack like a customs officer would. I know there are degrees of inquiry that don't constitute a search for reporting purposes but I don't really know what the threshold is.
ex0 - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Clarence:

In a stop and search you have to be informed that's whats happening, you need to be told the reasons for the search and what they expect to find and you need to be given a receipt signed by the officer that searched you.

Then there's informal searches where they state that they are going to look through your stuff and if you don't actively refuse (or say that you won't consent to that) they can claim you gave them permission to search you, which is a voluntary search.

They shouldn't ever be taking you to the station in order to search you.

GrahamD - on 22 May 2013
In reply to gethin_allen:
> (In reply to krikoman)
> Just winding you up for being a total knobber thinking that because some people chose to blow up a few bombs in rucksacks that everyone carrying a rucksack is therefore LIKELY to be a terrorist.

"Likely" is your word. I would say if there was even a 0.1% probability (IE pretty unlikely) then it warrants the simple expedient of checking a bag is legitimate. After all, its not like we're not talking about being taken into custody here
jkarran - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

I once got stopped by the police right outside my house while (visibly, it was piled high on my shoulders) carrying c300m of rope home from a club trip to the local wall. A series of progressively stranger questions followed culminating in them accusing me of breaking into York Minster (miles away and open anyway so no need to break in). I'd responded reasonably and honestly to that point so I simply pointed that out and walked off in exasperation. All in all a very strange conversation.

jk
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Clarence:

Once they start looking in anything it would be a search.
What have you got there? - referring to the large gun you are carrying - not a search.
What have you got there? - refering to the snap bag you have just put in your pocket -search.

A search should be accompanied by giving you a bunch of details (google the acronym GOWISELY) and handing you a stop search form.
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to ex0:
> (In reply to Clarence)
>
>
> They shouldn't ever be taking you to the station in order to search you.

Unless they feel it's necessary, of course.
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to jkarran:

Lead thefts from the roof?
Clarence - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Never had a stop & search form but then again I haven't put up any resistance either, apart from a whiny "but I'll miss my bus", which I didn't.
Clarence - on 22 May 2013
In reply to ex0:
> They shouldn't ever be taking you to the station in order to search you.

To be fair the only time that has happened was when I tried to board a train in Sheffield with bags of white powder hanging out of an open rucksack pocket. I had snagged the zip on something and exposed my purchases from the Scoop shop, half a pound of dried egg powder and a quarter of malted milk drink powder. It was the eighties as you might have guessed.
jkarran - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

I had ropes and and was dressed for sport, no lead, no tools, no van.

I can imagine the sight of a man almost swamped by rope attracting curiosity but the end of the conversation was just bizarre. I suspect what started out as curiosity ended up in them killing time on their back to the station (nearly next door).

jk
Andrew Mallinson - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

...idiot question here...what do you mean by tagging?
ANdy
knthrak1982 on 22 May 2013
In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

I think he's referring to spray painting one's unique "tag" on buildings etc.
Paul F - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Clarence:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> What constitutes searched? When I am stopped I usually get "lets have a look what you have in there" or a line to that effect rather than a formal search down the station or a police officer unpacking my sack like a customs officer would. I know there are degrees of inquiry that don't constitute a search for reporting purposes but I don't really know what the threshold is.

All you need to know.

http://safe.met.police.uk/your_rights_including_stop_search/get_the_facts.html
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Hahaha I can't believe people have brought up the Boston bombings. Are you for real?

So anyone with a rucksack could be a terrorist, absolute rubbish.

In the last ten years maybe one hundred people have died in the uk, at the hands of terrorists while millions have died from cancers. Guess which one has had the most money spent on the fight. Terrorism is bollocks, it's all propaganda. It's been happening for years yet you still believe what the media tell you.

knthrak1982 on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
I believe the reference was to London rather than Boston.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

You are too involved in your job mate. It's only a job. I understand that your only doing what your told by your superiors. But come on, I know police officers who regularly tell me they completely disagree with what their told to do.

I've known friends who have had their house raided, yet found evidence of nothing. The officers searching stole over two hundred pound and a couple of other climbing related items.

I hope this wasn't you
Trangia - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

I'd rather be stopped 100 times for carrying a rucksack than read about one more innocent person being blown to bits by terrorists, let alone 57 people.

What's a minor inconvenience compared to people's lives?
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> You are too involved in your job mate. It's only a job. I understand that your only doing what your told by your superiors. But come on, I know police officers who regularly tell me they completely disagree with what their told to do.
>

Not sure where that's come from. Perhaps you could reply to a post I have actually made?

> I've know friends who have had their house raided, yet found evidence of nothing. The officers searching stole over two hundred pound and a couple of other climbing related items.
>
> I hope this wasn't you

I'm not sure what that has got to do with stop and search. I hope he made a complaint.
knthrak1982 on 22 May 2013
In reply to Trangia:
I agree. Minor inconvenience is exactly what this is.
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
>
> Terrorism is bollocks, it's all propaganda. It's been happening for years yet you still believe what the media tell you.

Good job we have plucky souls like you who can see through it all.
Would you disband all counter terrorism units or just some of them?
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
>
>
> In the last ten years maybe one hundred people have died in the uk, at the hands of terrorists while millions have died from cancers. Guess which one has had the most money spent on the fight.

Is that true?

I'd have thought our investment in cancer treatment, screening and cures would be astronomical.

Any figures to back that up?
johncoxmysteriously - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Depends whether you count Afghanistan and Iraq in the anti-terrorism camp, I'd have thought. Not that I have any figures either, other than a vague feeling that wars are jolly expensive.

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:

You need to get a grip. The police were stopping people going round at night with bags long before terrorism was even thought of.

jcm
knthrak1982 on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
Looks like half a billion for cancer:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/06/29/near-doubling-of-uk-cancer-research-funding-in-le...
And a billion for terrorism, but I'm not sure how this breaks down. Also it's a projection from the previous government:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7036121.stm
knthrak1982 on 22 May 2013
In reply to knthrak1982:
Although the cancer figure doesn't include nhs. Hmmm tricky one.
Blue Straggler - on 22 May 2013
In reply to knthrak1982:
> (In reply to Andrew Mallinson)
>
> I think he's referring to spray painting one's unique "tag" on buildings etc.

Yes. Graffiti in other words, I suppose.
Blue Straggler - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
>
> In the last ten years maybe one hundred people have died in the uk, at the hands of terrorists

Has it not crossed your mind that that number is low BECAUSE of the resources spent on anti-terrorism measures?
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to knthrak1982:

A billion for terrorism plus what we spend fighting pointless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc etc, all in the name of terrorism
knthrak1982 on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to knthrak1982)
>
> A billion for terrorism plus what we spend fighting pointless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc etc, all in the name of terrorism

But one of the oft used arguments against those wars is that we should be focusing our efforts on home grown terrorists. This would presumably mean more police officers involved in this duty.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to knthrak1982:

Surely people understand that the biggest threat is cancers, and health. Not the odd "terrorist"

So why aren't we spending more on the thing that kills more. It is a no brainer.

Terrorism is simply a pretex for getting our hands on more oil. Oil is big business as we know. I wonder just how much oil companies and arms companies made in the last ten years of war.

Do you not think its strange that we are continuously at war!
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer: 15 billion a year on cancer care..

Total cost of Iraq war varies.. seen 9 billion in total..
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

If you believe that then you are a lost cause. What has been done to stop terrorism? Bombing baby milk factories in Iraq? Bombing gadaffi? Bombing Egypt? Drones killing innocent people all over the world illegally.

xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Absolute rubbish.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

What's the biggest threat????
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
>
> If you believe that then you are a lost cause. What has been done to stop terrorism? Bombing baby milk factories in Iraq? Bombing gadaffi? Bombing Egypt? Drones killing innocent people all over the world illegally.

Bugger. I must have missed my drone flying course.
Or maybe you are just wildly conflating arguments?
Sir Chasm - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer: If you stopped buying oil you could help prevent governments spending money on fighting terrorism. So by buying oil you are preventing money being spent defeating cancer. You child murderer.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Listen, I didn't bring terrorism up, over someone's bag being searched. That's how scared of terrorism you really are

knthrak1982 on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
To shift the paradigm on Blue Straggler's comment...

Let's assume all cancer is treatable if diagnosed really early. Cancer can then be eliminated by ensuring everyone is screened regularly, and I mean really regularly.

We therefore invest billions in screening initiatives and practically eliminate cancer. The screening, and thus the huge costs, must continue.

People then argue that we're spending loads on something that is no longer considered a life threatening issue. ..

Although we're somewhat off topic now.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Child murderer!!!

That's just sick, and totally uncalled for. I'd delete that if I were you
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer: what is?

15 billion / year comes from this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20222759

So that puts actually care at 5.6 billion per year.


This says 20 billion on war in 10 years.. so 2 billion per year..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10359548

So in that 10 year period we've spent 56 billion on cancer care, 5 billion on cancer research (according to the stat given above) and 20 billion on war.

Like it or not we do look to secure resources. we always have.

People say we shouldn't but the same people complain at paying over 1.50 per liter and will drive their cars on an 800 mile road trip to climb..
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Olive oil hurts no one kiddo
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Nonsense
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
>
> If you believe that then you are a lost cause. What has been done to stop terrorism? Bombing baby milk factories in Iraq? Bombing gadaffi? Bombing Egypt? Drones killing innocent people all over the world illegally.

Quite a lot and quite successfully.

Its like saying the swine flu was exaggerated as we had no huge outbreak.. we'd only notice if the investment failed.

Its like costs of vaccines.. do we need to vaccinate for diseases like Polio which are so rare in the UK.. of course we do.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> Nonsense

Well argued, concise argument backed up by facts and reliable evidence.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer: why don't you provide some alternative figures and sources?
Timmd on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> Nonsense

Complete nonsense, uncomfortably close to the truth nonsense, or just another way of looking at things nonsense? (:-))

I'm kind of being daft, but don't dismiss something out of hand until you've looked into it.

ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Listen, I didn't bring terrorism up, over someone's bag being searched. That's how scared of terrorism you really are

I certainly haven't mentioned it at all, though I see you referred to it at 15:57.

Not sure how you infer I am scared of it. Though when you've disbanded the counter terrorist units I might be.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Did I say you mentioned it? Please read post a little more carefully before posting back.
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Did I say you mentioned it? Please read post a little more carefully before posting back.

I understand. You meant "you" plural, despite the post being directed at me.
I can only reiterate, my only mention of terrorism is in response to your posts.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Don't get political ;-)
Timmd on 22 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to xplorer)
> [...]
>
> Complete nonsense, uncomfortably close to the truth nonsense, or just another way of looking at things nonsense? (:-))
>
> I'm kind of being daft, but don't dismiss something out of hand until you've looked into it.

Unless it's tinfoil hats or death rays*, but you know what I mean.

*It's one of the most common complaints to MPs at their surgery, that people have death rays being trained on where they live.
Dave Garnett - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
> *It's one of the most common complaints to MPs at their surgery, that people have death rays being trained on where they live.


Really? It's not just me then, I knew it...
Sir Chasm - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer: You don't use oil? Of course you do, there's blood on your hands.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I use olive oil on my hands after climbing yes.
Paul F - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:

I think this topic has been overtaken by events
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=550631
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes) Considering the most recent terrorist bombs have been people with rucksacks, isn't it better that the coppers are more vigilant?

You men like shooting him?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/23/july7.uksecurity11
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
>
> Really? It's not just me then, I knew it...

Tin hat Dave, tin hat
David Farting-Cameron - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes: I've got and offensive rucksack...














...it stinks.
Richard Baynes - on 22 May 2013
Blimey, been at work and forgotten about this. Most amusing. If this is what trolling feels like, I'm in!!
Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> If you stopped buying oil you could help prevent governments spending money on fighting terrorism.

Do you think that would work Chas?
cuppatea on 22 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Too soon! You were so close to the ton ;-)
Sir Chasm - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Well, shonatheliar, you'd need to ask xplorer, he thinks the west's war on terror is part of a plan to secure oil. He also thinks spending on anti-terror should be diverted to curing cancer. So if xplorer wanted to wash the blood from his hands he's going to have to stop using oil in order to remove the west's excuse.
Do I think that will work? Of course not, xplorer's a fool.
Sarah G on 23 May 2013
In reply to Andrew Mallinson:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
>
> ...idiot question here...what do you mean by tagging?
> ANdy

Vandalism by spraying graffiti.

Sx
Dax H - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes: What is the problem with the police stopping you for a quick chat and a look see?.
A few weeks ago I was pulled over by Mr plod who asked me what the case fastened to the side of my motorbike contained.
I told him it was a pump action shotgun and I was on my way to a clay shoot.
He checked my gun ticket and then apologised for stopping me.
I told him that I would rather be held up a few mins if he suspected I had a gun than he just looks away and someone gets shot later on.
Richard Baynes - on 26 May 2013
In reply to Dax H: As far as I know the police should have reasonable grounds for suspicion to stop you and question you. Carrying of a rucksack is very common among my friends and acquaintances: most of us would think that carrying one does not amount to suspicious conduct.
There is a big problem with police "just stopping for a look see" if they do not have a lawful reason.
xplorer on 26 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Sir chasm. Your the fool, so you agree with all the deaths of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You sound like an extremist

You old fool
Paul F - on 26 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
> (In reply to Dax H) As far as I know the police should have reasonable grounds for suspicion to stop you and question you.

No, they just need reasonable grounds to stop and search you.
Paul F - on 26 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:

Grammar, The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit!

:o)
xplorer on 26 May 2013
In reply to Paul F:

Ah the old grammar. I love it when some one brings this up. I'm not writing a book. It's entirely up to me how I write. Don't read it if it offends you.

I hope you don't put your grand children down like that.
xplorer on 26 May 2013
In reply to Paul F:

Ps I've heard you where nappies, it's all about bladder control
browndog33 - on 26 May 2013
In reply to xplorer: You mean wear..
xplorer on 26 May 2013
In reply to browndog33:

Aren't you a clever boy! Middle a@@@d
browndog33 - on 26 May 2013
In reply to xplorer: Middle what?
xplorer on 26 May 2013
In reply to browndog33:

Haha
browndog33 - on 26 May 2013
In reply to xplorer: Did someone tell a joke?
Infinite Granite - on 26 May 2013
In reply to browndog33:

I believe he said 'middle aatatatatatd'

Hope that clears things up for you.
browndog33 - on 26 May 2013
In reply to Infinite Granite: Ah! Now it makes sense.. Thanks IG.
off-duty - on 26 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Did you get searched?
douwe - on 26 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
stop asking the same question over and over again.
off-duty - on 26 May 2013
In reply to douwe:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> stop asking the same question over and over again.

If only we knew the answer. It might affect the conclusions everyone appears to have jumped to....
Paul F - on 26 May 2013
In reply to douwe:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> stop asking the same question over and over again.

Is it safe….?
Run_Ross_Run - on 26 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

> There is a big problem with police "just stopping for a look see" if they do not have a lawful reason.

What, in your opinion?


Cant help thinking. .

'If you've done nothing wrong then you've got nothing to hide'

Richard Baynes - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Darren09:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)

>
> 'If you've done nothing wrong then you've got nothing to hide'

Yep that's a great one, so let's let the state scrutinise all our movements/belongings/communications - if you've done nothing wrong then where's the harm in total surveillance? Clearly this wasn't anything like that, and the petty civil libertarian/left-wing/anti authoritarian in me probably quite enjoyed kicking against the pricks, but there is a little nub of principle here: the cops can't stop someone without lawful excuse and they had none.
Off-duty: haven't you worked out why I am not responding to your question yet?
Run_Ross_Run - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
Sounds to me that ur more p#ssed at how it happened and not so much what happened.

I know I wouldn't give two hoots to being stopped by the coppers and asked a few qu's.

Make a complaint is a suggestion if you feel so aggrieved.
MG - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
the cops can't stop someone without lawful excuse and they had none.

Do you know that? For example if there had been reports of a burglary nearby, I would have thought it reasonable to at least talk to someone with a large rucksack. Giving the police a few moments of your time to help them with their job isn't that much to ask is it?
ice.solo - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

inconvenient, but better an officer of the law asking about your pack late one night around a train station than some methed up skudger who follows you home.
ads.ukclimbing.com
anonymouse - on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
> the cops can't stop someone without lawful excuse and they had none.
>
> Do you know that? For example if there had been reports of a burglary nearby, I would have thought it reasonable to at least talk to someone with a large rucksack. Giving the police a few moments of your time to help them with their job isn't that much to ask is it?

If they have a reason, they ought to say what it is.
Tony Naylor on 27 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> Ah the old grammar. I love it when some one brings this up. I'm not writing a book. It's entirely up to me how I write. Don't read it if it offends you.
>
> I hope you don't put your grand children down like that.

Grandchildren. Not grand children. Write out four hundred times, "My grandchildrens' grandchildren will be grand children".
fraserbarrett - on 27 May 2013
These debates always remind me of the Benjamin Franklin Quote
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
Yes the police need powers to prevent crime (including terrorism, which is after all just crime under a blanket of high morals); but I also think its right we, as a society, question how and why those rights are used, lest we swap one form of oppression for another.
thepeaks - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
Off-duty: haven't you worked out why I am not responding to your question yet?

You`re a knob? I suspect that there are people in quite a few countries around the world who would be pleased if the worst they got from their police was being asked about a rucsac.
off-duty - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
> (In reply to Darren09)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Yep that's a great one, so let's let the state scrutinise all our movements/belongings/communications - if you've done nothing wrong then where's the harm in total surveillance? Clearly this wasn'tanything like that, and the petty civil libertarian/left-wing/anti authoritarian in me probably quite enjoyed kicking against the pricks, but there is a little nub of principle here: the cops can't stop someone without lawful excuse and they had none.
> Off-duty: haven't you worked out why I am not responding to your question yet?

No, to be honest I haven't got a clue.
There is a world of difference between stopping and talking to someone - justification required = absolutely nothing, and stopping and searching someone = powers regulated by PACE and a couple of other acts.
andic - on 27 May 2013
In reply to thepeaks:

Perhaps but ....
Richard Baynes - on 27 May 2013
In reply to off-duty: Well it's insistent questioning by someone who I believe is a policeman. If police start talking to me I have no obligation to talk to them. If however I walk off then they will get arsey and start searching me. Of course the police have to have justification for stopping a member of the public going about their lawful business.
As for the articulate man who called me a knob, I think there has been a reasonably intelligent debate here and if you don't like what I say don't insult me.
off-duty - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
> (In reply to off-duty) Well it's insistent questioning by someone who I believe is a policeman. If police start talking to me I have no obligation to talk to them. If however I walk off then they will get arsey and start searching me. Of course the police have to have justification for stopping a member of the public going about their lawful business.
> As for the articulate man who called me a knob, I think there has been a reasonably intelligent debate here and if you don't like what I say don't insult me.

I thought it might be some sort of "clever" way of showing that you don't have to engage with "the man" if you don't want to.

It does rather demonstrate that by not answering a perfectly reasonable question (which you then complain about being insistent) we could then have a discussion about what ACTUALLY happened and whether there were any breaches of PACE etc, instead of a rather more generic (and pointless) discussion about what a police state we are living in. It would also have meant this thread would have been a whole lot briefer and more painless.

A perfect analogy with the original incident.

Incidentally, we don't need a justification for stopping you going about your lawful business. I'll stop and talk to whoever I want to. If they don't want to engage with me, fine. I would suggest that if you want to create legislation about exactly when and why a police officer can have a conversation with a member of the public then you are doing more to drive a wedge between the police and the public than any irritated conversation you might have had with cop on your way home (and subsequent internet complaints about it).

Did you get searched?
Richard Baynes - on 27 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
> [...]
>

> A perfect analogy with the original incident.

Yes it is, and it might pay you to think about why a repeated question, without an explanation, annoys people. I didn't want a debate about PACE and its application (I remember its introduction and the critical impact it had on CID when they couldn't get five confessions and then decide which one dunnit!)just wondered what people thought of being stopped apparently for carrying a rucksack. I hadn't thought of the potential terrorist angle, but the point was lots of folks carry 'em.
>
> Incidentally, we don't need a justification for stopping you going about your lawful business.

You're right there, and I am wrong, but the problem is that as a member of the public, in a hurry, I am all too aware of the likely outcome If I was to say no thanks, officer, I don't want to talk to you.

I haven't suggested it's a police state, merely that the reason given for stopping me was flimsy, and they were just having a tug at the expense of a member of the public's valuable time because they had nothing better to do.

I am certainly open to arguments about whether my mild irritation at their behaviour is justified. If there had been a breach of PACE I think I would have been more than mildly irritated.
off-duty - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Yes it is, and it might pay you to think about why a repeated question, without an explanation, annoys people.

Absolutely. And it might be worth considering why you got annoyed and refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question, on it's first time of asking, with a genuine reason - to clarify the situation, on a totally different media - the internet.

For what little it's worth my posting was limited due to using a smartphone.

> You're right there, and I am wrong, but the problem is that as a member of the public, in a hurry, I am all too aware of the likely outcome If I was to say no thanks, officer, I don't want to talk to you.
>
> I haven't suggested it's a police state, merely that the reason given for stopping me was flimsy, and they were just having a tug at the expense of a member of the public's valuable time because they had nothing better to do.
>

A tug would involve a search. Having a very brief conversation could lead to anything - from the arrest of al-Qaeda's most wanted, to some info about some dodgy characters round the corner, to some directions, or even advice - "the last bus has gone" etc, to a chat about the weather or discussion about climbing, or even a " Thanks for your time, sorry about your toothache, can we run you round the corner?".

> I am certainly open to arguments about whether my mild irritation at their behaviour is justified. If there had been a breach of PACE I think I would have been more than mildly irritated.

And you would have had grounds for a complaint, but... Were you searched?
xplorer on 27 May 2013
In reply to Tony Naylor:

Well done tony, your brilliEnt at speling, I wish I were good as you

I bet that sentence makes you cry......
Camm on 27 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
strange, did he search you?
Richard Baynes - on 27 May 2013
OK, I will say this only once: The point of my original post was not discuss the propriety of any search but to discuss the justification (or lack of it) for stopping me, so whether I was searched or not is not up for discussion, even if you say it should be or want it to be.
And a tug may mean something to one person and something else to another. I was merely using an angling analogy.
Orgsm on 27 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Are you in possession of a offensive wife sir?
Gudrun - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gudrun) Well, shonatheliar, you'd need to ask xplorer, he thinks the west's war on terror is part of a plan to secure oil. He also thinks spending on anti-terror should be diverted to curing cancer. So if xplorer wanted to wash the blood from his hands he's going to have to stop using oil in order to remove the west's excuse.
> Do I think that will work? Of course not, xplorer's a fool.

You will never have made any misjudgements or mistakes on UKC then Chas diddums?And before you throw a wee tantrum let me explain.
If i was being generous i'd say you are proved wrong and made to look like a complete and utter on average about say once a week, so if this cool dude called Xplorer is a fool then what does that make you........hmmm!
I'd hate to say because you would just get me banned again but it is just what everyone knows you are.

Hahahaha!
Tony Naylor on 28 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to Tony Naylor)
>
> Well done tony, your brilliEnt at speling, I wish I were good as you
>
> I bet that sentence makes you cry......

Nah, it doesn't. UKC has a long and noble tradition of grammar and spelling pedantry. I was just joining in with that in a light hearted way (as I occasionally do) partly because it's mildly amusing and partly because I actually am a grammar and spelling Nazi. Nothing personal meant by it.
knthrak1982 on 28 May 2013
In reply to Tony Naylor:
> (In reply to xplorer)
> [...]
>
> Grandchildren. Not grand children. Write out four hundred times, "My grandchildrens' grandchildren will be grand children".

Grandchildren's. Although the word is plural, the apostrophe goes before the letter s in this case.
Blue Straggler - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
>
> Are you in possession of a offensive wife sir?

I kept resisting the temptation because I wanted to see how long it would take for someone to make the reference :-)

Vincent Kodogo, wasn't it?
Orgsm on 28 May 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
> [...]
>
> I kept resisting the temptation because I wanted to see how long it would take for someone to make the reference :-)
>
> Vincent Kodogo, wasn't it?

Yes, and also wearing a loud shirt, and walking on the cracks in the pavement (not te nine o'clock news)

thepeaks - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes: this is a public forum so u can't actually control what is and isn't discussed.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Blue Straggler - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
> [...]
>
> Yes, and also wearing a loud shirt, and walking on the cracks in the pavement (not te nine o'clock news)

Having thick curly hair and big lips too....

Griff Rhys-Jones is excellent as Constable Savage.

Tony Naylor on 28 May 2013
In reply to knthrak1982:
> (In reply to Tony Naylor)
> Grandchildren's. Although the word is plural, the apostrophe goes before the letter s in this case.

Another look at the rules reveals that you are correct. Damn, damn, damn. It's off to the grammar dungeon for me - forty lashes and a week in a hair shirt. Hoist with me own petard!
teflonpete - on 29 May 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Winston Kadogo and constable Surridge if I remember rightly.

To the op, did you get searched?
MJ - on 29 May 2013
leland stamper on 31 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes: Hilarious! Well done Rich, your best one yet.
owlart - on 31 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> Incidentally, we don't need a justification for stopping you going about your lawful business. I'll stop and talk to whoever I want to. If they don't want to engage with me, fine.

As this comes up occasionally, can you clarify, if you stop someone in the street for any (or no), are they obliged to stop and answer all your questions, or are they entitled to say "Sorry Officer, I'm busy" and keep walking without further engagement?
owlart - on 31 May 2013
In reply to owlart: "for any (or no) reason" that should say.
FrankBooth - on 31 May 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:
Guardian (hmm) puts the cost of Afganistan at £37 billion, that's £2k per household, enough to pay for 5,000 police officers for the duration of their careers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/30/afghanistan-war-cost-britain-37bn-book
captain paranoia - on 31 May 2013
In reply to owlart:

> if you stop someone in the street for any (or no) [reason?], are they obliged to stop and answer all your questions, or are they entitled to say "Sorry Officer, I'm busy" and keep walking without further engagement?

Good question. When does a stop for 'a chat' become a PACE Code A 'Stop', and how should members of the public know the difference? Presumably at the point where the officer does the GO WISELY routine?

Incidentally, I'm not sure how 'stop' and 'search' are related. They appear to be almost conflated in

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/jan/uk-stopsearchguidance2004.pdf

so I'm not sure if there is a legal distinction between a 'Stop' and a 'Search', or if the legal requirements to allow a Stop are different from the legal requirements to allow a Search.
owlart - on 31 May 2013
In reply to captain paranoia:
> Good question. When does a stop for 'a chat' become a PACE Code A 'Stop', and how should members of the public know the difference? Presumably at the point where the officer does the GO WISELY routine?

And how many members of the public are even aware of GO WISELY? I had to Google it just now.
owlart - on 31 May 2013
In reply to captain paranoia:
> Good question. When does a stop for 'a chat' become a PACE Code A 'Stop'

Of course, the cynic in me says that a stop for a friendly 'chat' becomes a compulsory stop the moment you decline to have the friendly 'chat'.
captain paranoia - on 31 May 2013
In reply to owlart:

> And how many members of the public are even aware of GO WISELY? I had to Google it just now.

I hadn't heard of it either. It was off-duty's post that made me look it up.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=550584&v=1#x7353401
Bimble on 31 May 2013
In reply to owlart:
> (In reply to captain paranoia)
> [...]
>
> Of course, the cynic in me says that a stop for a friendly 'chat' becomes a compulsory stop the moment you decline to have the friendly 'chat'.

Try walking away to carry on with your business & see what happens next.
Paul F - on 31 May 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to owlart)
> [...]
>
> Try walking away to carry on with your business & see what happens next.

"stop, or I'll say stop again"
off-duty - on 31 May 2013
In reply to owlart / captain paranoia:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> As this comes up occasionally, can you clarify, if you stop someone in the street for any (or no), are they obliged to stop and answer all your questions, or are they entitled to say "Sorry Officer, I'm busy" and keep walking without further engagement?

If a cop stops you in the street you have no obligation to speak to them or stop, UNLESS they are actually carrying out a stop and search under PACE or another power. (Obviously leaving aside any other reasons, eg you are about to get arrested, or you are walking throuhg a cordon)

If they are stopping you for a search they are required to explain certain things to you summarised in general by GOWISELY and have certain powers over exactly what they can search depending what power they are searching you under.

How will you know what the police officer intends?
Well I would suggest by stopping and talking to them.

There are plenty of reasons the officer might be speaking to you which have nothing to do with a desire to stop search you.

We still aspire to community policing where "talking to people" is not something bound by legislation.
owlart - on 31 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to owlart / captain paranoia)
> [...]
>
> If a cop stops you in the street you have no obligation to speak to them or stop, UNLESS they are actually carrying out a stop and search under PACE or another power. (Obviously leaving aside any other reasons, eg you are about to get arrested, or you are walking throuhg a cordon)

So, if you tried to stop someone for a 'friendly chat', or, say, to casually enquire what they were carrying, and they said "Can't stop, must dash" and kept on walking, there'd be no consequences and you'd just let them walk on?
off-duty - on 31 May 2013
In reply to owlart:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> So, if you tried to stop someone for a 'friendly chat', or, say, to casually enquire what they were carrying, and they said "Can't stop, must dash" and kept on walking, there'd be no consequences and you'd just let them walk on?

If I stop someone to search them then they will get searched.

If I am just passing the time of day and they said "Can't stop, must dash" then that would be that. I might think they were a bit of a knob depending on how rude they had been.

On occasion I have stopped people and their subsequent behaviour has meant that they get searched - typical examples being suspected street robbers who make off.
But equally I have stopped to speak to people and their behaviour has resulted in any initial misgivings I might have had dissipating and them going about their business with no further delay. A bit of politeness tends to have that effect.

Sometimes I've just stopped and had a conversation and sometimes - horror of horrors - they've stopped ME!
owlart - on 01 Jun 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> If I stop someone to search them then they will get searched.

But presumably that's always done on a formal basis and they're told this is a formal 'stop and search' from the start?
Ridge - on 01 Jun 2013
In reply to owlart:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> But presumably that's always done on a formal basis and they're told this is a formal 'stop and search' from the start?

I think offy's made that clear. If at some point the person he's having a normal chat to starts behaving strangely he then had reason to search them. I honestly don't see what people are getting so upset about. The postwoman had a chat with me this morning, should I report her to the Royal Mail for this gross invasion of my privacy and breach of my human rights?
owlart - on 01 Jun 2013
In reply to Ridge: I'm not the one talking about invasion of privacy or breach of human rights. I've simply never been in this situation and am enquiring both what the procedure is, and what the legal standing is on both sides. Is it wrong that I should ask this?
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 01 Jun 2013
In reply to owlart:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> But presumably that's always done on a formal basis and they're told this is a formal 'stop and search' from the start?


Prior to any search you should be informed :-

[G]rounds for the search

[O]bject of the search


[W]arrant card must be produced if in plain clothes

[I]dentify, the PC must inform the suspect of his name

[S]tation, the police station at which the constable works.

[E]ntitlement to a copy of the search record

[L]egal power being used to for detention.

[Y]ou are being detained for the purpose of search...suspect must be told he is being detained.
MJ - on 01 Jun 2013
In reply to off-duty:

[I]dentify, the PC must inform the suspect of his name

Won't the suspect already know his own name?
off-duty - on 01 Jun 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [I]dentify, the PC must inform the suspect of his name
>
> Won't the suspect already know his own name?

"Constable, don't you know who I am....? " ;-)
Richard Baynes - on 02 Jun 2013
In reply to off-duty: But do you understand the huge misgivings many law-abiding citizens such as myself have with police officers stopping them? Much of this I think comes from over-assertiveness (aggression?) on the part of officers who seem to have a desire to dominate the situation. This may be understandable when dealing with aggressive nut-jobs, but it seems to spill over - eg the 'attitude problem' I was told I had by some boy of 23 when I didn't want to talk for a very good and very obvious reason. It seems that policing by consent gets forgotten at times.

R

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.