Danny Weed
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,899
What! that is insane, I would be raging if they done that to me aswell, its a shame nobody attacked the police by 'mistake' like he was talking about.
-
🇬🇧 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
European & African
Drug Discussion
Welcome Guest!
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules -
EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari
Warning: Sniffer dogs at london tube stations
- Thread starter noddy holder
- Start date
What! that is insane, I would be raging if they done that to me aswell, its a shame nobody attacked the police by 'mistake' like he was talking about.
parttime crackhead
Bluelighter
Surely the cops can get done for that. I'd just shout I don't give a fuck if he's a polis, I want him charged the exact same as if he'd been a junkie jumping in my open window.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
If you're ever visting and you see a skinny, dark-haired freak in a leather trenchcoat smoking a rollie then you'll know exactly who to avoid.
have seen quite a few ppl who fit that description there!
i've actually paid friends to drive me rather than have to face picadilly wihlst carrying. the police make me shit myself enough even when i'm not breaking the law.
d1989
Bluelighter
Thought i will update this thread with some my experience from the weekend
Went from london up to manchester picadilly carrying. No police anywhere and certainly no dogs.
As for Warehouse project, i had seen some stories in ehre (from mdmahead and a couple of others) about extreme security. I didn't see this at all. Walked into WHP fine, none of our group even got searched just went straight in, no police outisde and no sniffer dog. Inside was the same, a few bouncers dotted around at entranced to different rooms, and that was it. There was a line of police outside at the end but that was it.
Went from london up to manchester picadilly carrying. No police anywhere and certainly no dogs.
As for Warehouse project, i had seen some stories in ehre (from mdmahead and a couple of others) about extreme security. I didn't see this at all. Walked into WHP fine, none of our group even got searched just went straight in, no police outisde and no sniffer dog. Inside was the same, a few bouncers dotted around at entranced to different rooms, and that was it. There was a line of police outside at the end but that was it.
PredatorVision
Bluelighter
Yeah I got into warehouse project fine, though I saw about six people being shook down seemingly picked out at random, apparently my big black coat and bag didn't seem that suspicious. I don't think it's that big of a deal considering the amount of clowns in there quite openly selling shit pills for £2 each unless your blatantly obvious. I think the dogs just for intimidation or had a blocked nose the evening I went.
back in march i was in london on business, took the tube to vauxhall, got off there and walked to the overground. i was messing round in my pockets when i was at barriers, not looking in front of me, put my ticket in and walked on through the barrier; and as i did that i looked up and saw about 8 or so coppers and a couple of dogs.
now, the trouble was, i had a nice little bag of brown in my suit trouser pocket, and it was too late to turn around and go back through as it would have looked well dodgy, so i carried on, walked quickly looking at my watch and the screens for departures/arrivals and walked straight past the dogs.
the dog moved forward towards me and the coppers were looking at me (could see as i was looking for departures screen), and all they did was pull the dog back in line and i walked on by and up the steps to the overground.
my heart as pounding waiting for the train. i would have lost my job etc.
but, it was obvious they applied positive discrimination: a white middle-class looking guy in a suit with a laptop bag. they obviously took the decision not to waste their and my time time and the embarrassment, but they would have got a result. ha
now, the trouble was, i had a nice little bag of brown in my suit trouser pocket, and it was too late to turn around and go back through as it would have looked well dodgy, so i carried on, walked quickly looking at my watch and the screens for departures/arrivals and walked straight past the dogs.
the dog moved forward towards me and the coppers were looking at me (could see as i was looking for departures screen), and all they did was pull the dog back in line and i walked on by and up the steps to the overground.
my heart as pounding waiting for the train. i would have lost my job etc.
but, it was obvious they applied positive discrimination: a white middle-class looking guy in a suit with a laptop bag. they obviously took the decision not to waste their and my time time and the embarrassment, but they would have got a result. ha
No, I think this idea that police have "better things to do" is an urban myth. If the dog had shown a positive interest in you then you would have been stopped and searched. The police DON'T have anything better to do - that's why there's 8 of them standing in the train station all day.
The dog you thought "moved towards you" was probably just breaking wind.
parttime crackhead
Bluelighter
Relentless.
noddy holder
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2007
- Messages
- 110
They got me at Canning Town on my way to work a few months back with this, i came down the escalators and some guy got a tug so i'm looking back over my shoulder at him as i go through the barriers wondering what he had done when one of BTPs finest takes this to mean im guilty as fuck and should be searched.
I wasn't worried as I knew i was clean so got cocky when he asked questions as he was going through my bag
"Have you been arrested before sir?"
"yeah loads of times, always escaped though"
This carried on until he got to this clear plastic box which i kept plasters/aspirins etc. in and it suddenly hit me that there was a half g wrap of coke in there me and my mate at work had been doing a couple of weeks before and i'd forgotten about as it was shit.
"whats in here?"
"medicine"
Don't know why the fuck i said that as a a sachet of blackcurrant flavoured lemsip hardly qualifies. He stared at the box for a couple of seconds before putting it back and writing me up a ticket. that was very uncomfortable.
Haven't seen them there since then but they were using anti-terror powers
jancrow
Bluelighter
Interesting, it was done under section 60 of the CJA, when a senior cop reckons there's a threat of violence and they can search pretty much anyone. Was there a football match or demo nearby?
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
do they have to have some evidence in advance of the threat, or is it like the terrorist thing where as far as i can tell they just make up a threat if they're a bit bored one day?
jancrow
Bluelighter
I'm trying to work that out at the moment. I was under the impression that section 60 was invoked on a temporary basis by a high ranking officer. But actually it looks as though anyone at or above inspector level can authorize it. I don't know enough about the command structure to understand the implications of that.
From Liberty's website (the civil rights organisation, not the poncy shop):
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...e-section-60-of-the-criminal-justice-and.html
I would imagine that you can claim there's 'a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place or that people are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in the area' almost anywhere and at any time in the UK. You could perhaps use local gang activity, a specific suspect being on the loose in an area or any number of other things as a reason.
However, it might not be good for an inspector's career if they hand these things out like confetti -it could be seen as a lazy way to bump up arrest figures. They'll also look pretty stupid if they keep granting these powers and their boys keep pulling Mr Smith with his teenth of soap bar instead of the type of targets these powers are intended for. This is largely speculation, but I know someone who would know and I'll ask him when I see him.
From Liberty's website (the civil rights organisation, not the poncy shop):
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...e-section-60-of-the-criminal-justice-and.html
I would imagine that you can claim there's 'a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place or that people are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in the area' almost anywhere and at any time in the UK. You could perhaps use local gang activity, a specific suspect being on the loose in an area or any number of other things as a reason.
However, it might not be good for an inspector's career if they hand these things out like confetti -it could be seen as a lazy way to bump up arrest figures. They'll also look pretty stupid if they keep granting these powers and their boys keep pulling Mr Smith with his teenth of soap bar instead of the type of targets these powers are intended for. This is largely speculation, but I know someone who would know and I'll ask him when I see him.
jancrow
Bluelighter
Believe it or not, which you won't, because you are incapable of seeing the police as anything other than a great dark mass which exists only to make your life and the lives of other small-time drug users a misery, but there is actually a degree of oversight within the force and an inspector who regularly mounted expensive operations which took officers away from other duties and only pulled in your everyday puff smoker with piddling amounts of dope on him would not get very far up the ladder. And they all want to get up that ladder.
Don't be silly. There were 101,000 people stopped and searched last year under anti-terror powers and not one charged with a terrorism offence. No "inspector" has ever been called to account for this. I suppose in your bizarre idea of the police you'd imagine they all have to "account" for each stop and search.
The operations you mention are clearly satisfying the inspectors and their superiors otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them. If anyone was complaining it would have been stopped. The inspectors concerned will be progressing up the ladder just fine.
The operations you mention are clearly satisfying the inspectors and their superiors otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them. If anyone was complaining it would have been stopped. The inspectors concerned will be progressing up the ladder just fine.
eclipsedesign
Bluelighter
I'd be careful about where you've been if you're still wearing jeans from the night before etc and happened to be somewhere where people were smoking weed. The popo will pull you over just from the residual smell and may find drugs that they wouldn't normal detect like K etc.
jancrow
Bluelighter
Ok, I'm afraid that I don't understand your first paragraph in relation to my previous posts.
Second paragraph - at the moment we don't know how times section 60 has been invoked. I'm looking for statistics but haven't found any yet.
Second paragraph - at the moment we don't know how times section 60 has been invoked. I'm looking for statistics but haven't found any yet.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
the link is quite scary.
my 2 cents on the points raised by you and ismene: the police do so pathetically at anything but catching minor drug offenders that it does seem like they view this as an acheivement. they get most of their info from tip offs so don't really even work anything out themselves. its lazy and easy and keeps arrest rates high.
i must admit that i have a very low view of the police, maybe because my first interaction with them involved them basically allowing a serious violent crime to occur because they couldn't be arsed to follow up a complaint made by myself and some friends (apparently hospitalisation isn't sufficient evidence for violence).
Ok, I'm afraid that I don't understand your first paragraph in relation to my previous posts.
Stopping and searching 101,000 people is no small task. It costs an enormous amount of money. And it netted no terrorists, just a handful of kids with pot. No inspectors career was derailed over this.
And yet your theory is that somehow by "invoking section 60 costs money and they might only get dope users this will derail an inspectors career". Why do you think this would derail an inspectors career when searching 101,000 people didn't?
Stopping and searching 101,000 people is no small task. It costs an enormous amount of money. And it netted no terrorists, just a handful of kids with pot. No inspectors career was derailed over this.
And yet your theory is that somehow by "invoking section 60 costs money and they might only get dope users this will derail an inspectors career". Why do you think this would derail an inspectors career when searching 101,000 people didn't?