On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:33:25 +0100, Les Invalides
wrote:
>Anton G˙sen posted
>>Dr John Watson wrote:
>>
>>> A major operation to stop drug trafficking on East Anglia's rail network
>>> saw police with sniffer dogs checking every passenger who arrived in
>>> Norfolk over two days.
>>
>>As long as they're not causing a problem WRT the rail journey then
>>where's the problem?
>
>For example:
>
>>A major operation to stop drug trafficking on East Anglia's rail
>>network saw police with sniffer dogs checking every passenger who
>>arrived in Norfolk over two days.
>
>I don't like being sniffed by dogs, especially big ones. I don't like
>being examined by uniformed men equipped with handcuffs and clubs, when
>I'm going about my ordinary everyday business in an ordinary everyday
>place where no offence has been complained of or committed. So that's
>two problems for me.
>
>snip
>>
>>PC Andy Cook said: “We had uniformed and plain clothes officers
>>working with the dogs to detect anybody who had recently been in
>>contact with controlled substances. We also stopped anybody acting
>>suspiciously or trying to avoid the dogs.
>
>I don't like people stopping me when I try to avoid animals that I don't
>like. So that's another problem for me.
>
>snip
>>
>>Anyone detected by the dogs was immediately led to a secure area where
>>they were searched.
>
>And many of these people were innocent and "had simply been in the
>vicinity of somebody smoking cannabis". Being taken to a secure area and
>searched when I am trying to travel somewhere is a *big* problem for me.
>Do I really have to explain why?
>
>But most of all because it's another step down the slippery slope to
>where police can stop and search you for any reason and no reason and
>you have no recourse. A police society.
You got there in the end! A police state, though, is the proper term.
There is nothing good about the state we are getting into, but the
term "society" suggests there might be.
MM |