East Dulwich station (Ticket checks)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

What a snitch, KK. Bet you were popular at school.

[Siduhe]

Slightly off topic, but I have read a number of times that studies suggest people who break the "small laws" (i.e. fare dodging) are much more likely to be also breaking some of the "bigger laws" (drug dealing/carrying concealed weapons). I don't know how true that is, but it may explain why the two go hand in hand.

For myself, I have found the similar searches at Peckham Rye inconvenient at best and intrusive at worst - right up until a guy about three in front of me tried to push past the people checking tickets, then tried to do a runner from the police and was found to be carrying a kitchen knife down his jeans. No idea what the story was (happened several months ago), but made me think.

[TheAllSeeingEye]

Forgive me if Im being stupid, but when not just employ someone to sell tickets, and have barriers, rather than pay someone a far greater sum to do random checks and distract 6-8 police officers from real crimes ... like speeding ;-)

[eater81]

A couple of rather predictable responses to my post,

Bob sarcastically states:

" I agree with Eater.

How many innocent law-abiding herb-smoking, pill-munching, G-drinking, nitrous-inhaling, coke-snorting, mdma-dabbing, mephedrone-bombing perfectly respectable citizens will fall foul of this underhand tactic?"

I believe he is trying to infer that people who do such things are not respectable citizens.

I know many herb-smoking, pill-munching, coke-snorting, mdma-dabbing, mephedrone-bombing poeple who, through their drug use have never harmed anybody apart from themselves. They pay tens thousands of pounds a year in taxes and are upstanding, highly moral members of society with great lives ahead of them. These people do not deserve to be sniffed out with dogs and treated like criminals, whilst doing nothing more than going about their daily business. As for G-drinking and nitrous inhaling, I have no idea what he is on about.

KidKruger states:

"eater81 - I thik the whole point of sniffer dogs is that as you say people who carry drugs DON'T "give grounds to the police for concern or suspicion, (about what they) might be carrying in their pocket ".

The fact that they are not waving the drugs around for all to see means that to detect and deal with them (from Police's point of view) they need to deploy other means of detection, such as the dogs."

I don't know from his post whether he is on my side or not, however the fact that they are not waving the drugs around for all to see means that they are causing no harm or offence to anybody, should have their privacy respected and be allowed to go about their daily business un-hindered.

Look, at the end of the day having a police dog at the exit to a local suburban station to arbitrarily sniff each and every commuter as they return home from work is more remeniscent of pre-Berlin wall east Germany than of a supposedly free and democratic society.

[hayesgrover]

Many thanks Barry

[KidKruger]

Peckhamgatecrasher - foul habit IMO and sick of walking past the stench before breakfast, glad they made the regulation, dissapointed they don't have the balls / gumption to enforce it.

The main reason for the police being present isn't so much to protect revenue for the rail companies (or at least not directly), it's to protect the staff who are applying the fines at the checkpoints because they are often assaulted or threatened by the folks who have a view that they don't need a ticket or should not pay a fine and are prepared to stamp on the employee applying the fine. If the police were not present some people would walk right through them. Even on trains I have seen police accompanying ticket inspectors and once a mother / son combo assaulting the inspector on one occasion until the copper followed into the carriage...

eater81 - why does there has to be 'my side or not' ?! Calm down I am saying why i thought the dogs were there I don't have a beef with whatever people carry in their pockets, especially the 'personal use' man on the street. I did say 'Police's point of view'. 'nitrous inhaling', this is probably nitrous oxide (NO2) inhalation, from cylinders or balloons filled from cylinders (then you [allegedly] inhale the balloon's contents), short hit fairly euphoric - all the rage with kids 14 years and up as available on internet legally.

[ruffers]

eater81 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A couple of rather predictable responses to my

> post,

>

> Bob sarcastically states:

> " I agree with Eater.

>

> How many innocent law-abiding herb-smoking,

> pill-munching, G-drinking, nitrous-inhaling,

> coke-snorting, mdma-dabbing, mephedrone-bombing

> perfectly respectable citizens will fall foul of

> this underhand tactic?"

>

> I believe he is trying to infer that people who do

> such things are not respectable citizens.

Do you? I don't think whether they're respectable or not is the point, the point is they're not innocent if they're carrying a prohibited substance, possession is against the law for a number of things as we all know.

You can be respectable without being innocent!

[OutOfFocus]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm more concerned that a private company gets to

> use public police for their own revenue

> protection. I want the British Transport Police

> (or the general Police if they were there)

> protecting the public, not a company's income.

So the Police shouldn't get involved in bank robberies - only protecting the assets of a private company.

[Loz]

OutOfFocus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm more concerned that a private company gets

> to

> > use public police for their own revenue

> > protection. I want the British Transport

> Police

> > (or the general Police if they were there)

> > protecting the public, not a company's income.

>

> So the Police shouldn't get involved in bank

> robberies - only protecting the assets of a

> private company.

Of course they should - that's attending a crime, not protecting an income stream. Do we have police guarding Sainsbury's making sure that everyone has paid? No. Do they attend Sainsbury's if a crime has taken place? Yes.

Here, no crime has yet taken place. If a ticket inspector is assaulted, the police should be involved - that is the correct use of them. But having them manning each and every mobile ticket inspection 'just in case' and acting as the train operating company's heavies is not.

No other private company gets to use the police force in this way.

[Redalways]

You would think that the Police had better things to do than search commuters for the odd joint.

I guess from their perspective it beats catching real criminals.

[KidKruger]

We do not have 'normal' ticket barriers at ED station to apply the ticketing controls we are used to at other stations therefore they do spot checks at ED, these kind of checks will inevitably catch-out folks who do not have tickets (intentionally or otherwise), when it comes to being caught aggression can ensue and they know there are no barriers at ED and request police back-up.

The police are actually there for nothing more sinister IMO than to cope with the violence that can erupt when someone has taken a journey and mistakenly expected all/part of it to be free only to find out they gotta cough-up like the other fare payers. A failing not of the police or the ticket inspectors IMO.

Funny how 'we' blame the police for the need to protect railway staff.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Don't forget, these are probably British Rail Police. It's not as if they would be stopping bank robberies in the high street if they weren't assisting revenue protection.

[ruffers]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Here, no crime has yet taken place. If a ticket

> inspector is assaulted, the police should be

> involved - that is the correct use of them. But

> having them manning each and every mobile ticket

> inspection 'just in case' and acting as the train

> operating company's heavies is not.

>

They don't man each and every one, where did that come from?

[Horsebox]

Redalways Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You would think that the Police had better things

> to do than search commuters for the odd joint.

>

> I guess from their perspective it beats catching

> real criminals.

Redalways, presumably by "real criminals" you mean murderers, rapists, violent offenders and such?

Crimes such as these are typically investigated by detectives and analysts, not your average constable, who will be deployed on street duties, immediate incidents and planned operations (as mentioned in the OP).

If you have concerns about particular crimes in your area, then why not attend one of the many street briefings or drop-in surgeries and let them know where their resources might be used best?

http://www.met.police.uk/saferneighbourhoods/

[pearl1]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't forget, these are probably British Rail

> Police. It's not as if they would be stopping bank

> robberies in the high street if they weren't

> assisting revenue protection.

they appeared to be regular police, inasmuchas I didn't notice anything which marked them out as being Railway police. but that still doesn't explain why they need sniffer dogs to catch out fare dodgers....

[Bellerophon]

AcedOut Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> eater81 - Even if a dog sniffs you and detects

> something, I don't think the police have rights to

> search you or ask you to empty your pockets. I

> might be wrong on this though - but I think you

> CAN refuse for a dog to sniff you - since they

> would need reasonable grounds for suspicion to use

> one on you in the first place. It's rather

> invasive of them to use a narrow alleyway t

> this though.

>

> Most of the time you can actually say "no" to the

> police, but most people don't know their rights.

> Just like the police have no right to enter your

> premises without a search warrant. Unfortunately,

> new terrorism bills are stripping us of these

> freedoms though.

You are wrong on all counts

Nothing to do with terrorism - A Police Officer has a the legal right to enter your home, by force if necessary under S. 17 to save life and limb. That means if he or she smells gas, hears someone in distress, a serious disturbance. Good to know if you are the victim of an aggrivated burglary i would have thought.

There was a time when joe public were happy to see pro-active police work. I sincerely hope BTP read this thread and decide to give Denmark Hill a wide berth - It's the gateway to the drugs hotspot that is Camberwell for all those dealers who have lost their driving licences. They're the ones who will also be armed with a knife, or more probably a firearm, sitting in the same carriage as you.

[thebestnameshavegone]

In the days where you can phone for anything from the comfort of your own home (speaking of which, where IS he?), whoever they 'bust' with checks at stations are going to be unbelievably small-time, or Joe Lunchpail with just enough to get himself baked when he gets in. Good for the stats though, which is the vote-winner.

As someone says above, at a suburban station 8 officers with dogs seems somewhat excessive.

The 'if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' argument is a frightening one, played out to its logical conclusion it ends with CCTV on every street corner and permission for random stop and search to be carried out..oh

[Horsebox]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> whoever they 'bust' with checks at

> stations are going to be unbelievably small-time,

> or Joe Lunchpail with just enough to get himself

> baked when he gets in. Good for the stats though,

> which is the vote-winner.

What stats are you talking about, exactly? Drug arrests in the UK have decreased, year-on-year, over the last decade. Hardly a 'vote-winner.'

http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/arrests-for-recorded-crime-england-and-wales.pdf.

If 'Joe Lunchpail' and the rest of your hemp-smoking ilk are stupid enough to leave their 'stash' where 'The Man' can find it, then they deserve to be up in front of the beak and, hopefully, serve a stretch, man.

Don't Bogart that joint, my friend. It could be your last.

[LegalEagle-ish]

There was a time when joe public were happy to see pro-active police work. I sincerely hope BTP read this thread and decide to give Denmark Hill a wide berth - It's the gateway to the drugs hotspot that is Camberwell for all those dealers who have lost their driving licences. They're the ones who will also be armed with a knife, or more probably a firearm, sitting in the same carriage as you.

Er, slightly alarmist scare mongering there, in my opinion. Not sure where that came from!

[thebestnameshavegone]

Horsebox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > whoever they 'bust' with checks at

> > stations are going to be unbelievably

> small-time,

> > or Joe Lunchpail with just enough to get

> himself

> > baked when he gets in. Good for the stats

> though,

> > which is the vote-winner.

>

>

> What stats are you talking about, exactly? Drug

> arrests in the UK have decreased, year-on-year,

> over the last decade. Hardly a 'vote-winner.'

>

> http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/arrests-for-recorde

> d-crime-england-and-wales.pdf.

>

I was referring more to the elections that are on the horizon. I don't think the majority people really check stats in any detail, they just remember all those times there were loads of police at the station and therefore think 'ah, they must be doing something'

The same reason you tend to see lots of council-funded posters trumpeting schooling / community minutiae in an election lead-up

>

> If 'Joe Lunchpail' and the rest of your

> hemp-smoking ilk are stupid enough to leave their

> 'stash' where 'The Man' can find it, then they

> deserve to be up in front of the beak and,

> hopefully, serve a stretch, man.

>

> Don't Bogart that joint, my friend. It could be

> your last.

I don't think I ever admitted to being a 'hemp smoker' did I? Whether they 'deserve' a stretch or not is besides the point - the guys carrying amounts upwards of a a few ounces or so aren't going to be getting the commuter train, I hear they tend to use cars. Whatever your stance on drugs, busting someone for 1/8th ounce of weed really does nothing for society.

[ontheedge]

and do they bust people for an 1/8th don't think so unless you can prove otherwise.

[*Bob*]

Anything over an ounce.. I mean 28.35 grammes (bloody EU) and it's a Stretch in The Big House breaking rocks whilst a man ("The Man") looks on in mirrored sunglasses.

Anything less than an 1/8 and they smoke it with you whilst discussing the line-up at The Glade.

Or something like that.

[Keef]

I was stopped at Lewisham station a couple of years back. Had nothing naughty on my person, but the dog picked up on my ventolin inhaler. About half hour they had me standing there whilst going through my bag, my coat and my wallet. Then when it became obvious it was the inhaler that had alerted the dog, the bloke said "yeah they're really good these dogs".

Not good enough to tell the difference between ventolin and weed obviously!

I did laugh recently though, when a friend of a friend got stopped at London Bridge, and was found with one pill on him, whilst his mate walked straight through with a bag full of them, that he would be dealing that evening. Sometimes life is unfair.

[Domitianus]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OutOfFocus Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I'm more concerned that a private company

> gets

> > to

> > > use public police for their own revenue

> > > protection. I want the British Transport

> > Police

> > > (or the general Police if they were there)

> > > protecting the public, not a company's

> income.

> >

> > So the Police shouldn't get involved in bank

> > robberies - only protecting the assets of a

> > private company.

>

> Of course they should - that's attending a crime,

> not protecting an income stream. Do we have

> police guarding Sainsbury's making sure that

> everyone has paid? No. Do they attend Sainsbury's

> if a crime has taken place? Yes.

>

> Here, no crime has yet taken place. If a ticket

> inspector is assaulted, the police should be

> involved - that is the correct use of them. But

> having them manning each and every mobile ticket

> inspection 'just in case' and acting as the train

> operating company's heavies is not.

>

> No other private company gets to use the police

> force in this way.

I could be wrong but I believe travelling without a proper fare is a civil matter for the company to resolve through civil processes - hence no right for the police to stick their oar in at all. There is no criminal offence as there would be in the case of a bank robbery. I just don't buy the "they are only there to protect the revenue inspectors" angle at all. If that was the case two or three of them would be more than ample - no need for about ten. I have seen the police en masse assisting revenue inspectors on the number 12 bus at Elephant. One guy got off the bus and legged it rather than be accosted by a revenue inspector. A copper ran off after him. I wonder why? If the guy had merely avoided paying a fare then it was no overt business of the police. Perhaps they simply found a guy running away suspicious but unless they had reasonable grounds for assuming that he had committed a criminal offence (not fare dodging) they had no right to accost him.

I am, of course, happy to stand corrected if I am wrong on the law here.

What alarms me a little more is the use of effectively a people bottle-trap (exit from station) to submit people to a de facto dog search. It has always struck me that this would be a highly traumatic experience for anyone who had a dog phobia - having a frisky dog foisted on you unexpectedly by a man in uniform as you were forced forward by a crowd behind you with no escape. I wonder if the rozzers ever give any thought to that.

[thebestnameshavegone]

ontheedge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> and do they bust people for an 1/8th don't think

> so unless you can prove otherwise.

I have no idea. I'm sure they don't put it in an envelope and post it to your house for you though.