East Dulwich station (Ticket checks)

[pk]

Keef Wrote:

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

> 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.

out of interest, what did they do for one pill?

[Keef]

I'm not actually sure to be honest, like I say, friend of a friend, I just heard the story. I do know of the other guy that walked through though, and wish he'd got caught!

[*Bob*]

During a Bestival, a member of 'the group' decided (most unwisely) to exit the festival in search of a local pint.

The local fuzz busted him for various bits and pieces found about his person.

He was fancy-dressed as a giant banana at the time.

(Not so funny in court though, obviously.)

[Loz]

*Bob* - dressed as a giant banana? Are you a member of The Wiggles or something? :))

[Ted Max]

He should never have split when he did. He certainly slipped up there. Although it was bad luck running into the peelers.

Wearing his costume to court was stupid as well. Perhaps he was still mashed up?

[James Barber]

I'm told a correlation between people who fare evade and criminal offences committed on the railways.

Reducing the incidence of fair evasion, criminals think they'll get caught and make other travel arrangements, helps reduce crime against other passengers and railway property.

Other research to suggest, much against my intuition, that minimal crime displacement.

More ticket checking is good in my books - as long as its reasoned to allow for odd lost ticket, etc. So first offence warning better than a fine. Second offence fines, etc.

[thebestnameshavegone]

What would constitute 'fair evasion', in your eyes?

*gets coat*

[Damian H]

I agree that there appears to be an established link between trivial crime such as fare dodging and serious crime, hence the justification for zero tolerance approaches in the US and a few UK locations.

Doesn't answer, however, the issue of the excessive number of police officers on hand (I counted at least 10 last time I saw it happening) nor does it really justify IMO using a bottle neck situation to corall predominantly innocent people into a sudden confrontation with a mass of police and sniffer dogs.

What is the law about being subjected to the intimate attentions of a police dog without permission?

[eater81]

JBARBER:

Do you mind if I ask what your view is on the overly draconian use of dogs to sniff each and every commuter on their way out of the station? Do you think that such measures effectively tackle the criminal drug dealers that are a menace to society, or do you think they are a justified response to the utterly terrible problem of hard working, tax paying commuters having the odd joint or pill in their pockets?

http://teamnoksecurity.co.uk/images/DSCF0605.jpg

THE POLICE STATE IS WATCHING YOU!

GUILTY, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!

[Shankley]

They are back again today. Don't know about anyone else but it's starting to really p@as me off.No ticket checking , just old bill with the trusty dog

[Loz]

Anyone thought of getting the Beeb News or similar involved?

[boosboss]

Just some info on fare evasion:

*Fare evasion costs London Underground around ?44m a year.

*During 2004/05 London Underground's Private Prosecution Section handled around 5,000 cases, most of these being for fare evasion.

*During 2004/05 Transport for London's Bus Investigations and Prosecutions Service dealt with 13,000 criminal prosecution cases, most of these being for fare evasion.

*One TOC deals with 3,000 cases of fare evasion, and 500 prosecutions leading to a criminal conviction per month.

*For that TOC in only 6 to 10 cases a month (out of the 500 prosecutions) is there a 'not guilty' plea.

*Since legislation in 1999 a rail operator can revoke a Penalty Fare if it is not paid and pursue the case as a criminal offence of fare evasion.

(TOC - Train Operating Company)

[KidKruger]

Yeah I has the police dog sniffingmy cahones earlier, but managed to avoid it covering me in dog snot.

First time I have seen them there with no ticket collectors, this was just about what's being carried (drugs or whatever dogs are trained to sniff).

There must be a reason they are doing that like there's some 'traffic' coming down through there and they got a tip-off or had busted someone who mentioned it. They ain't there for nowt.

[Horsebox]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Anyone thought of getting the Beeb News or similar

> involved?

Is it really newsworthy?

Sure, the BBC website could probably come up with something lacking in substance (excuse the pun) but there seems to be no 'real' story whatsoever.

[James Barber]

Hi eater81,

Sniffer dogs randomly checking people would in my view be a form of stopping and searching. I was under the impression that to do this the Police have to have cause and complete and hand a form over.

Suggestion of 10 officers seems OTT. Surely they should be split up and patrolling the network. Doesn't make a good case for having more British Transport Police if they enjoy each others company quite so much.

I wish they were allowed on forums such as this to tell us why they think they need quite so much resource to a quiet surburban railway station.

[matthew123]

The dogs I saw tonight seemed pretty harmless - I think having Police presence in East Dulwich is not something to be sniffed at...

[Mark]

There were 6 officers there tonight.

[Timster]

I don't usually come into East Dulwich and yes there were 6 officers there tonight - and not British Transport Police ones but proper Met Police. No obvious reason for them to be there. It's not as if South London is short of crime for them to be chasing so they've got nothing better to do. I actually found their presence quite threatening. I was going to ask why they were there but they weren't exactly your friendly neighbourhood style of crimefighters.

Is anybody in a position of knowledge or authority able to explain exactly what is going on? It can't be about fare evasion because there was no one there tonight checking tickets. (And I completely agree that it is a waste of police time to be getting involved in enforcing penalty fares etc)

[*Bob*]

Timster Wrote:

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

I actually found their

> presence quite threatening.

How come..? How many pills did you have on you, Tim?

[Timster]

Er none Bob. A lot of police standing around looking very unfriendly does not make for a happy atmosphere. Of course, if there is a good reason for them to be there, I'll learn to live with my excessive sensitivity to a heavy-handed police presence at my local railway station.

[sazzle]

I don't actually mind them being there. They have a job to do and they are trying to do it. I am sure there is a reason for them being there and doubt they will want to share it with us.

The guy with the sniffer dog was polite to us as we walked past and the ones outside the ticket office were chatting amongst themselves letting everyone get on with their business.

I welcome greater police presence in the area, and have always found the local police very helpful.

[eater81]

I do feel really strongly about this dog situation... thanks for your reply Mr Barber.

I think the Police could be doing this for a number of possible reasons:

1) as a means of training the dogs, to give them experience of doing their job in the real world.

2) To boost crime figures and to show that they are doing something in the hopeless 'war on drugs'.

3) Perhaps which ever Chief Constable (or whatever rank they may be) is commissioning these operations is quite simply an overly zealous fascist ######, with something against harmless and otherwise law abiding recreational drug users.

I doubt very much that there is some kind of shipment or big bust about to occur. Anybody in posession of anything worth worrying about would know not to go anywhere near rail transport.

This article makes interesting reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/11/police-sniffer-dogs-human-rights

I am seriously condidering investigating this further. I can probably obtain, under the freedom of information act, some kind of statistics on all this... things like number of searches, number resulting in a 'find', the nature of the 'find', etc. I'll imagine the number of people found with a small amount of weed will significantly outnumber those found with anything less innocent.

If that proves fruitless I shall at least be writing to our local police head honcho to try and get some kind of justification for this quite frankly very worrying move towards a surveilance society.

That is of course if (as an evil herb smoker)I can find the time, inbetween my usual activities of corrupting children, mugging old grannies and generally causing damage to the underlying moral fabric of our great and free society.

B)

Mr Barber, would you and your Lib Dem chums (who I have been voting for for many years) be prepared to assist me with my potential campaign against this? I certainly think you guys could win a lot of friends in the run up to this year's election by taking the government to rights over the constant errosion of our right to privacy.

[Mark]

"Police in Crime Prevention Shocker!"

As someone said, it's a police presence in the area on a Tuesday evening. If you're a "criminal" you're going to avoid the area and personally I think the area's better without "criminals". And I don't want my councillor campaigning against this.

[edited once]

[Loz]

It's been said before... and it's well worth repeating.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

[cate]

Watch the 'Send in the Dogs' series of programmes on ITV. It is on Tuesday night and you can catch up with it on ITV player. It shows police dogs being trained and then doing work out in the community. The drug sniffing ones can pick up the scent of whatever, but it doesn't mean that you are actually carrying anything, merely that you could have been in contact with someone with drugs or you have recently had a joint yourself. If you get singled out by a dog then you are taken away and searched by the police. I find the programmes fascinating but I guess if you hung out with drug users/used yourself then seeing a few dogs at the station wouldn't gladden your heart.