East Dulwich station (Ticket checks)

[Horsebox]

Loz Wrote:

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

> 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

LOL!

What liberty is being given up, exactly?

[Mark]

Brilliant! Yes, what essential liberty has been given up? The right to vote? The right to bare arms? Freedom from slavery? Oh no, the right not to walk pass by a handful of police.

[LegalEagle-ish]

The right to go about your lawful business without unwarranted inteference by the state.

[KidKruger]

I really don't have major issues with walking past policemen, whether on my way home from work or when shopping or out and about at night, I don't feel fear just by being near them or seeing them approaching. They have not the spare resource to place a significant no. of policemen / dogs in one place for absolutely no reason. As somebody said earlier, more police around will eventually mean less 'criminals'. If I could see a copper on every street corner I'd have no issue with that, imagine KNOWING you were safe in the street every day rather than HOPING you will be.

I get the impression there would be less complaints if there was regularly a dozen drunken Millwall supporters lining the exit tunnel from ED station jeering and leeering at the passengers as they left the station !!

It's too cheap just to label the police as baddies blindly carrying-out the state's corrupt and Stazi-esque controls.

Be glad they are there - if it doesn't suit your particular choice of lifestyle, that doesn't mean they should not be there does it ?

[Jeremy]

The fact that there were six policemen at the station last night indicates that it wasn't a routine search, they must have been looking for someone/something in particular.

[ruffers]

Review of yesterday's telly from the Guardian which seemed relevant - is this programme filmed round here?!

"Presumably, when the police allow the cameras in to follow them around, they do so because they think it makes them look good. I'm not always so sure. In Send in The Dogs (ITV1), they are harassing innocent commuters returning home after a hard day's work. A spaniel called Woody indicates that he thinks one man has drugs on him. The man is apprehended and given a body search. Understandably, he's pretty cross about it; it must be a humiliating experience, especially in front of all the people he travels home with every day, and he protests vociferously. So they bundle him into a backroom and carry on in there.

Eventually, after finding nothing on him, they have to let him go. He's still angry, though. Of course he is, he's an innocent man and he's been treated like a criminal, then given no apology. He says he's going to kick Woody the spaniel's face. He clearly isn't, it's an idle threat and he's walking away, but it's all the police need, and they jump on him again and arrest him this time. His bad day gets even worse.

Interestingly, the four uniformed officers who make the arrest all have their faces fuzzed out. Might that be because they're not too proud of what they're doing, after all? As for Woody, he's a disgrace. Cute, with nice pink freckles on his nose, but clearly not up to the job. Perhaps he should be given indefinite sick leave before he causes any more problems."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/jan/20/how-earth-made-us

[*Bob*]

You know what it's like.. you wait all year waiting to see one bobby on the beat and then six come along at once with dogs and sniff your balls.

KidKruger Wrote:

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

They have not the spare resource to

> place a significant no. of policemen / dogs in one

> place for absolutely no reason.

Agree. Half of dozen dogged-up policemen are not going to be a permanent fixture at Peckham Rye, or any other rail station. I expect they're there to make an impression, which clearly they have.

If you are concerned, I suggest you take your weed, pills, knives and guns out through Denmark Hill until the situation resolves itself - just like the people they're hoping to catch will be doing.

[Penguin68]

In this country we have, or used to have, a concept of policing by consent, with a civilian police force tasked with protecting the public. Increasingly we have a police force which feels itself separate from the public, and views the public not as a group worth protecting, but as targets, to be suspected and controlled. It is legitimate to check travellers to ensure that they have a right to travel and have paid for tickets where there is evidence that this is not happening, and where travellers, at certain relatively 'open' stations have a history of not paying - but, as far as I know, the incidence of drug-takers (and indeed drug dealers) at Dulwich stations is not noticeably high during rush hours - so the use of drug-sniffing dogs here can be seen not as being trigged by reasonable suspicions, but as an oppressive fishing trip designed to subjugate the (broadly) respectable and working middle classes. We do have crime in Dulwich (most of our teenage children, particularly boys, have been mugged coming out of school or know someone who has been mugged) - but I do not see massive police presence in these areas to address this crime type. But then the muggers may actually fight back and resist arrest (or at least race-off and require the effort of chasing), which is more than weary commuters normally do.

I recall oppressive policing (in the Clapham/ Brixton areas) addressed mainly at black citizens resulting in the Brixton riots - I am sure that we are all too 'nice' to precipitate Dulwich riots - but once we see the police as being on a different side from us (as I believe is beginning to happen) then we have lost policing with consent and started down a slippery slope.

[Jeremy]

ruffers Wrote:

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

> He says he's going to kick Woody the spaniel's face.

Obviously a complete fckwit.

No sympathy...

[Loz]

Brilliant! Yes, what essential liberty has been given up? The right to vote? The right to bare arms? Freedom from slavery? Oh no, the right not to walk pass by a handful of police.

'Walking past a handful of police' is a bit disingenuous. As Legal-Eagleish said, its the right to go about your daily business without undue interference from the state. Not to be searched without due suspicion. Section 44 (one of the stop and search powers) has already been ruled as an abuse of human rights. So yes, it is right, a liberty.

It's not for nothing that fascist regimes stereotypes are usually portrayed by policemen using the words 'paperien bitte'? Throw in the ID Card, and that's exactly where we are heading.

Some of us blindly.

[*Bob*]

You'd be forgiven for thinking Peckham Rye at 6pm is a melee of riot shields and baton charging as lines of hapless commuters are lined-up, spreadeagled against a wall, waiting to be bumsearched and sent directly to Room 101.

They'll be gone soon, and everyone can get back to worrying about being mugged on the way out of the station, because there aren't any police around at all.

[Loz]

They'll be gone soon, and everyone can get back to worrying about being mugged on the way out of the station, because there aren't any police around at all.

But isn't that exactly the point, *Bob*? The odd anarchist aside, everyone thinks having police about is a jolly good thing. The whole country seems to pine for the good ol' days of Dixon of Dock Green, where the friendly neighbourhood bobby patrols the streets. I don't recall that the scripts involved George asking random people to turn out their pockets and delete all the pictures on their camera. Or getting his dog to stick his nose up somewhere unmentionable for that matter.

I'd love to see policemen patrolling as a regular feature round here. But in this case, as you say, it's not, is it? What is this little exercise then?

... spreadeagled against a wall, waiting to be bumsearched

You'd better hope that dog doesn't sit next to you and bark...

[Mark]

Personally I do go about my daily business without undue interference from the police state. However I have been stopped riding my motorbike by the afore mentioned fascist regime rozzers in a "routine roadside check" and they duly checked my driving licence, gave me a Think Bike high-viz vest and then let me go. Bastards. I have also had my car smashed into by joyriding twats who then ran off leaving me stuck with a big repair bill and a hatred of uninsured people on the roads.

The point being that I don't mind being checked by the police and seeing them on the pavement outside the East Dulwich station and being sniffed by a dog doesn't bother me. However if I was a dealer hanging outside ED station selling drugs to commuters I would be bothered and I think that might be the point of the exercise.

[KidKruger]

Or 'just carrying an 1/8th' (from work for chrissakes !!!!!!!!!!!)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Get a grip people, they're hardly the Tonton Macoutes.

And if "a dozen drunken Millwall supporters" isn't a cheap shot, I don't know what is.

[*Bob*]

I don't pine for a bobby on the beat.. although in my (unscientific) research I'd have to say that I have seen more of said bobbies in the last couple of years than I ever have - walking our quiet stretch of road.

I suspect what the police already know - that bobbies on the beat are an ineffective use of policing and serve more as a means on reassurance to people who feel safer seeing them more than anything. And nothing wrong with that.

Who knows why the police are in force at Peckham Rye? Has anyone asked them?

Maybe I've just been lucky, but in my experience the police have been fairly sensible with regards to harassing the taxpaying citizen - even when they're caught with something fingerwaggy. If they want to 'up the figures' for catching taxpayers with drugs, they only have to walk into the nearest nightclub at 5am and handcuff all 1000 people at the same time.

The exceptions seem to be 'showcase' type events where some bright spark decrees that something simply has to be done and as a result something seemingly out of character and proportion occurs from time to time - before normal service is resumed.

[Timster]

Surely the question is whether this is a good use of police time? And whether half a dozen police standing threateningly outside a railway station at rush hour actually makes anyone feel safer? I don't recall ever feeling like we needed a police presence there at rush hour - and I am assuming they all p*** off when it gets late and people get mugged and stuff.

If they are there to pick up commuters who carry small amounts of drugs on them (but really, how many commuters do that on the way back from the office?) or to help Southern crack down on fare-dodging, then in my view that is a complete waste of police time. And if it is the former, why don't they move to Peckham Rye where I feel confident they'd have a much higher hit rate.

If there has been a spate of drug-dealing going on outside the station, as another poster suggested, then I think this is something to crack down and their presence is justified. But again, I'm not at all convinced that there is a drug-dealing problem at ED station - I am sure it would have been picked up on by someone on the forum by now apart from anything else.

So, we have a bunch of threatening looking coppers creating an atmosphere of tension to no obvious purpose - I for one would want my councillor to look into it.

[cathg]

Just for the sake of balance can I mention that on the same night (last Thursday) at around 6.15pm the police were mob-handed at Peckham Rye station too. Maybe one of the reasons for doing heavy-presence random spot-checks is not to apprehend fare-dodgers on the night but to stop people thinking they can risk bunking through unattended stations without buying a ticket in future. Though why they needed intimidating dogs too is questionable. One of them sniffed me quite aggressively (a dog not an officer) but that may have been because of the cheese in my bag.

[KidKruger]

Timster - I don't think I am any more 'self assured' than the next guy so I fail to see why you refer to the police being "threatening looking " or "standing threateningly outside ".

What was the threat you percieved ?

I can understand the arguments touted around 'waste of police time' or 'too many police deployed' or 'why have police supporting ticket inspectors / revenue collection', but I have seen these police/dogs as many times as anybody who travels regularly from LB and have not experienced this threat.

I sincerely believe this sensation of being 'threatened' is the beholders perception, or I am clearly missing something very obvious to the rest of you.

[Timster]

KidKruger, I'm not saying I feel personally threatened as such by these policeman, and perhaps it is a poor choice of words, but my point is that it generates a level of tension (they are certainly not very approachable) that doesn't seem justified by what I perceive to be the level of crime at ED station. My immediate thought when I see a lot of policemen together like this is that something has happened or is going to happen which puts me on my guard.

If I knew what they were doing there I might feel happier about it (for example, I was quite happy with the knife searches the Met were doing at Peckham Rye about a year ago - that did make me feel safer).

[Domitianus]

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> The right to go about your lawful business without

> unwarranted inteference by the state.

The right not to have my scrotum snuffled by a dog unless I have paid for it.....I mean, given my consent to it.

Joking apart, it is easy to say that there is no real infringement of liberties here but every slight escalation of intervention by the police, every gradual, subtle pushing back the boundaries of what they are able to do with nothing but a sigh of resigned forebearance from us all is a gradual erosion. It is an erosion of the will to stand against an overt, formal extension of police power. If legislation were to be introduced to give the police formal powers to have people stand against a wall without reasonable suspicion and be sniffed by a dog, people might be much more likely to say something like "Well, effectively that's what they have been doing for years - all they are doing now is making it official."

A great many people (even I believe the Information Commissioner?) have stated that the Labour government of the last number of years has presided over an alarming erosion of civil liberties - perhaps greater than that seen ever before in peacetime. Things like this happen bit-by-bit, little-by-little, drip-drip-drip, through a process of social desensitisation that is then capitalised upon. It is also of course helped by pushing through legislation amidst public panics over terrorism etc. Look at Dunblane - used by Blair and his witchy wife to drive through gun control laws. Has it had any noticeable effect upon gun crime? Not that I am aware of. Has it seriously inconvenienced legitimate, law-abiding, sporting gun users? Yes. For example, the British Olympic shooting team now has to travel abroad to train!

[KidKruger]

I have tried to establish the reason for the police/dog activity as several people in the thread wanted to know WHY.

First I called the Met Police, they gave me the no. for British Transport Police, the chap at BTP said the following:

"It's happening at several stations in the area, we are trying to maintain a presence and make people a bit more aware that we are around, hopefully people will feel safe in the knowledge that we are around and hopefully we can deter petty crime".

The chap did say there was no specific intelligence on ED station or suspected activity there itself.

If you have a problem with this (as some people here seem to) and want to know more or argue the case (as some people here seem to) call BTP on 0800 405040 and let us all know how you get on.

So it seems they are attending certain stations in South London for a while then will probably move on elsewhere.

[MissM]

Interesting article regarding penalty fares...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23731140-fare-dodgers.do

Well worth reading and remembering!

[Domitianus]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> I have tried to establish the reason for the

> police/dog activity as several people in the

> thread wanted to know WHY.

>

> First I called the Met Police, they gave me the

> no. for British Transport Police, the chap at BTP

> said the following:

> "It's happening at several stations in the area,

> we are trying to maintain a presence and make

> people a bit more aware that we are around,

> hopefully people will feel safe in the knowledge

> that we are around and hopefully we can deter

> petty crime".

>

> The chap did say there was no specific

> intelligence on ED station or suspected activity

> there itself.

>

> If you have a problem with this (as some people

> here seem to) and want to know more or argue the

> case (as some people here seem to) call BTP on

> 0800 405040 and let us all know how you get on.

>

> So it seems they are attending certain stations in

> South London for a while then will probably move

> on elsewhere.

Whatever the motives it has to be said that they could cover three stations at same time with the amount of officers I have seen deployed at ED.

[thebestnameshavegone]

Local elections are on May 1st.

I'd be surprised if this wasn't connected in some way. See also 'bobbies on the beat', so beloved of councils wanting to be seen to be 'doing something', even though the benefit is negligible / tends towards zero.