I think you'll find the operation was entirely legal.

Stops and searches may have had grounds but depending on the situation they could have been given permission to use the Terrorism Act. This is entirely justified under the current climate of international terrorists targetting the transport network and coming in under the guise of claiming asylum or just entering illegally to avoid detection.

You would no doubt be the first to complain if one of these lunatics successfully carried out an attack on the tube when you were using it.

Also, there is a clear link between people dodging their tube fares or cheating the system with child tickets/fake passes/etc and criminality of a more serious nature. If you're going into town to mug people why would you bother buying a ticket. Also, terrorists don't want to be tracable through the system. A dog operation they had a few weeks ago resulted in several drug dealers being taken off the streets, the scum that blight the local community with their anti social presence and criminal behaviour selling hard drugs openly.

The immigration sweeps are excellent and have netted lots of illegals in the past who are here working illegally, depriving Brits and legal immigrants of employment, involved in organised crime and human trafficing. I hope they do more of these operations in future.

"one of these lunatics"
That's your opinion of refugees, asylum seekers etc. is it. Do you base your judgemnets on language or skin colour. That says a lot about you and your profession. I think you will find plenty of lunatics that are English. They tend to vote for arms dealing, oil trading, land grabbing, sweatshop supporting fuckers we call politicians and entrepeneurs.

Fuck off and die, scum.

"You would no doubt be the first to complain if one of these lunatics successfully carried out an attack on the tube when you were using it." - yeah, i'd complain that the west's continued state terrorism had driven these people to do this!

"Stops and searches may have had grounds but depending on the situation they could have been given permission to use the Terrorism Act." - even under the draconian powers of this act, i believe the police have to state the reason and legislative power when they search - they weren't doing this, making the search illegal. are you saying the police have the right to suspend due process?

"Also, there is a clear link between people dodging their tube fares or cheating the system with child tickets/fake passes/etc and criminality of a more serious nature." - when people are driven to crime by the suppression of the poor by the rich and powerful, then this link would tend to be inevitable. if public transport were free (as it should be) then the connection would disappear.

peace

Oh so they are "driven to it"? perhaps, but seeing as they are also motivated by a dislike of our values I don't think we'd be totally safe even if the govt didn't send the troops off to Iraq and other countries. There are people who are hellbent of trying to attack Britain whether we left Iraq tomorrow or not, and if you're in several pieces on a train platform or street you'd wish the security services had been able to stop them.

This isn't a game you know, they only need to get lucky once. It is deadly serious. Operations against terrorism are there to prevent carnage. It would be nice if everyone could see this.

As for free public transport, well you need to live a little and realise theres no such thing as a free lunch, it all has to be paid for.

Free Public Transport ? When will you fools learn.

I am sick of posts like this on Indymedia, it makes us all look like the nutters we are portrayed as by the mainstream press. Are you seriously suggesting the subsidy to the network should be so large as to negate the need for fares ? Have you costed this, do you know how !!!

Grow up

I know I am not the only person who finds this 'under the current climate' stuff overblown. The poor risk perception of the people is fuelled by political spin and the corporate media buying into an exciting story. Sadly, the 'perpetual war' is only really good at keeping life easy for politicians, helping their re-election and infinging on hard won civil liberties.

The problem is that it probably is legal. But that is because the police and state have given themselves power to do virtually anything. Zero Tolerance policing in New York began on the underground with huge over-dramatic swoops on fare dodgers (real or otherwise). Camden Council is currently using everything it can to 'clean up'/'take back' the area. It is time for a strong local organisation to begin to combat these things by pointing out that this is not just an attack on 'some wierdos' but on all of us.

Visitors to Camden Lock Market may think that Camden is the swinging borough in the centre of London but the ruling Labour group is carrying out a series of attacks against local people.

Anti-social behaviour
Large sections of Camden are now covered by blanket anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), under which any group of more than two people can be asked by police to disperse, and no-one under the age of 16 can be on the streets after 9pm. The first high-profile days of the Camden Town ASBO were marked by a massive police presence, including a mobile CCTV camera van, helicopters and marine support units on the canal. Sixty-four individuals, mainly drug users, were served with exclusion orders. Meanwhile, in the back streets, young teenagers on bikes, who had previously behaved in an entirely sociable fashion, taunted the police and rode off laughing. In Somers Town, the other ASBO area, policing has so far been low-key but it is abundantly clear that the spectre of ‘gang violence’ will be used to prohibit young Asian men from gathering in the streets during the summer school and college holidays.

This is naked totalitarianism, modelled on New York-style policing. It is intended as a visible show of force and a warning to all in the vicinity. The heavy-handedness is not accidental and all the behaviour they new powers claim to address could be dealt with under existing laws. The parliamentary committee that scrutinised this act in 2003, was at a loss to understand why it was necessary to introduce such a draconian law. It asked the government to ‘explain why existing powers (... such as those under the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) cannot adequately address the mischief’.

The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (ASBA) is an attack on civil liberties at so many levels it is almost impossible to list them. It is a generalised attack on freedom of movement in its content, racist and anti-working class in its application. It stigmatises and criminalises entire sections of society by labelling them as a problem, as anti-social. It punishes parents living in cramped flats without gardens by making them keep their children inside for no reason. It does nothing to solve any genuine problems of crime.

And whilst it is central government that passed the ASBA, Camden Council is entirely responsible for its local implementation. The powers conferred on the police cannot operate without the agreement of the local authority.

Blair announces, Camden pounces
Under the Education Act of 1996 ‘parents have a duty to ensure that their children attend school regularly and on time. Failure to do so may result in court action, a fine of £2,500 and/or a three-month custodial sentence.’ Eight years on, with the Education Act reinforced by additional provisions in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, Tony Blair has announced zero tolerance and a target of 100% punctuality and attendance for all school students. Some Camden schools have seized on this personal encouragement from the Prime Minister to batter parents.

School newsletters carry warnings that from September 2004 Penalty Notices will be issued to parents/carers for poor attendance, frequent lateness and holidays in term time without school permission. The penalty will be £50 if paid within the first 28 days rising to £100. If not paid within 42 days this could result in a fine of up to £1,000 and a criminal record. What way is this to help families, usually burdened by multiple problems, whose children are finding school difficult! Clearly it is more important to some Camden heads to show their support for Blair than to support their pupils. And when such threats are communicated only in English and not in the mother tongues of the majority of pupils we recognise it for the bullying that it is.

Banned food found in Camden schools
Not only are Camden pupils being banned from the streets and their parents fined if they truant. They are also being fed over-priced and possibly dangerous school meals.

School dinner supplier Scolarest won a five-year deal last year to provide services to Camden Schools. Scolarest recently lost contracts to supply schools in Wandsworth and Richmond after it was exposed as serving mutton described as lamb and was forced to change the name of dishes at all 2,500 schools it serves nationwide. The school meals service costs a scandalous and badly spent 44p per meal. Serious health risks emerged after mothers launched a raid on their school’s kitchen in May and discovered banned Thai chicken in freezers. The European Union banned imports of Thai chicken in January following an outbreak of Asian bird flu and Camden told Scolarest to stop serving remaining stocks in February. The mothers have been reprimanded by council officers but say they will take over the kitchen if the quality of food does not improve immediately. Meanwhile the council will review the Scolarest contract at the end of the year.

Not to mention the attacks on our housing by the plan for an Arms Length Management Organisation.....

There is nowt wrong or illegal about transport police or tube staff doing ticket checks. One of the conditions of carriage on the tube is that you will show your ticket when requested. This seems to be entirely reasonable and is the same the world over. If the cops are just checking tickets they are really doing no more than the automatic gates are doing anyway although a human will be better at checking photocards than a machine. As someone who pays my fare I don't see why others should get away without paying theirs. I am happy to support efforts by the authorities to minimise ticketless travel. I am also prepared to admit that there is probably a connection between ticketless travel and crime on the tube system. But the connection will be between ticketless travel and "ordinary" crime like robbery, vandalism and disorderly and intimidating behavour. There is no connection between fare dodging and terrorism. Terrorists want to blend in they will therefore not risk travelling without a valid ticket. All the 11 September hijackers had valid airline tickets afterall. Therefore using the prevention of terrorism to justify ticket checks is barmy.

Searching people is an entirely separate issue. It ammounts to an invasion of privacy and should only be done on reasonable suspecion. The use of terrorism legistlation to justify this is very dubious. The prevention of terrorism could concevable be used to check people entering the tube system, but why check people on the way out. As for "routine" checks of citizens at random or checks of those who look foreign or a bid dodgy, that is completely wrong and worryingly facist. I am sure that Mr Policeman who posted above will agree that public repect for the police is declining particularly amount ethnic minorities and "alternatives", surely actions like the one at Camden tube station only accelerate this decline. They are storing up resentment which may well lead to crime itself (graffiti, riot)

What worries my the most is the post from the "lawenforcer" because it justifies the belief that the police view terrorism legislation as giving them a blanket licence to hassle people without needing a real reason. It is therefore important that the limits of this legislation be challenged as soon as possible in the courts.

About public transport: it could easily become free. Here's how. You know all the time we spend doing nothing on public transport? Why not fill that time by having the staff facilitate workshops on - duh - how to drive a train or bus? If most people who use public transport knew how to operate it, it would be easy to run for free. Someone drives the train to whereveer they need to go, get off there, and someone else takes over. There would always be someone to drive the vehicle assuming more people using public transport. No labour costs, hence no fares. Simple. The distinction between staff and passengeers becomes eroded.

I regularly travel without a ticket, or with an alternative 'political' ticket from rising tide. I don't feel entirely comfortable about that sometimes, but you can't say that's travelling for free since there is public money going into the system. If the system was improved, if it was in public hands and if it was reasonably priced I wouldn't object to paying, but free public transport is possible. Even if you can't see the possibility of free public transport owing to lack of imagination and vision, you must concede that under privatisation fares are ridiclously high owing to the profit motive. The rare occasions when I am required to pay puts as much money into the current system as I am prepared to pay, alongside my taxes which go into it too.

Just because I travel ticketless doesn't mean I'm not responsible, that I wouldn't try to save lives in the event of a crash, that I don't talk to people on public transport or appreciate the system being there at all. I object to being criminalised for that.

The system, if it is to improve, actually needs more 'fare dodgers', but we have to be concious 'fare dodgers'. Fare dodgers unite! If you are caught, explain to the worker that you're doing it for reasonable and concious motives, explain that this is where the worker makes a choice - does she serve her bosses, or the public? The only way we can improve our public transport system is if passengers and staff act together in solidarity.

Conscious and responsible fare dodging is a way forward for the system.

"Also, there is a clear link between people dodging their tube fares or cheating the system with child tickets/fake passes/etc and criminality of a more serious nature"

I've heard 90% of child murderers and paedophiles drink tea regularly. The link is obvious, why is the state not doing anything!?

Actually, its not that funny, because the people planning future policing seriously do believe this shit about any misdemeanour making you a potential serial killer. See this extract from article posted higher up the newswire.


'According to Parenty, the chief protagonist in spreading the use of ZT/QOL policing has been ex-New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton. His doctrine is one of ‘vigorous enforcement of even the most trifling municipal codes in the theory that preventing “disorder” will prevent violence.’ Under Mayor Rudi Giuliani, Bratton developed the doctrine first propounded by right-wing criminologists James Q Wilson and George Kelling into a method of beat policing. ‘Police were advised to…control “panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed.” According to the theory, enforcing laws against public urination, graffiti, and inebriation will create an aura of regulation that helps prevent brutal crimes like rape and murder’ (p70).
'

"Stops and searches may have had grounds but depending on the situation they could have been given permission to use the Terrorism Act. This is entirely justified under the current climate of international terrorists targetting the transport network and coming in under the guise of claiming asylum or just entering illegally to avoid detection."

just for the record stop and searches under the terrorism act are allowed to search for weapons only, this means no checking in shoes or socks, no opening wallets and taking out ID, no intimate body searches - you are also under no obligation whatsoever to give your name and address and you are entitled to a written record of the search and the reaons why it took place

JV - some scum are known to superglue single edged razor blades to the side of credit cards to make slashing weapons or buy items specifically modified to look like harmless daily items but with a hidden weapon. Also in respect of terrorism stops, a person could easily be carrying a vial or a nerve agent or chemical agent in their sock.
At the end of the day, who cares if a few people bitch about being stop searched. If it means the public feel more confident and we catch those going about criminal and terrorist activities, I don't care if a few token minorities feel offended they got stop searched.
As long as the officers stopping them behave professionally and only detain the person for the absolute minimum time required to do a reasonable check on them, then its totally fine IMHO.
It seems to me that certain elements use any operational activity the police use as an excuse to exuse every police office of being racist and criminally motivated. Which is insane. They are doing a hard job under difficult circumstances to keep the streets safe.

if a few hundred people line the street outside Camden copshop

ask directions to the international court of human rights

check the police off on a pre-prepared list

and request a check of the station
for breaches in law/safety code

take photographs and video of the whole thing
make it relentless - day to day - for months on end

Is this really a good use of police resources?

Fare dodging hardly needs this level of policing does it? All it would take is a couple of coppers giving assistance to the station staff.

So they may get a few students carrying a teenth of weed (who'll probably grow up to be bankers and sales reps), hardly mega crime! Yeah they may catch a few junkies, but what they really need is help to kick their habit which the police and prison system barely caters for.

As for catching terrorists? Don't make me laugh, do you really think we're gullible enough to believe that? A serious terrorist would buy a ticket and carry ID, and if they had some biological weapons on them, then i think as soon as they got pulled over they'd release them!

So you want to catch some illegal immigrants? Is randomly pulling over coloured people really gonna make much of an impact? Besides Britain hasn't got an immigratoin "problem", the bosses actually thrive on immigrant labour getting paid shit wages. Many farms and factories save a fortune using illegal immigrants, its these that should be targetted.

Next time my car gets knicked i'll phone the police and tell 'em there are some fare dodgers hanging about the bus stop. Then I might get a better response!!

As for this being illegal? Well i think it is the police can stop and search anyone in London under the Terrorism Act and they don't need a reason (but that didn't stop them before).

George Orwell was wrong, his book should have been "2004", not "1984".

What are my rights if I am stopped and searched? What legal basis is there for it etc? Can anyone suggest a link?

word is that several refugee / asylum groups are worried over possible similar action by the authorities to coincide with the european social forum in october...

This is the major premise of your argument:
"If it means the public feel more confident and we catch those going about criminal and terrorist activities"

Now, this is clearly not supported by ANY evidence. In fact, most evidence available suggests that it is actually the other way around: that visible public searches of this kind actually make people less confident and more frightened. And since fear is intrinsically an irrational emotion, there is a real danger that a vicious cycle develops: that the existence of a major threat is proclaimed/the authorities act publicly to 'counteract' the threat, then the public becomes afraid, causing the authorities to act more/more visibly, causing more fear, and so on.
And further to this, the whole thing tends to exclude minorities from dominant public discourses (on subjects like terrorism), thus making the by-now-exagerrated threat greater in reality by worsening the alienation and marginalisation that caused people to want to rebel in this way in the first place.

So while I agree with your sentiment, I think your arguments are dangerously shaky.

I DONT KNOE ALOT ABOUT TERRORISM ACTS AND SO FORTH BUT I WAS READING THESE COMMENTS AND ID JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT NO-ONE HAS YET MENTIONED THAT POLICE EXERCISING A 'RUTINE STOP AND SEARCH' IN THE UK MUST PROVIDE A SHORT WRITTEN REPORT OF THE SEARCH INCLUDING WHY THE PERSON WAS STOPPED, DETAIL OF THE TYPE OF SEARCH TAKEN OUT, AND WHAT WAS FOUND (IF ANYTHING). THIS WOULD THEN BE PLACED ON RECORD AND THE PERSON BEING SEARCHED SHOULD RECIEVE A COPY OF THIS. IF THEY DO NOT THEN THEY CAN CONTACT THE POLICE AND ORDER A COPY OF THE STOP AND SEARCH FORM. THIS WAY THE POLICE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A JUSTIFIED REASON FOR STOPPING YOU AND IF THEY DO NOT, THEN THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND YOU HAVE PROOF IN FORM OF A SEARCH REPORT. WHY SHOULD THEY INVADE OUR PRIVACY FOR NO REASON AT ALL? WE SHOULDNT BE SO RELAXED ON LETTING THEM HAVE THIER WAY...JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE THE POLICE! THEY DONT HAVE THAT RIGHT!