Section 60 - Your Rights

[Royal Lady]

Can I just ask also, why it is that at every home game at the Mad Stad and at at every away game I have been to, female and male stewards have looked in my handbag, but I have never seen them body search a male supporter? Do I have the right to refuse them looking into my handbag if they are not looking in male supporters' pockets or anything?

My visit to the Emirates was my first without being searched for bottle tops strapped to the inside of my calf. Never have I been asked to empty my pockets.

I just think it's very unfair. Obviously, I have nothing to hide but I do wonder how many women who go to football have been found to be concealing weaponry in their handbags. If I was going to be "tooled up" I'd hide the items about my person, as I am never searched, they just always have a nose in my handbag.

I think that's discriminatory also. Either they look in every man's pockets as they enter and/or body search them as well as peering into my handbag, or they stop peering into my handbag.

[cheeryoleary]

I think that's discriminatory also. Either they look in every man's pockets as they enter and/or body search them as well as peering into my handbag, or they stop peering into my handbag.

Plant a vibro in your bag next time. Make sure that it's covered in hairs and biscuit crumbs.

[bobby1413]

Turns8 - It's not discrimination. Half of the reasons they had S60 authorisation and officers there to search were for a visible presence, not just to try to find a knife. As well as this, it also leads to intelligence, as everyone they searched would have given their details for the form they fill in, e.g. name, address, date of birth, height, hair colour, plus they would have also recorded a description of what that supporter was wearing, and possibly who they were with.


Saying that, I do agree that a bit of better organisation around the intelligence and people searched could have been exercised. E.g. searching a timid primary school teacher instead of a beered up compo was a bit mis-guided.

They didn't gain any information as they didn't ask for any details...pointless exercise if you ask me...other than to annoy people...

Hmmmm....

They didn't ask for any details? They should have:

- Given the grounds for the search
- Objectives (e.g. to find ...)
- Given their name or number
- Said what station they are based at
- Should have explained that you are entitled to a copy of the search form
- And should have explained that whilst being searched you are detained

[bobby1413]

Can I just ask also, why it is that at every home game at the Mad Stad and at at every away game I have been to, female and male stewards have looked in my handbag, but I have never seen them body search a male supporter? Do I have the right to refuse them looking into my handbag if they are not looking in male supporters' pockets or anything?

You are well within your rights to say that you don't want to open your bag, they have absolutely no powers to force you to show them.

HOWEVER, I'm sure you know this anyway as it's pretty obvious, but they will of course deny you entry. Plus they may get one of the Cops over to search you and your bag. So it is probably more hassle than it's worth.

It is hard, as it is intrusive especially when you feel there are no grounds, and feel picked on. Maybe you could ask next time why it is necessary, and see what they say.

[bobby1413]

But the Home Office guidelines, updated after the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, explicitly state that stop and search must be intelligence based, and cannot be "based upon stereotyping."

Yes, but there is a very fine line between stereotyping, and simply using intelligence to target specific groups - especially during an operation.

For example:

- there is a big football match on
- most people around are football fans
- best day to do it as there are loads of people around, and in the past footie fans have turned up loads of knives, drugs, etc...

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with targetting one group of people as long as they can justify it. E.g. if they do decide to search all black people as you said in your example, it's fine as long as they have reasoning for it. E.g. they received intel that some black guy was carrying illegal drugs or something.


I don't know what happened at Reading station, so I have no idea whether it was well/fairly executed or not. Plus, whether they are the police or not, they can still very easily get things wrong.

[STAR Voice]

But the Home Office guidelines, updated after the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, explicitly state that stop and search must be intelligence based, and cannot be "based upon stereotyping."

Yes, but there is a very fine line between stereotyping, and simply using intelligence to target specific groups - especially during an operation.

For example:

- there is a big football match on
- most people around are football fans
- best day to do it as there are loads of people around, and in the past footie fans have turned up loads of knives, drugs, etc...

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with targeting one group of people as long as they can justify it. E.g. if they do decide to search all black people as you said in your example, it's fine as long as they have reasoning for it. E.g. they received intel that some black guy was carrying illegal drugs or something.


I don't know what happened at Reading station, so I have no idea whether it was well/fairly executed or not. Plus, whether they are the police or not, they can still very easily get things wrong.

No-one would have a problem with targeting a single group of people - but I fail to see how any intelligence can suggest that ALL identifiable football supporters can be a legitimate target for S&S. In fact, it was different to that - it was actually ALL people who were wearing football shirts or scarves who were stopped - regardless of the team involved and regardless of whether they were actually travelling to a football match. I could support S&S of people attending a particular match AT THAT MATCH - but even in my wildest imagination I can't think of any legitimate justification for S&S of ALL supporters who want to get onto a train anywhere in the country, which is what this was.

And it wasn't well organised - it was a shambles, all of the legal niceties like giving due reason for the stop & search and giving those searched a record of it were ignored. But largely that's irrelevant, even if it does make it worse.

The fact that this was a clear policy to target all football supporters is - to me - clearly, clearly wrong. And yes, the Police can make mistakes, but as one of the population who pays then I have a duty to point out to them where they have made mistakes and where they're stepping over the line and exceeding their legal authority.

[The Cube]

No-one would have a problem with targeting a single group of people - but I fail to see how any intelligence can suggest that ALL identifiable football supporters can be a legitimate target for S&S. In fact, it was different to that - it was actually ALL people who were wearing football shirts or scarves who were stopped - regardless of the team involved and regardless of whether they were actually travelling to a football match.

You could have been a chef on your way home after a shift with a full set of kitchen knives, and you would have been in big trouble. Assuming the detector picked them up.

[STAR Voice]

No-one would have a problem with targeting a single group of people - but I fail to see how any intelligence can suggest that ALL identifiable football supporters can be a legitimate target for S&S. In fact, it was different to that - it was actually ALL people who were wearing football shirts or scarves who were stopped - regardless of the team involved and regardless of whether they were actually travelling to a football match.

You could have been a chef on your way home after a shift with a full set of kitchen knives, and you would have been in big trouble. Assuming the detector picked them up.

But in that case you would have been quite safe - if you're not wearing a football shirt you won't risk being searched.

[The Cube]

No-one would have a problem with targeting a single group of people - but I fail to see how any intelligence can suggest that ALL identifiable football supporters can be a legitimate target for S&S. In fact, it was different to that - it was actually ALL people who were wearing football shirts or scarves who were stopped - regardless of the team involved and regardless of whether they were actually travelling to a football match.

You could have been a chef on your way home after a shift with a full set of kitchen knives, and you would have been in big trouble. Assuming the detector picked them up.

But in that case you would have been quite safe - if you're not wearing a football shirt you won't risk being searched.

Plenty of Manchester United shirts to be found in restaurant kitchens. Obviously some justification for being jalied in that case, of course.

[Baines]

No-one would have a problem with targeting a single group of people - but I fail to see how any intelligence can suggest that ALL identifiable football supporters can be a legitimate target for S&S. In fact, it was different to that - it was actually ALL people who were wearing football shirts or scarves who were stopped - regardless of the team involved and regardless of whether they were actually travelling to a football match.

You could have been a chef on your way home after a shift with a full set of kitchen knives, and you would have been in big trouble. Assuming the detector picked them up.

Halfway down the right-hand column, the link entitled "Enter a ground with Chef's knives".

http://www.internettreehouse.co.uk/footie4.htm

[Y21_Royal]

Hmmmm....

They didn't ask for any details? They should have:

- Given the grounds for the search It won't be funny if you're stabbed
- Objectives (e.g. to find ...) We might be carrying an offensive weapon
- Given their name or number Nope
- Said what station they are based at Nope
- Should have explained that you are entitled to a copy of the search form What search form?
- And should have explained that whilst being searched you are detained Nope

This wasn't a stop and search, it was a pre-planned thing with a stand alone metal detector.

[Row Z Royal]

Hmmmm....

They didn't ask for any details? They should have:

- Given the grounds for the search It won't be funny if you're stabbed
- Objectives (e.g. to find ...) We might be carrying an offensive weapon
- Given their name or number Nope
- Said what station they are based at Nope
- Should have explained that you are entitled to a copy of the search form What search form?
- And should have explained that whilst being searched you are detained Nope

This wasn't a stop and search, it was a pre-planned thing with a stand alone metal detector.

'greed.

[bobby1413]

No-one would have a problem with targeting a single group of people - but I fail to see how any intelligence can suggest that ALL identifiable football supporters can be a legitimate target for S&S. In fact, it was different to that - it was actually ALL people who were wearing football shirts or scarves who were stopped - regardless of the team involved and regardless of whether they were actually travelling to a football match.

You could have been a chef on your way home after a shift with a full set of kitchen knives, and you would have been in big trouble. Assuming the detector picked them up.

It's clear from what you've said that you and other supporters feel it was unfair.

I'm not argueing because clearly I have no idea what went on as I wasn't there. It's quite disappointing to hear that something that is supposed to be there to reduce fear and crime has actually pee'd a lot of people off, and probably made things potentially worse than they would have been anyway.

I heard something on BBC RB this afternoon about it - missed most of it but just caught the tail end of it.

Good luck with getting some answers.

[RG30]

Perhaps people are losing sight of what's important about what happened. Innoncent fans were stopped and inconvinenced for a period of time because of a match between Millwall Vs Leeds that was due to kick off 3 hours later, and a match that wasn't going to affect fans like Reading. The BTP were wrong stopping supporters at Reading Station. Were Derby fans given the same treatment on the way to London? Were West Ham fans coming in from strongholds like Essex stopped? Probably not.

Fortunately when we were queing the prospect of hearing floyde_streete complain any longer and the opportunity of having to search the likes of Compo put them off

[g]

Can I just ask also, why it is that at every home game at the Mad Stad and at at every away game I have been to, female and male stewards have looked in my handbag, but I have never seen them body search a male supporter? Do I have the right to refuse them looking into my handbag if they are not looking in male supporters' pockets or anything?

My visit to the Emirates was my first without being searched for bottle tops strapped to the inside of my calf. Never have I been asked to empty my pockets.

I just think it's very unfair. Obviously, I have nothing to hide but I do wonder how many women who go to football have been found to be concealing weaponry in their handbags. If I was going to be "tooled up" I'd hide the items about my person, as I am never searched, they just always have a nose in my handbag.

I think that's discriminatory also. Either they look in every man's pockets as they enter and/or body search them as well as peering into my handbag, or they stop peering into my handbag.

LOL

[bobby1413]

Perhaps people are losing sight of what's important about what happened. Innoncent fans were stopped and inconvinenced for a period of time because of a match between Millwall Vs Leeds that was due to kick off 3 hours later, and a match that wasn't going to affect fans like Reading. The BTP were wrong stopping supporters at Reading Station. Were Derby fans given the same treatment on the way to London? Were West Ham fans coming in from strongholds like Essex stopped? Probably not.

Fortunately when we were queing the prospect of hearing floyde_streete complain any longer and the opportunity of having to search the likes of Compo put them off

How do you know the stop+searches were in place due to that match?

[AF1]

Can I just ask also, why it is that at every home game at the Mad Stad and at at every away game I have been to, female and male stewards have looked in my handbag, but I have never seen them body search a male supporter? Do I have the right to refuse them looking into my handbag if they are not looking in male supporters' pockets or anything?

My visit to the Emirates was my first without being searched for bottle tops strapped to the inside of my calf. Never have I been asked to empty my pockets.

I just think it's very unfair. Obviously, I have nothing to hide but I do wonder how many women who go to football have been found to be concealing weaponry in their handbags. If I was going to be "tooled up" I'd hide the items about my person, as I am never searched, they just always have a nose in my handbag.

I think that's discriminatory also. Either they look in every man's pockets as they enter and/or body search them as well as peering into my handbag, or they stop peering into my handbag.

If the Snoop Dogg discography has taught us anything it's that you always slip your ho your .44 to get in a club.


HTH

[RG30]

Perhaps people are losing sight of what's important about what happened. Innoncent fans were stopped and inconvinenced for a period of time because of a match between Millwall Vs Leeds that was due to kick off 3 hours later, and a match that wasn't going to affect fans like Reading. The BTP were wrong stopping supporters at Reading Station. Were Derby fans given the same treatment on the way to London? Were West Ham fans coming in from strongholds like Essex stopped? Probably not.

Fortunately when we were queing the prospect of hearing floyde_streete complain any longer and the opportunity of having to search the likes of Compo put them off

How do you know the stop+searches were in place due to that match?

Because the BTP told us.

[Turns8]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berk ... 360590.stm

[Andy M]

I'm delighted to see that STAR have taken the initiative and made a complaint about the treatment of their fans at the weekend.

I for one am sick to death of being made to feel/treated like a criminal simply for supporting my team and I'm aware of countless others who feel the same.

Of course football matches have to be policed, but do they have to be policed by police in riot gear, police with dogs, police on horseback and police with a serious attitude problem who if not clearly itching to get stuck in, treat us collectively with obvious disdain and dislike? From personal experience and from feedback from countless SUSD members they cause more problems that they are there to prevent. I often wonder if we're policed based on little more than steorotyping rather than solid intelligence that 30,000 people are about to run riot. Indeed, it seems that policing methods haven't really moved on since the 80s when the policy was rigid control and containment.

To the best of my knowledge, knife crime is not a problem at football matches and yet these detectors are becoming more and more common, indeed they are being used in Liverpool today. If they were used in the same manner in areas where there is a problem with knife crime and young kids weren't stabbing each other to death in such numbers, perhaps us football fans would have more sympathy for their deployment on match days.

The only time I've had cause to compliment the police on their low key and friendly approach was on each of my three visits to the Millenium Stadium. On stopping to ask for directions, I thanked the officers for their part in ensuring a fantastic day out and suggested they speak to their counterparts in London and recommend they take the same approach. They laughed in my face and said that they'd never be listened to.

A shame really, because there is plenty of recent research that proves that supporters respond far better to low key and friendly policing than the "in yer face" approach.