Quote:
Unless the OP was actually an Evil Tewwowwist I'd say that the person he talked to was fully engaged with casting away, rod and reel in hand.Originally Posted by B747-437B
Embarkation checks are routinely conducted on specifically targeted flights for various specific reasons related to criminal activity and have been so since time immemorial (long before SPOT was dreamed up). They are not on a fishing expedition by any means.
Had I been approached like that, the first thing out of my mouth would have been a question of whether or not I had to speak the individual and answer any questions. This whole experience sounds like needless government harassment to me.
Whoever those police officers are, I'd rather have those guys around and asking me questions any time than to be subject to a compulsory body scan. I consider being asked questions quite harmless (especially if they are polite), compared to unknown effects of being subject to ionising radiation 
Quote:
"Well sir, our informant Bob who spies on this drug cartel for us, said that there was a guy heading out on this flight carrying ten kilos of cocaine shoved up his rectum. You wouldn't happen to know anything about things shoved up your rectum would you?"
Not what I meant, but you knew that. Originally Posted by B747-437B
"Well sir, our informant Bob who spies on this drug cartel for us, said that there was a guy heading out on this flight carrying ten kilos of cocaine shoved up his rectum. You wouldn't happen to know anything about things shoved up your rectum would you?"
yourself.
Wirelessly posted (Motorola DynaTAC: BlackBerry9630/5.0.0.624 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/104)
Quote:
Perhaps you should google "behavior pattern recognition " as well as "screening passengers by observation techniques" and look a little more at how Ben Gurion Airport .... possibly the potentially most dangerous target airport in the world and how they have reduced risks impressively before concluding on the issue.
TLV style security is not scalable.Originally Posted by uk1
Quote:
I was impressed with your signature line ....""Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." Mark Twain " and you will therefore sympathise I'm sure and be ope minded when I say that we also live in a world where people choose to ignore .....Originally Posted by IslandBased
We live in a world in which many people believe in things that have no scientific basis. SPOT fits right in.
Perhaps you should google "behavior pattern recognition " as well as "screening passengers by observation techniques" and look a little more at how Ben Gurion Airport .... possibly the potentially most dangerous target airport in the world and how they have reduced risks impressively before concluding on the issue.
Quote:
Nor should it be considered legal in the United States. From what I can tell, they can essentially compel you to speak with them, correct? A little thing called the Fifth Amendment should stand in the way of that.Originally Posted by N965VJ
TLV style security is not scalable.
I'd rather let a few terrorists onto aircraft to get away than destroy the Civil Rights that we all get to enjoy.
Suspended
Quote:
NOT on a fishing expedition? So what are you suggesting, that I closely fit the known appearance of a specific individual wanted for a specific crime, and I was allowed to go on my way simply because I told the guy I wasn't co-operating?Originally Posted by B747-437B
Special Branch at Gatwick (who I am very well acquainted with) are not engaged in anything remotely similar to the SPOT program. Embarkation checks are routinely conducted on specifically targeted flights for various specific reasons related to criminal activity and have been so since time immemorial (long before SPOT was dreamed up). They are not on a fishing expedition by any means.
Or is it just a little more credible to believe that I was the victim of a targetting based at best on more or less random urges by the special officer, or at worst on racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory criteria based on widely held but discredited stereotypes? And that when I pointed out to him that in a free society, there in no fishing allowed, he had no choice but to let me go on my way?
I don't think your hypotheses stand up to much scrutiny.
Or you could have been behaving in a manner which attracted his attention. Having several friends who are police, they are quick to notice behaviour which makes them wonder - but usually they're off duty, so don't pursue.
Or he could have been using his interaction with you to watch someone else - you were a means to an end.
But heaven forfend there was a reason other than bigotry for chosing to speak to you
Or he could have been using his interaction with you to watch someone else - you were a means to an end.
But heaven forfend there was a reason other than bigotry for chosing to speak to you
Quote:
Then wouldn't it be a reasonable action to gather evidence before confronting the person? Having something more than just a gut feeling would be handy to have before harassing people.Originally Posted by Jenbel
Or you could have been behaving in a manner which attracted his attention. Having several friends who are police, they are quick to notice behaviour which makes them wonder - but usually they're off duty, so don't pursue.
Quote:
That still doesn't justify unwarranted, clearly unwanted harassment.Originally Posted by Jenbel
Or he could have been using his interaction with you to watch someone else - you were a means to an end.
Quote:
If the contact is unwarranted and unwanted, that's all that matters. Bigotry or not, it should be clear to the officer that the OP wanted to be left alone. Absent anything credible to act upon, the officer should have apologized politely and been on his way quickly.Originally Posted by Jenbel
But heaven forfend there was a reason other than bigotry for chosing to speak to you
Police are public servants; they would be well to remember the last part of that description.
Quote:
Such as... ?Originally Posted by Jenbel
But heaven forfend there was a reason other than bigotry for chosing to speak to you
Passenger walks into lounge having just passed the exit check.
Police ask to see passport.
Police ask personal questions.
Police flip through passport pages.
Police explain "interested in people who are travelling".
Go on, give us one (just one will do) cogent reason for this.
Quote:
Amazing how ideas travel from one bureaucracy to another, no matter how stupid and pointless they are.
Hope you inspected the badge closely and not just accept a "badge flashing".Originally Posted by polonius
Just had a troubling experience at LGW -- looks like they are introducing "SPOT" type programmes. After having my passport and BP checked as usual by the gate agent, I walked through into the waiting area and was approached by a man in a (very nice) suit and asked for my passport. I asked him who he was and under what a authority he was asking for it and said he was a "special branch" police officer and displayed his ID. He took my passport and then started asking me questions about my travels, what I do for a living, etc. I asked what he wanted the information for and he replied he was "interested in people who are travelling". I told him his "interest" was not reason enough for me to provide private information. He flipped through my passport and then said, "it looks like you travel quite a bit". I acknowledged that that was a conclusion one could reasonably reach from examining my passport. He then thanked me and I went on.Amazing how ideas travel from one bureaucracy to another, no matter how stupid and pointless they are.
There are some sickos who get their jollies out of impersonating police.
The fact he didnt identify himself straight away tells me that most people just comply with a request to hand over their passport when some person asks for it.
Quote:
Or he could have been using his interaction with you to watch someone else - you were a means to an end.
But heaven forfend there was a reason other than bigotry for chosing to speak to you
I'm disappointed in you.Originally Posted by Jenbel
Or you could have been behaving in a manner which attracted his attention. Having several friends who are police, they are quick to notice behaviour which makes them wonder - but usually they're off duty, so don't pursue. Or he could have been using his interaction with you to watch someone else - you were a means to an end.
But heaven forfend there was a reason other than bigotry for chosing to speak to you
Quote:
+1Originally Posted by clrankin
Then wouldn't it be a reasonable action to gather evidence before confronting the person? Having something more than just a gut feeling would be handy to have before harassing people.
Quote:
+1Originally Posted by clrankin
That still doesn't justify unwarranted, clearly unwanted harassment.
Quote:
Police are public servants; they would be well to remember the last part of that description.
Again +1Originally Posted by clrankin
If the contact is unwarranted and unwanted, that's all that matters. Bigotry or not, it should be clear to the officer that the OP wanted to be left alone. Absent anything credible to act upon, the officer should have apologized politely and been on his way quickly.Police are public servants; they would be well to remember the last part of that description.
Suspended
Quote:
There are some sickos who get their jollies out of impersonating police.
The fact he didnt identify himself straight away tells me that most people just comply with a request to hand over their passport when some person asks for it.
I did indeed look at it very carefully. I have no knowledge of what an official "special branch" ID looks like, but it appeared to be legit.Originally Posted by oldjonesy
Hope you inspected the badge closely and not just accept a "badge flashing".There are some sickos who get their jollies out of impersonating police.
The fact he didnt identify himself straight away tells me that most people just comply with a request to hand over their passport when some person asks for it.