Jump to content

Recommended Posts

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Under the scrot/betwixt the cheeks are popular

> spots for secreting naughties.

>

> They probably train the dogs to get their noses in

> there.


Ah, the professional musician's insight. Apparently dog drool on a Levi's crotch can be be claimed as a working expense if you have a legit dry cleaner's receipt.

I think I need to have a chat with the chief inspector, I am concerned about the dogs!!


Joking aside, you will see more and more of these operations in my area. In addition southern will soon be introducing Rail Enforcement Officers, they will on trains and on stations. For example they will have powers to enforce ?80 on the spot fines for smoking on station premises, anti social behaviour, graffiti to mention a few


I will update on station manager corner once they go live on the routes


Barry Jones

Station manager

Revenue protection officers, to protect revenue, penalty fares, etc


Rail enforcement officers, to enforce railway by laws, will be a presence on trains and stations ensuring safety, they also have powers to issue fines, help with anti social behaviour,


This is very brief, but hopefully you can see the difference in roles. As I said, once they are up and running I will post on station manager corner


Barry

Can we please avoid a repeat of the ticket check before christmas in the pouring rain?


Everybody was backed up on the ramp for five minutes getting soaked whilst the inspectors and the 6-8 police were nicely dry in the covered ticket area oblivious to the problems they were causing to the 99% of people who are paying customers!!!

Posted by: SMBJones Yesterday, 08:46PM


" In addition southern will soon be introducing Rail Enforcement Officers, they will on trains and on stations. For example they will have powers to enforce ?80 on the spot fines for smoking on station premises....."


Well just get them to watch behind the shelter on platform 1 where people are smoking every single morning, un-enforced rule, right next to the 'no smoking' sign.

Ticket checks fair enough, but using sniffer dogs to sniff people as they come out of the station? Absolutely disgusting. Wasnt ther'e something in the news this week about it being ilegal to stop and search people randomly without reason? Surely the same thing applies to sniffing someone with a dog. It is essentially a search after all. Using a sniffer dog to check what somebody, who gives no ground to the police for concern or suspicion, might be carrying in their pocket is an infringement of human rights.


How many innocent, law abiding and perfectly respectable herb smokers have gained a criminal record through such tactics? People who were doing nothing more than descretely carrying their stash in their bag or pocket. It makes my blood boil.

eater81 - I thik the whole point of sniffer dogs is that as you say people who carry drugs DON'T "give grounds to the police for concern or suspicion, (about what they) might be carrying in their pocket ".


The fact that they are not waving the drugs around for all to see means that to detect and deal with them (from Police's point of view) they need to deploy other means of detection, such as the dogs.

eater81 - Even if a dog sniffs you and detects something, I don't think the police have rights to search you or ask you to empty your pockets. I might be wrong on this though - but I think you CAN refuse for a dog to sniff you - since they would need reasonable grounds for suspicion to use one on you in the first place. It's rather invasive of them to use a narrow alleyway to do this though.


Most of the time you can actually say "no" to the police, but most people don't know their rights. Just like the police have no right to enter your premises without a search warrant. Unfortunately, new terrorism bills are stripping us of these freedoms though.

It's not the first time they've used dogs either. They were there a couple of months ago as well. I just resent being made to feel as though I am living in a police state with every move being checked. I don't believe the police should be there with dogs. They have absolutely no reason to suspect the average commuter of being a dope smoker or terrorist and it is an invasion of our personal space (for want of a more eloquent expression).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Disclaimer, some of the later  SMB stuff is insipid but I like this.  I
    • I'm pleased to have gone onto a meter as it has saved us money.  When first fitted we found there was a leak and TW replaced the old lead pipe with plastic (we had to pay the last few metres into the house but some geezer did this at a fair price). No doubt others have positive experiences too.   Otherwise I'm no fan of the private utilities but that shouldn't colour our opinions.  
    • I recall that when the meter was installed it it was not set at zero. Presumably it had come from elsewhere or was a recon one.    Same here. I phoned TW today to ask if there was a meter at our property (even though I knew there was) and I was told quite categorically that there was not and that our bill was calculated on RV value When I asked why we used to get our meter readings shown online in our account, It they could not provide an explanation. Our RV value according to TW is 547 which equated to a 4-5 bedroom property with a large garden. With just two of us living here then our consumption must be well below the expected volume. Given the facts, I am totally convinced no that TW have an algorithm that hides the actual meter readings when the actual consumption is below the RV based consumption suggesting they are a bunch of shameless rogues!!  
    • Let me get this straight . The OP  was hit from behind by a small person out of control on a bike whose father was not only not watching him but could not watch him, because he was not in a position to see him. Are you disputing that "side of the story"? Why would someone who rarely posts on here come on here to post that? Then the OP remonstrated with the father. What would you have done in that situation?  You seem absolutely determined to put the OP in the wrong.  What exactly is your motive in doing that? Do you always assume that someone is lying when you haven't heard "both sides of the story"? Do you always disbelieve anything you are told because there are so "many possibilities"? The father in question is hardly likely to come on here to defend his lack of care of his child, is he?  And btw there were no "casual onlookers". The people who laughed were apparently the child's father and those with him. Who did not witness  "someone being smacked into by a 4 year old on a bike" because the child was out of their line of sight. It seems that you can't even get right something which is posted on a forum and there in writing for all to see. Let's hope you are never called as a witness in a court case.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...