Didn't Know This Was Done in the UK

[WIP]

I was at our local bank this morning to make a deposit for our church. At the bank there is a monitor on the wall where tidbits of news headlines and weather are displayed. There was one that caught my attention. It was a news headline that indicated police "stop and search" laws in the UK have been used to strip search children as young as 8 years old. That's all it said so I didn't know about any circumstances or justification for these searches so when I got home I decided to do a quick search to see what I could find. I found many results from my search on Google and here are a couple links.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bgab/children-strip-searched-police
https://news.sky.com/story/children...idence-of-deeply-concerning-practice-12843297

Don't the laws in the UK include protection against unreasonable searches and especially searches of this magnitude? It's one thing to remove an outer jacket or something but to subject suspects to strip searches including body cavity searches seems a bit over-the-top to me.

 

[miamited]

Hi WIP

Don't know much about law in the UK either, but looked over your linked articles. I'm not for strip searching children, but when I say children, in this regard, I'm talking under 12. I've seen street level drug dealers use children to hold drugs solely because they know they can run away from the police and aren't likely to be searched because of their age. It would appear that the UK has decided to take that way of hiding drugs away from them.

So for me, each case would stand on it's own merits. If a child over 13-14 is suspected of carrying drugs being in association with drug dealers, then I don't have a problem, if it gets down to it, to search that child pretty diligently, but certainly respect their privacy.

Now, the article, as these kinds of reports often do, mentions almost each time it's speaking of children being searched, 'some as young as 8 years old'. Well, that was probably some very special case and again, I want to see how that came about. Parents walking through an airport and the drug dog goes off. Parents get checked, baggage gets checked and child gets checked. Now the 8 year old probably wasn't body cavity searched. So the article wants your sympathy for these one or two or a dozen children under the 13-14 age group, and mentions how many of the 'total' searches are body cavity searches, and wants you to connect those two and come up with, "Oh my Lord!!! They're body cavity searching 8 year olds!!!"

I'm going with that's likely not the case. The UK is pretty tough on crime. They have the most cameras watching over everybody than any other country. They use NPR cameras constantly when checking traffic or just in every day places along the roadway. But regularly body cavity searching 8 year olds, Naaaaah! But children in their teens that are known drug association runners don't get my sympathy. And they are also in the class of people under discussion in this article. There are a lot of under 18 year olds that get involved in criminal activity. I have no problem with a strip search of such an offender, or suspected offender, for such teens. So long as it is done with respect. Yes, that means you have a police van or take them into a bathroom facility. Or just haul them off to the station where it will be done in the jail bathroom. Which, btw, the article doesn't say how many of those searches were done in what it seems to portray as 'inappropriate' locations.

They're also a lot tougher on firearms than we are.

God bless,
Ted

 

[WIP]

They're also a lot tougher on firearms than we are.

What does this have to do with the discussion?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There was a woman in Buringham UK, who was silently praying outside an abortion clinic. It’s against the law to think/pray some things in the UK. She was arrested.

 

[WIP]

Hi WIP

Don't know much about law in the UK either, but looked over your linked articles. I'm not for strip searching children, but when I say children, in this regard, I'm talking under 12. I've seen street level drug dealers use children to hold drugs solely because they know they can run away from the police and aren't likely to be searched because of their age. It would appear that the UK has decided to take that way of hiding drugs away from them.

So for me, each case would stand on it's own merits. If a child over 13-14 is suspected of carrying drugs being in association with drug dealers, then I don't have a problem, if it gets down to it, to search that child pretty diligently, but certainly respect their privacy.

Now, the article, as these kinds of reports often do, mentions almost each time it's speaking of children being searched, 'some as young as 8 years old'. Well, that was probably some very special case and again, I want to see how that came about. Parents walking through an airport and the drug dog goes off. Parents get checked, baggage gets checked and child gets checked. Now the 8 year old probably wasn't body cavity searched. So the article wants your sympathy for these one or two or a dozen children under the 13-14 age group, and mentions how many of the 'total' searches are body cavity searches, and wants you to connect those two and come up with, "Oh my Lord!!! They're body cavity searching 8 year olds!!!"

I'm going with that's likely not the case. The UK is pretty tough on crime. They have the most cameras watching over everybody than any other country. They use NPR cameras constantly when checking traffic or just in every day places along the roadway. But regularly body cavity searching 8 year olds, Naaaaah! But children in their teens that are known drug association runners don't get my sympathy. And they are also in the class of people under discussion in this article. There are a lot of under 18 year olds that get involved in criminal activity. I have no problem with a strip search of such an offender, or suspected offender, for such teens. So long as it is done with respect. Yes, that means you have a police van or take them into a bathroom facility. Or just haul them off to the station where it will be done in the jail bathroom. Which, btw, the article doesn't say how many of those searches were done in what it seems to portray as 'inappropriate' locations.

They're also a lot tougher on firearms than we are.

God bless,
Ted

Yeah, there isn't much detail to go on but I still have to ask how much power do we want to give government? What are the conditions that justify the strip searches? What are the conditions that justify body cavity searches? What are the ramifications if either of these types of searches are done and nothing is found. In other words, to do a search of this magnitude based on an accusation or suspicion would be over-the-top in my view.

For example, since you brought up the firearms point, it is my understanding that Florida has a red flag law. Suppose someone accused you of being a threat and you have firearms in your home. And based on that information law enforcement enters your home without your permission to do a search including cutting up your furniture to make sure you haven't got any hidden inside. I don't know if you own firearms or not but that doesn't matter because the search was done based on an accusation or suspicion.

 

[WIP]

There was a woman in Buringham UK, who was silently praying outside an abortion clinic. It’s against the law to think/pray some things in the UK. She was arrested.

I heard about that too. Over-reach in the extreme in my opinion. I'm surprised that you all in the UK even allowed such laws to be passed. Like this issue with strip searching, it's a very slippery slope.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I heard about that too. Over-reach in the extreme in my opinion. I'm surprised that you all in the UK even allowed such laws to be passed. Like this issue with strip searching, it's a very slippery slope.

I don’t live in the UK. But it’s scary.

 

[Riven]

Just go to the pub and have a pint. Kids these days.

 

[WIP]

I don’t live in the UK. But it’s scary.

Oh, sorry. I shouldn't have assumed.

 

[miamited]

Hi WIP

Yeah, there isn't much detail to go on but I still have to ask how much power do we want to give government

Well yes, there are various issues that come into play. And they need to be decided. I mean, do we tell our police force that they can't collect blood samples at a murder scene because all of the DNA evidence has to be 'allowed' by whoever's blood it turns out to be? So, until you know who's blood it is and get their permission to swab it and take it into the lab, you can't touch blood evidence at a murder scene.

Yes, that's an extreme, but it frames my point. There need to be parameters established among our own citizenry as to how much of this we will take. Ahhhh, but that opens another can of wormy political posturing. We can't all agree on what definite parameters should be enforced. Soooo, we turn it over to the legislative body to make a decision, a decision is made, and life goes on.

And based on that information law enforcement enters your home without your permission to do a search including cutting up your furniture to make sure you haven't got any hidden inside. I don't know if you own firearms or not but that doesn't matter because the search was done based on an accusation or suspicion.

I'd certainly hope, but a case as you describe might come up, but I'd certainly hope that if the police were going to tear down my door and cut up my furniture in search of weapons, they'd have a bit more cause than just some loose accusation, without any kind of corroborating evidence to support said accusation. But no, if it were up to me they could take them all and smelt them into plowshares now.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

What does this have to do with the discussion?

Hi WIP

Well, my entire last paragraph to you was explaining how they were tougher on various crimes, mainly vehicle. I'm curious. Why did you only ask about the firearms statement?

But the point was what my first statement said,

The UK is pretty tough on crime.

Then I began talking about NPR cameras and so forth, and the UK's reliance on cameras pretty extensively even in shopping and street walking situations. What I brought up about those things didn't have anything to do with children being strip searched, either. But that should answer your question. I brought up that the 'UK is tougher on firearms' because I was discussing ways in which the UK has more stringent enforcement of some of their laws than we have.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Oh, sorry. I shouldn't have assumed.

No problem. I’m in Europe but not there.

 

[Riven]

Filthy red coats. You can't trust them. They tax you into oblivion and they have a stupid monarchy.

 

[miamited]

Hi WIP

Italy

God bless,
Ted

 

[WIP]

Well yes, there are various issues that come into play. And they need to be decided. I mean, do we tell our police force that they can't collect blood samples at a murder scene because all of the DNA evidence has to be 'allowed' by whoever's blood it turns out to be? So, until you know who's blood it is and get their permission to swab it and take it into the lab, you can't touch blood evidence at a murder scene.

That isn't even apples to apples.

 

[miamited]

That isn't even apples to apples.

Right, it isn't now, but that's the question that I'm posing with this example. How far do we go? In this protection of being able to investigate criminal activity. You've brought up an issue of the police strip searching, and in some cases, doing body cavity searches on minors, which I think in UK is the same as here...18.

So I'm asking, ok, if we tie the hands of the police in their ability to gather evidence from youthful offenders, and yes I readily admit that there are going to be some cases that seem likely wrong, but because of those, do we tell the police they can't search a minor beyond say a pat down?

Another question that I would want an answer to here is how many times out of all these cases, were the police wrong in their concern to search? Now, I don't mean that to necessarily mean that they didn't find anything, but whether the circumstances did warrant a strip type search. However, I think here in the states, we don't really appreciate the better job that the UK does in their policing. I don't think they suffer near the number of offender deaths while in custody or trying to be taken into custody that American law enforcement does. So, they're not as 'afraid' of their law enforcement overreach as we are.

Now, that's not to say that there aren't any dissatisfied customers with the UK police and their tactics and methods.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Highway54]

I was at our local bank this morning to make a deposit for our church. At the bank there is a monitor on the wall where tidbits of news headlines and weather are displayed. There was one that caught my attention. It was a news headline that indicated police "stop and search" laws in the UK have been used to strip search children as young as 8 years old. That's all it said so I didn't know about any circumstances or justification for these searches so when I got home I decided to do a quick search to see what I could find. I found many results from my search on Google and here are a couple links.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bgab/children-strip-searched-police
https://news.sky.com/story/children...idence-of-deeply-concerning-practice-12843297

Don't the laws in the UK include protection against unreasonable searches and especially searches of this magnitude? It's one thing to remove an outer jacket or something but to subject suspects to strip searches including body cavity searches seems a bit over-the-top

If it is true, there must have been a reason to escalate the law.

 

[hawkman]

Hi WIP

Italy

God bless,
Ted

I wonder .

 

[Barbarian]

Don't the laws in the UK include protection against unreasonable searches and especially searches of this magnitude?

There isn't actually a Bill of Rights for the UK in the sense that we have one. Magna Carta isn't quite like that. So right in the UK are someone less firmly fixed.

Republicans see that as a problem, but they're working on it. Several states have bills in the works to repeal parts of the first and fourth amendments.