I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
dramatically since I last went to one.

Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
illegal?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm

Clubbers face random drug tests

A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.

Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.

About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
and tested for a range of controlled drugs.

Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
earlier, but no arrests were made.

All five were refused entry to the club.

Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.

A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
supported the initiative".

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:03:12 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good fight,
> until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

Yes, with Our Masters falling all over themselves creating new criminal
offences, it's unlikely that anybody is law-abiding now.

I trod on the cracks in the footpath yesterd%%%%

NO CARRIER

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:03:12 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good fight,
> until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

Yes, with Our Masters falling all over themselves creating new criminal
offences, it's unlikely that anybody is law-abiding now.

I trod on the cracks in the footpath yesterd%%%%

NO CARRIER

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:03:12 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good fight,
> until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

Yes, with Our Masters falling all over themselves creating new criminal
offences, it's unlikely that anybody is law-abiding now.

I trod on the cracks in the footpath yesterd%%%%

NO CARRIER

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:03:12 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good fight,
> until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

Yes, with Our Masters falling all over themselves creating new criminal
offences, it's unlikely that anybody is law-abiding now.

I trod on the cracks in the footpath yesterd%%%%

NO CARRIER

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:03:12 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good fight,
> until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

Yes, with Our Masters falling all over themselves creating new criminal
offences, it's unlikely that anybody is law-abiding now.

I trod on the cracks in the footpath yesterd%%%%

NO CARRIER

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:03:12 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good fight,
> until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

Yes, with Our Masters falling all over themselves creating new criminal
offences, it's unlikely that anybody is law-abiding now.

I trod on the cracks in the footpath yesterd%%%%

NO CARRIER

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:03:12 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good fight,
> until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

Yes, with Our Masters falling all over themselves creating new criminal
offences, it's unlikely that anybody is law-abiding now.

I trod on the cracks in the footpath yesterd%%%%

NO CARRIER

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:03:12 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good fight,
> until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

Yes, with Our Masters falling all over themselves creating new criminal
offences, it's unlikely that anybody is law-abiding now.

I trod on the cracks in the footpath yesterd%%%%

NO CARRIER

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>
>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>
>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>
>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>
>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>
>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>
>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>
>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>
>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>
>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>
>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>manky
>>tops of toilets.
>>
>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>in
>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>broken
>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>
> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
> back from Holland then what would you expect?

I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
with this and that.


>
> It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
> other drugs).
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>>>
>>>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>>>
>>>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>>>
>>>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>>>supported the initiative".
>>>>
>>>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>>>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>>>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in
>>>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>>>
>>>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous
>>>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on
>>>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the
>>>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than 
>>>manky
>>>tops of toilets.
>>>
>>>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red
>>>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled 
>>>in
>>>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't 
>>>broken
>>>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could
>>>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.
>>
>> Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
>> frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
>> back from Holland then what would you expect?
>
>I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be 
>sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept 
>that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me 
>with this and that.

Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
passport would show signs of cannabis?

On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
> passport would show signs of cannabis?

Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
well all show up positive.

I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:56:19 -0700, M James Hunt
 wrote:

>On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
>Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
>well all show up positive.
>
>I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

No but I'd be more likely to want to search them on returning to the
UK. Makes perfect sense.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
> with this and that.

I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
:-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.

Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
briefcase and laptop.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"M James Hunt"  wrote in message 
news:1184072179.887846.110490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 1:20 pm, Damot  wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting everyone's
>> passport would show signs of cannabis?
>
> Well, the passports of people who have smoked cannabis in Holland may
> well all show up positive.
>
> I don't think using drugs in another country is an offence though.

Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to 
carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU 
countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very 
sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say to 
the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like wise 
if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police have no 
right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

M.

>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.04.53.843076@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:44 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I would expect the fact that i have come back from holland would be
>> sufficiant answer. I had broken no laws and in the end they had to accept
>> that.. However it delayed me for several hours whilst they threatened me
>> with this and that.
>
> I used to commute weekly between Heathrow and Eindhoven. I quite often
> brought a gram of weed back with me (sometimes I took our stuff there
> :-)). I was never stopped when I went through the green channel.
>
> Perhaps you looked like an evil druggy? I always wore a suit and carried a
> briefcase and laptop.

Interesting you should say that, I had both as our EU parts depot was based 
there for the company i was working for at the time NCR. It was a great 
excuse for a jolly. I seem to recall i had red eye but i was looking 
reasonably tidy. Though i do agree, usually when you are wearing a suit 
people usually treat you well. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that 
pahh. They even took everything apart right down to my lighter.

I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of 
society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

They started threatening me with all sorts trying to get me to admit smoking 
it in the UK.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.

I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

> M.
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of me.

I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.34.00.67249@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:36 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Your right it's not and they had to accept that eventually. You have to
>> carry ID, meaning your passport, in Holland as well as several other EU
>> countries including Spain as far as i know anyway. These tests are very
>> sensitive and if you had smoked weed and had to produce your passport say
>> to the Dutch police then the traces would transfer to your passport. Like
>> wise if you stored it along with your passport in your pocket. The police
>> have no right to then try issuing sanctions based on this.
>
> I think you were a victim of passive contamination. The passport control
> bod when you arrived in Holland contaminated your passport with the evil
> killer weed. They're all marihuana addicts in Holland, as they don't have
> laws protecting the children by jailing elderly ladies like we do here.

Weed smokers are more dangerous than serial killers you know that !! They 
should be executed on site.

They must protect the public by allowing gangsters to control the trade.

>
>> M.
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

I thought they'd tried that. There was a piece or rubber on the floor it 
looked like hash, by this point i was becoming a little paranoid and i 
thought they'd actually planted some. The copper even checked it out.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
>> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of 
>> me.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.

Surely he didn't partake in that ??

Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who 
take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.


>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 10 Jul, 14:55, "Mark Whiteley" 
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member of
> >> society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out of
> >> me.
>
> > I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
>
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??
>
> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those who
> take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.
>

How dare you. These brave souls are risking all to protect us by
locking up the people they *know* are guilty. You'll be telling us we
should consider them innocent until proven guilty next !

Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good
fight, until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:08 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.10.13.35.48.638709@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:17:40 +0000, Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were actually looking to try and get a respectable member
>>> of society like myself (Grin). Probably wanting to make an example out
>>> of me.
>>
>> I'm surprised they didn't plant some on you. Ask Claude.
> 
> Surely he didn't partake in that ??

No, but I expect he would have had to deal with (sack) some.

> Bent coppers are the lowest form of pond scum on the planet. Both those
> who take bribes and those who falsify or plant evidence.

Agreed.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:03:12 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Thank goodness our government are committed to fighting the good fight,
> until all these scumbag criminals are locked up !

Yes, with Our Masters falling all over themselves creating new criminal
offences, it's unlikely that anybody is law-abiding now.

I trod on the cracks in the footpath yesterd%%%%

NO CARRIER

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Phil Stovell wrote:

> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
> 
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or 
not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
> Clubbers face random drug tests
>
> A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
> with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
> Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
> nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
> About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
> and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
> Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
> earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
> All five were refused entry to the club.
>
> Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
> of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
> A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
> supported the initiative".

The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ...
unless I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against
having metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your
bloodstream.

Yes, it can be used to argue evidence of previous criminal behaviour.
But it ain't proof.

Eating 2 or 3 poppy seeded rolls will cause a positive test for
heroin :http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html , how will
plod cope with that ?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>dramatically since I last went to one.
>
>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>illegal?
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>
>Clubbers face random drug tests
>
>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>
>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>
>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>
>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>
>All five were refused entry to the club.
>
>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>
>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>supported the initiative".

You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>
>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>illegal?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>
>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>
>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>
>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>
>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>
>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>
>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>
>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>
>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>supported the initiative".
>
> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.

Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
tops of toilets.

I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

M.



>
>
>
>

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...

Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
nearly so much flaming!

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

Ian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:07:48 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> The interesting thing about this, is it doesn't prove anything ... unless
> I have been asleep for a few centuries, there is no law against having
> metabolites of cocaine, or cannabis, or heroin in your bloodstream.

I suppose that technically if you have traces on your hands you are in
possession. Most people will have traces of cocaine on their banknotes[*],
so they'd better bang most people up. Then the children will be safe!

[*] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/banknote_survey/

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:51:01 +0100, CheekyMonkey wrote:

> I suspect everybody has a choice on whether they wanted to be tested or
> not, i.e. walking out of the queue.

ISTR that leaving the queue has been used as evidence of guilt and the
person pinched and searched in this draconian police state tactic. It's a
free country, after all.

I doubt that club will get many patrons next weekend.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 +0100, "Ian F."
 wrote:

>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>
>Hi Damot - makes a nice change from umtm here [ukl], doesn't it? Not 
>nearly so much flaming!

Hi Ian. Oh I dunno!  I sometimes get that moron cross posting from
ukpm. Then he follows me into umtm after I've wound him up a bit. I
think he loves me really though.

>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>That's exactly the situation. My clients have been doing random searches, 
>sometimes with dogs, at their clubs for many years.

If it effects the door numbers then I'm sure the clubs will stop. But
lets me honest, the only ones really bothered are those taking drugs.
Until they're legal then they really don't have cause to complain.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
 wrote:

>
>"Damot"  wrote in message 
>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>
>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6284948.stm
>>>
>>>Clubbers face random drug tests
>>>
>>>A device that tests people to see if they have recently been in contact
>>>with drugs has been used by police for the first time in Oxfordshire.
>>>
>>>Thames Valley Police used the hi-tech testing equipment at The Bridge
>>>nightclub in Oxford at the weekend.
>>>
>>>About 150 clubbers had hands, mobile phones, purses and wallets swabbed
>>>and tested for a range of controlled drugs.
>>>
>>>Only five people tested positive, two of which admitted to using cocaine
>>>earlier, but no arrests were made.
>>>
>>>All five were refused entry to the club.
>>>
>>>Pc Leigh Thompson, of Thames Valley Police, said the night was the first
>>>of many operations to be undertaken in pubs and clubs.
>>>
>>>A spokesman for The Bridge said most clubbers "welcomed being tested and
>>>supported the initiative".
>>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you
>> won't be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can
>> aways go elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>It's a lot more than that, it would detect if you had stored an e open in 
>your wallet even if you had taken it before you entered the club.
>
>Lots of clubs currently have  door searches usually to look for dangerous 
>weapons or dealers/suppliers of E's speed etc, not to impose sanctions on 
>the average clubber. This system may allow that if they are lax in the 
>storing of the drugs or snort a line of coke off the phone rather than manky 
>tops of toilets.
>
>I had my passport swabbed when i returned from Holland last, it turned red 
>showing positive for cannabis. That was enough or the police i was hauled in 
>the back and strip searched despite have no criminal record. I hadn't broken 
>any laws, yet i was treated as though i had, the same sort of stuff could 
>happen to clubbers. Especially if the police are involved.

Whilst I'm worried too about the increasing police state, quite
frankly if your passport showed signs of cannabis and you were coming
back from Holland then what would you expect? 

It makes perfect sense to search you in case you were bring it in (or
other drugs).

On 10 Jul, 11:45, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
> dramatically since I last went to one.
>
> Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
> search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
> illegal?

Which was why they conducted the search - the plods obviously suspect
that everyone entering any nightclub would be found to be in
possession of something illegal.

One might only be astounded that they did not also test people leaving
the club as well.

--
 x     If you have been, was it planted?
/|\

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:

> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.

See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
and search.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:40 +0100, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:15:19 +0100, Damot wrote:
>
>> You will be asked if you mind being searched. If you refuse then you won't
>> be let in. What possible problem is there with that? They can aways go
>> elsewhere if it bothers them that much.
>
>See my previous post. If you refuse, they use that as evidence to arrest
>and search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a policeman can stop and search
you if he is suspicious that you are carrying drugs. Certainly I've
seen them do that with drug dogs at train stations.

You're not initially arrested, just searched.

"Damot"  wrote in message 
news:tds6935ndaskstipj80depiil5dtk6gjr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:08 GMT, "Mark Whiteley"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Damot"  wrote in message
>>news:dfq693da2sbvrbueeu3qk4sm0p6vm33kbn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:54 +0100, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't believe the last paragraph unless night clubs have changed
>>>>dramatically since I last went to one.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is an illegal search - I thought that the police could only
>>>>search somebody if they thought they were in possession of something
>>>>illegal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.b