Jogging in a weighted vest can get you shot.

[Scooter]

If you are intent on believing that the picture was taken immediately on the scene, and not sometime later, then you can see that he is wearing what looks like a light jacket under the vest that he could instead have put on over top of it.

[Gob]

I agree. It's strange how Mr PHD didn't have the nous to reverse that, and now he's getting in a huff as his stupidity has been pointed out to him.

[Gob]

Superintendent Amanda Pearson, of Thames Valley Police, said: 'Police received a call from a member of the public who was concerned about a man walking in Southfield Road, with what he thought was a vest which may have contained explosives.

'Officers attended and spoke to the man, who explained he was wearing a weight vest for personal training reasons.

'The vest was checked and officers confirmed this was the case and there was no need for public alarm.

'While I appreciate that in this case being stopped and checked by the officers may have been unsettling to the gentlemen concerned, the officers were responding to a call from a member of the public who had a genuine concern and police are duty bound to investigate any calls of this nature to ensure public safety.

'In order to stop any further calls from members of the public, the gentleman was asked to put his coat on, which he agreed to do.

'There was no legal requirement for the gentleman to put on his jacket and he did not have to do so.'

She added: 'The officers have to weigh up a number of factors to determine if a stop and search is proportionate, and justified, and the decision to stop and search would not be made on ethnicity alone and wasn't in this case.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1ZxDeMt00

[Scooter]

Yeah, so? He says he had a jacket which he put on over top of it. And...?

[Sean]

Are you suggesting he was looking for his 15 minutes? How very jaded of you.

I don't think he was looking for fame, just trying to stir the pot a bit and make a point. Wouldn't surprise me if his experience turns up as a uni assignment either. I wonder what he's studying...

[Scooter]

I agree. It's strange how Mr PHD didn't have the nous to reverse that, and now he's getting in a huff as his stupidity has been pointed out to him.

Yes, he was naive in thinking that in an enlightened democracy he would not automatically be branded a criminal by police who, by their own admission, made their decision to confront him at least in part on the basis of the colour of his skin.

[Sean]

Because I imagine he did not go to the press the second after he was approached by the police and instead put on the vest over whatever he was wearing at the time when he eventually did speak to them.

From the article:

"I've seen plenty of pictures of people with weight vests on but of course they're always blond, Caucasian people.
"Maybe it is because I'm wearing jeans... I've never seen a bomb vest but it sure as hell doesn't have Maxivest (written) on it."

I think it's reasonable to assume that he was wearing jeans at the time he was stopped...

[Scooter]

Wouldn't surprise me if his experience turns up as a uni assignment either. I wonder what he's studying...

Mr Karimi...is studying for a PhD in physiology, anatomy and genetics ...

There's that speculation shot to hell.

[Sean]

Not at all. His dissertation will be wriiten on how his ethnicity and genetics automatically brands him a terrorist.

[Gob]

Yes, he was naive in thinking that in an enlightened democracy he would not automatically be branded a criminal by police who, by their own admission, made their decision to confront him at least in part on the basis of the colour of his skin.

He wasn't "branded a criminal", or did I miss that?

Am I naive in thinking that in an enlightened democracy, and in the light of experience, people running around in what looks like a suicide jacket should be approached and verified as no harm to the community?

[Scooter]

I would like to imagine that any person jogging through the streets in England with a weighted vest would raise suspicions.

To a point. The notion that a suicide bomber would be calmly jogging through the streets of Oxford, with a bomb brazenly strapped on the outside of his clothes and with no apparent target anywhere in sight, is more than a bit farfetched.

Now, if he were seen on a subway platform, or entering a gov't building, that might be another story.

[Scooter]

He wasn't "branded a criminal", or did I miss that?

Sorry. How about "taken for a murderous, bloodthirsty terrorist", is that better?

Am I naive in thinking that in an enlightened democracy, and in the light of experience, people running around in what looks like a suicide jacket should be approached and verified as no harm to the community?

See my response to Hen above. And it depends what is done when he/she is approached. Verifying that he was not carrying a bomb is one thing. Demanding that he provide personal information under the authority of Terrorism Act, when it was already ascertained that he was not carrying a bomb, served what purpose, exactly? That is, other than to suggest that he was still under suspicion of being a terrorist based on the colour of his skin, since there was absolutely nothing else to suggest that he had it in mind to commit any sort of crime.

[Gob]

He wasn't "branded a criminal", or did I miss that?

Sorry. How about "taken for a murderous, bloodthirsty terrorist", is that better?

You make up what you want to make up mate, it's only happened in your imagination anyway.

[Gob]

See my response to Hen above. And it depends what is done when he/she is approached. Verifying that he was not carrying a bomb is one thing. Demanding that he provide personal information under the authority of Terrorism Act, when it was already ascertained that he was not carrying a bomb, served what purpose, exactly? That is, other than to suggest that he was still under suspicion of being a terrorist based on the colour of his skin, since there was absolutely nothing else to suggest that he had it in mind to commit any sort of crime.

Where does it say that it was done "under the authority of Terrorism Act"?

Even if it was, he was stopped for carrying what was believed to be a bomb, they may have been checking he was not on any terrorism list, and was not out doing a dry run.

[Scooter]

You make up what you want to make up mate

As you did. As in, deciding that the photo of him was taken while he was still wearing the clothes he had on at the time of the incident, and using the fact that he has jeans on to doubt his story, when it's incredibly unlikely that the press, even if he had contacted them immediately, would have dropped everything they were working on to go meet him on the spot, rather than later the same day or in the following days, when he would obviously be wearing different clothes.

[Sean]

He wasn't "branded a criminal", or did I miss that?

Sorry. How about "taken for a murderous, bloodthirsty terrorist", is that better?

To be fair Scoot, if those police had taken him for a "murderous, bloodthirsty terrorist" his grieving parents would be telling the story to the media right now...

Regardless of who made the call the police response was spot on. The investigated a reported terrorist possibility and verified that he was no threat. They didn't shoot, beat or arrest him. They simply advised that what he was wearing could look suspicious and sent him on his merry way. They didn't even confiscate the vest!

Demanding that he provide personal information under the authority of Terrorism Act, when it was already ascertained that he was not carrying a bomb, served what purpose, exactly?

That's a tad dramatic...

Mr Karimi said he was then asked to give the officer his personal details under the Terrorism Act 2006 and was ordered to take his vest off.

You don't think this kid, or the BBC for that matter, would have used the word "demanded" if they thought they could get away with it?

[Scooter]

Where does it say that it was done "under the authority of Terrorism Act"?

In the article you posted.

Even if it was, he was stopped for carrying what was believed to be a bomb, they may have been checking he was not on any terrorism list, and was not out doing a dry run.

And again, jogging casually through the streets of Oxford as a dry run for what, when, were he really a suicide bomber, he would studiously avoid anything that would draw attention to himself?

[Sean]

You make up what you want to make up mate

As you did. As in, deciding that the photo of him was taken while he was still wearing the clothes he had on at the time of the incident, and using the fact that he has jeans on to doubt his story, when it's incredibly unlikely that the press, even if he had contacted them immediately, would have dropped everything they were working on to go meet him on the spot, rather than later the same day or in the following days, when he would obviously be wearing different clothes.

Once upon a time I worked in newsgathering for the BBC amongst others and I can assure you that when they arranged to send out a photographer they would have asked him to dress as he was dressed at the time the incident occurred. That is standard press procedure... at least in the UK.

[Scooter]

To be fair Scoot

Why don't you be fair, Sean? Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that this was a put up job and contort the facts (like assuming he was wearing those jeans when the incident occurred) in order to bolster your hypothesis?,

They didn't even confiscate the vest!

Because that would have been theft. Am I supposed to give them a gold star for not breaking the law?

Demanding that he provide personal information under the authority of Terrorism Act, when it was already ascertained that he was not carrying a bomb, served what purpose, exactly?

That's a tad dramatic...

Mr Karimi said he was then asked to give the officer his personal details under the Terrorism Act 2006 and was ordered to take his vest off.

You don't think this kid, or the BBC for that matter, would have used the word "demanded" if they thought they could get away with it?

When the police "ask" you to provide information under their lawful authority, you cannot refuse. That makes it a demand.

[Scooter]

You make up what you want to make up mate

As you did. As in, deciding that the photo of him was taken while he was still wearing the clothes he had on at the time of the incident, and using the fact that he has jeans on to doubt his story, when it's incredibly unlikely that the press, even if he had contacted them immediately, would have dropped everything they were working on to go meet him on the spot, rather than later the same day or in the following days, when he would obviously be wearing different clothes.

Once upon a time I worked in newsgathering for the BBC amongst others and I can assure you that when they arranged to send out a photographer they would have asked him to dress as he was dressed at the time the incident occurred. That is standard press procedure... at least in the UK.

They clearly asked him to bring along the vest, which was relevant.

Perhaps they didn't think that someone intent on discrediting the story would have zoomed in on whatever clothes he casually happened to put on after taking off his sweaty workout wear and cleaning himself up.