Jogging in a weighted vest can get you shot.

[Sean]

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?,

I didn't jump to any conclusions Scoot. In fact the word I used was 'hunch'. Is it so wrong to have a hunch that opposes your viewpoint?
And no contortion of facts here either Scoot... Maybe you missed this in 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."

Maybe it's just me but he seems to imply that he was wearing jeans at the time right there...

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?

There's a huge difference between confiscation and theft. Confiscation would be, "We're taking this vest as we don't really want anymore calls about it today and you can pick it up later at the police station. Bring a bag to put it in".
That is not theft.

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

Really? You don't have a right to refuse to provide information to the police without legal representation in Canada? That's a bit draconian...

[Sean]

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.

Okay, I've explained how these things work but you are clearly not interested. Fair enough, your call.

[Scooter]

I didn't jump to any conclusions Scoot. In fact the word I used was 'hunch'.

Yeah, yeah, "I wouldn't be surprised", "just a hunch", it didn't stop you from accusing him of staging the whole thing.

Maybe it's just me but he seems to imply that he was wearing jeans at the time right there...

Maybe he was. Does that put him at greater suspicion of being a terrorist?

There's a huge difference between confiscation and theft. Confiscation would be, "We're taking this vest as we don't really want anymore calls about it today and you can pick it up later at the police station. Bring a bag to put it in". That is not theft.

Confiscation requires a legal basis. After ascertaining that the vest was not a bomb nor any other sort of contraband, they would have had no legal basis to take it, which would have meant that taking it was theft. Or, more precisely in this case, armed robbery, since they were carrying weapons and he would have had reason to believe that they would have used force to take it if they did not surrender it.

You want me to congratulate the police for not committing armed robbery in the course of their duties? Fine, here it is - congratulations

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

Really? You don't have a right to refuse to provide information to the police without legal representation in Canada? That's a bit draconian...

If he didn't answer questions they were legally entitled to ask him, he risked being arrested and taken into custody. That in itself is sufficient to equate their "asking" with a demand.

[Scooter]

Okay, I've explained how these things work but you are clearly not interested. Fair enough, your call.

Oh I'm very interested. Is is just the outer clothing, or would they ask the person to wear the same brassiere, underwear/panties, socks, jockstrap, etc. they may have been wearing at the time?

Are assault victims asked to don their blood drenched clothing when making any press appearances in the aftermath of their attack? Are rape victims told to wear the same torn dress and semen encrusted panties they had on in the alley they were raped in?

[Gob]

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.

It was he who said he was wearing jeans, it was him who said he had a jacket?

[Sean]

Okay, I've explained how these things work but you are clearly not interested. Fair enough, your call.

Oh I'm very interested. Is is just the outer clothing, or would they ask the person to wear the same brassiere, underwear/panties, socks, jockstrap, etc. they may have been wearing at the time?

Are assault victims asked to don their blood drenched clothing when making any press appearances in the aftermath of their attack? Are rape victims told to wear the same torn dress and semen encrusted panties they had on in the alley they were raped in?

I'm not going any further along this line with you mate. You're not being particularly rational about it. You can accept that I may have some knowledge of how these things are done or not. Either way is fine by me.

[Scooter]

You were the one who claimed it was "standard press procedure". I was just probing to determine how "standard" it is.

[Gob]

Oh I'm very interested. Is is just the outer clothing, or would they ask the person to wear the same brassiere, underwear/panties, socks, jockstrap, etc. they may have been wearing at the time?

Are assault victims asked to don their blood drenched clothing when making any press appearances in the aftermath of their attack? Are rape victims told to wear the same torn dress and semen encrusted panties they had on in the alley they were raped in?

Are you trying to be funny or stupid?

[Scooter]

I am doing nothing but carrying what Sean told me to its logical conclusion.

[Sean]

I didn't jump to any conclusions Scoot. In fact the word I used was 'hunch'.

Yeah, yeah, "I wouldn't be surprised", "just a hunch", it didn't stop you from accusing him of staging the whole thing.

Really? Would you be so kind as to point out where I made such an accusation?

Maybe it's just me but he seems to imply that he was wearing jeans at the time right there...

Maybe he was. Does that put him at greater suspicion of being a terrorist?

Of course not, I never wrote anything to suggest it did. I simply countered your accusation that I was distorting facts by claiming he was wearing jeans at the time. It seems that you now accept that I didn't distort anything so we're on the same page.

There's a huge difference between confiscation and theft. Confiscation would be, "We're taking this vest as we don't really want anymore calls about it today and you can pick it up later at the police station. Bring a bag to put it in". That is not theft.

Confiscation requires a legal basis. After ascertaining that the vest was not a bomb nor any other sort of contraband, they would have had no legal basis to take it, which would have meant that taking it was theft. Or, more precisely in this case, armed robbery, since they were carrying weapons and he would have had reason to believe that they would have used force to take it if they did not surrender it.

You want me to congratulate the police for not committing armed robbery in the course of their duties? Fine, here it is - congratulations

Well as far as I'm aware neither of us are in the legal profession but my layman's opinion would be that they would be totally within their rights to confiscate the vest if they believed it would cause public alarm or distress. Maybe one of our legal experts here will be able to clear this difference of opinion up...

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

Really? You don't have a right to refuse to provide information to the police without legal representation in Canada? That's a bit draconian...

If he didn't answer questions they were legally entitled to ask him, he risked being arrested and taken into custody. That in itself is sufficient to equate their "asking" with a demand.

That in itself is absolute bullshit mate. You don't know how the request was worded or panned out. You are the one making accusations...

For all we know it went like this:

Copper: "Can you provide me with your personal details in accordance with the Terrorism Act 2006?"
Victim: "No"
Copper: "Alrighty then, be on your way you little scamp!"

Or even:

Copper: "Can you provide me with your personal details in accordance with the Terrorism Act 2006?"
Victim: "Indeed officer. My name is X, my address is Y, my NI number is Z"
Copper: "Cheers mate!"

From the information we have either of those scenarios is possible but of course don't have the same dramatic effect as yours.

[Sean]

I am doing nothing but carrying what Sean told me to its logical conclusion.

There is nothing logical about that conclusion. I know you are intelligent enough to realise that and I'm sure you will when you take a step back and think about it.

[Gob]

No you are being illogical. You really think that the BBC would ask a "rape victim to to wear the same torn dress and semen encrusted panties they had on in the alley they were raped in"? No of course you don't, you are forcing a point to the point of illiogicality, to try and discredit a valid point which has no relationship to the extreme you are pusing it.

The BBC would want an accurate representation of this man, in the clothes he was wearing to give accurate picture on the news, no more less. Your fantasising this to the point of "assault victims asked to don their blood drenched clothing" does you no credit.

[Scooter]

Fine, I surrender, our civil liberties mean nothing, the fact that the police admit that race had a part to play in stopping this guy means nothing, the fact that someone already cleared of suspicion of wrongdoing was required (do you like that better than "demanded", Sean) to identify himself means nothing.

As I said, the terrorists are winning without setting off a single additional bomb.

[Gob]

Fine, I surrender, our civil liberties mean nothing, the fact that the police admit that race had a part to play in stopping this guy means nothing,

It means something, it means the police were acting sensibly.

the fact that someone already cleared of suspicion of wrongdoing was required (do you like that better than "demanded", Sean) to identify himself means nothing.

Anyone stopped by the police would be asked to identify themselves.

As I said, the terrorists are winning without setting off a single additional bomb.

In what way have they "won" here?

[Scooter]

Fine, I surrender, our civil liberties mean nothing, the fact that the police admit that race had a part to play in stopping this guy means nothing,

It means something, it means the police were acting sensibly.

Perfect. Give the Islamist propagandists more ammo to stir people up, by using racial profiling.

Anyone stopped by the police would be asked to identify themselves.

No, they aren't, not lawfully, anyway. That's why the Terrorism Act had to be invoked in this case, because it was evident that no crime had been committed and the man was not under arrest. But having determined that the guy was not engaged in terrorism and invoking the Act anyway to require him to identify himself, that was an abuse of power.

As I said, the terrorists are winning without setting off a single additional bomb.

In what way have they "won" here?

See both of my responses in this post.

[Gob]

a) They were not using "racial profiling" they reacted to a situation as reported.

b) You are right, they would be asked their name and they wouldl be allowed to refuse to give it. However as this man was stopped on suspicion of carrying a suicide bomb, wrongly as it turns out, I do not think it inaporpraite for them to use the powers they used.

What is a "stop and search"?

A stop and search is more serious than a stop and account. An officer can stop you and search you if she has reasonable grounds to suspect that you are carrying weapons, drugs, items that have been stolen or anything that you could use to commit a crime. An officer can also stop you for any reason if you are in an area where, for instance, there is a risk of violence taking place, there is a terrorist threat or where the police have seen people with weapons.

During a stop and search, the officer is required to attempt to carry out the search with your consent, but can continue the search without your co-operation and can use reasonable force if you resist the search. As with a stop and account, you have the right to a receipt and the officer must record the reason for the stop and search.

c) I think you overestimate the impact of this, I also think they are more likely to "win" if the police were not to have reacted in these circumstances. That would be telling those of a terrorist bent, and let's not forget they do exist in the UK, that they can get away with unconcealed bombs.

[Sean]

Fine, I surrender, our civil liberties mean nothing, the fact that the police admit that race had a part to play in stopping this guy means nothing, the fact that someone already cleared of suspicion of wrongdoing was required (do you like that better than "demanded", Sean) to identify himself means nothing.

As I said, the terrorists are winning without setting off a single additional bomb.

It's worth pointing out that the police didn't 'choose' to stop this guy whether because of his race or for any other reason. They were responding to a call. Any race issues should really be with the person who made the call.

[liberty]

If so, then a policeman making reference to "someone of his appearance" proved himself enough of an idiot to play into the guy's hands.

But if, as people are claiming, the appearance of the vest was so justifiably alarming as to require police intervention, then why jump to the conclusion that he placed the call, rather than some concerned racist passerby?

Scooter, the people of the Middle East are as much Caucasian (honkey) as the Europeans. So how can it be racial bigotry. They differ only buy Ethnicity and culture. People who are fixated on skin color are the worse racist of all.

[Scooter]

People who are fixated on skin color are the worse racist of all.

Gee, thanks for the tautology. Who would have ever imagined that racism had something to do with skin colour unless you had been here to point that out for us?

[liberty]

People who are fixated on skin color are the worse racist of all.

Gee, thanks for the tautology. Who would have ever imagined that racism had something to do with skin colour unless you had been here to point that out for us?

That is not the point I was making. I was saying that what we call race and skin color is not as closely related as some people who are fixated on skin color would like to think. The people of southern Europe have darker skin on average than the people of northern Europe but that does not make then different races.

What we have named race has more to with the origins of peoples and the genetic adaptations their prehistoric ancestors developed in order to survive.

The correct termed for you to have used would have been ethnic bigotry.