Reasons for carrying a knife (in the UK).......

[Martyn]

Absolutely and Completely The Point.

Particularly Today: 7/7/06 One Year on.

Absolutely. After the bombings, there was a clear need for random stop and searches and implimenting such was certainly prudent and a more than acceptable trade-off against the scale of risk. But one year on, whitehall should be presenting good intelligence of a real and ever present terrorist threat, in order to justify the continuation of the random stop and search policy. If they have good intelligence to that effect, then crack on. But they should be required to justify it to somebody. Maybe they are and have and I/we dont know about it. I hope so.

 

[Martyn]

Interesting.

Pertinent exerpts from s44 Terrorism Act 2000...

Duration of authorisation.
46. - (1) An authorisation under section 44 has effect, subject to subsections (2) to (7), during the period-

(a) beginning at the time when the authorisation is given, and
(b) ending with a date or at a time specified in the authorisation.
(2) The date or time specified under subsection (1)(b) must not occur after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the authorisation is given.

(3) The person who gives an authorisation shall inform the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(4) If an authorisation is not confirmed by the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when it is given-

(a) it shall cease to have effect at the end of that period, but
(b) its ceasing to have effect shall not affect the lawfulness of anything done in reliance on it before the end of that period.
(5) Where the Secretary of State confirms an authorisation he may substitute an earlier date or time for the date or time specified under subsection (1)(b).

(6) The Secretary of State may cancel an authorisation with effect from a specified time.

(7) An authorisation may be renewed in writing by the person who gave it or by a person who could have given it; and subsections (1) to (6) shall apply as if a new authorisation were given on each occasion on which the authorisation is renewed.

The secretary of state must be giving authorisation for the renewal of the random stop and searches (if they are being done under s44).

Secretary of State for the Home Department
The Rt Hon John Reid MP
Overall responsibility for the work of the Home Office
Security
Counter terrorism
Civil Emergencies
Private Office to John Reid
Telephone: 020 7035 8829
Fax: 020 7035 3262 or 0870 336 9031
Email: homesecretary.submissions@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

 

[chewie]

<snip>Or forevermore live in a country where the police randomly stop and search people. I dont really like the sound of that. Granted, it's currently only on the underground, but the fear is that it will spread.</snip>

Actually, up until 1984 the police could pretty much search whoever they wished... it was a provision colloquially called the 'Sus' law ['sus' was also an offence, a powerful proactive tool deemed a bit too powerful and repealed... all history now.]

Also, s44 authorities have been in place for most of the Metropolitan Police area since 7/7 and still are ... the fact that most correspondents think it is only on the tube indicates that the power is being used appropriately and without excessive intrusion.

I have to ask, how many people have been searched here, and felt it was inappropriate? And how many have seen what a few kilos of TATP does to the human body?

 

[Minotaur]

I belive in London they are also doing some sort of vehicle stop and search. There was a story of a reporter getting done in this way.

On this day of all days, I keep coming back to 'Do I mind being stopped and searched?'. If in the long term it saves lifes, then the answer is no.

I think anyone who carrys a non perfecly legal knife in todays climate is pushing their luck, and if caught adding fuel to the fire. I also think, anywhere public, i.e. where you might be searched, leave it at home.

 

[Mr_Yarrow]

I should have made it clear that I have no issue with the random stop and searchs taking place as I believe that it is a necessary evil in the current situation. My only beef was with people saying that it wasnt happening because of PACE thats all.

I am conscious of what I carry as I dont want to break the law and I feel im competent and eloquent enough to explain myself to an officer if/when they find the centre punch and swiss army knife in my work bag. Id rather not get blowed up meself

 

[Goose]

Chewie, I have been searched several times when I was younger and I think the police were doing their job and had, and have, no problem with that. I can't remember but on a few of those occasions I was probably carrying a penknife of some sort, I can't remember as it was no big deal, to the police or me, just something that went into my pocket as I got dressed. I worry now if I get involved with an incident, whether it would be looked on the same.
I am older now and "more respectable" than I was then, but attitudes toward knives have changed, because of a small minority.With the "threat" as it is more and more searches are being carried out randomly on all types of people, rightly in my view, but would I be seen as a danger to the public because I have a knife in my pocket?
I know it will depend on the bobby and my attitude, but what if the bobby is a plonker?
They are in all walks of life and I in no way think this in general of the police, but they are there. What happens to me, do I end up with a criminal record for forgetting to empty my pockets, do I lose my expensive tool( not that I personally own an expensive knife but I know some do) or do I end up being late for work while I explain to boss bobby my reasons for carying a penknife?
With the hype over the recent amnesty, btw how many actually illegal weapons did it remove from the streets, more people see knives as weapons rather than the tools they are and if anything give them more street cred to the people who are the actual danger so making them more likely to carry than not!

 

[Martyn]

Actually, up until 1984 the police could pretty much search whoever they wished... it was a provision colloquially called the 'Sus' law ['sus' was also an offence, a powerful proactive tool deemed a bit too powerful and repealed... all history now.]

Also, s44 authorities have been in place for most of the Metropolitan Police area since 7/7 and still are ... the fact that most correspondents think it is only on the tube indicates that the power is being used appropriately and without excessive intrusion.

I have to ask, how many people have been searched here, and felt it was inappropriate? And how many have seen what a few kilos of TATP does to the human body?

I agree totally Chewie, I think the police are more transparent and accountable today than they ever have been before. But that's not really my point. I'm not criticising the police. It's a point of political priciple. The much hated, sus laws were dumped because they were bad and rightly so, they were an invasion of liberties that a modern society shouldnt tolerate and contributed significantly to the riots in the early eighties. I'm not suggesting the stop and search policy is wrong, just that it does constitue an invasion and we should tolerate it only as long as there is a clear and present danger from terrorist attack. One year on, is that danger still clear and present? The question needs to be asked. If the answer is that there is good intelligence to suggest a high level of threat, then it's reasonable to continue the policy. But the threat does need to be assessed and the stop and search policy justified. The PACE act goes some way to protecting civil liberties in a way the sus laws didnt. That was a move in the right direction. I just dont want to see a return to the sus laws via a back door.

 

[Wayland]

Chewie, yes I have been searched. Both in my van and on the streets. post #15 in this thread carries more details if you're interested.

Like Martyn, I am worried by the erosion of our civil liberties too.

It is fair to say that currently these things are being done for our own benefit but that only remains the case so long as we can trust our politicians.

I certainly do not wish to start a political ramble here but my faith in the system is waining at the moment and most of these laws that have been passed in the last few years could easily be used against our interests in the future.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Martyn]

I think we may be straying a little too far into pure politics here, and I'm certainly guilty of throwing my log on that bonfire. It's a fine line between law and politics and it's hard to stay on track sometimes. The stop and search policies of the underground are certainly legal and lawfull, whether or not they should be is probably the subject for another discussion (possibly on another forum).

 

[chewie]

All very fair points. The balance between police powers and police accountability / civil rights is a difficult political balance. Unfortunately, every right that the general population might have is one that a terrorist, or armed robber, will also have - including access to information or intelligence, and the right not to be searched, for example.

In this case however what is being debated here is more a conflict between separate human rights - in the case of s44 TA2000 searches, the police are acting in accordance with article 2 - the right to life, whereas there is a concern that the actions being taken if unreasonable may breach article 8 - the right to privacy. What would most people value more?

It is a bit of a minefield - not the best bit of legislation I have ever seen - but the lawyers seem to profit by it.

The other query seems to be regarding the publication of intelligence to justify the continuance of, for example, threat level assessments and s44TA2000 authorities.

The problem with disclosure of intelligence is that it at best renders it useless, and at worst aids the enemy.

Specific intelligence about specific plans could never be released - you would not tell a terrorist cell that you knew what they were planning, they'd simply go and do something else, and you'd be back to square 1.

General intelligence should not be open forum either. You must consider where it comes from - either electronic surveillance or human sources, generally speaking. If disclosed intelligence was traced back to a human source, then you have just signed their death warrant. If electronic surveillance / intelligence-gathering capabilities become known, then alternative methods of communication are devised [losing the intel] or disinformation can be transmitted. Look up the history of ULTRA - it won the battle of the Atlantic, but if the other side knew that Britain had cracked the Enigma cypher, then they would have changed cypher and we would have lost all advantage.

It isn't an ideal situation - but there is no alternative than to trust the authorities. The checks and balances are there - and for the general good. I can't think of any viable options at present.

Anyway, isn't this all a bit deep for a bushcraft forum? I'm supposed to be lurking and checking for motorbike camping tips.

 

[MattW]

Mods, feel free to delete this if it lies outide the scope of this thread / forum. I don't believe it is political, and I do think it is relevant in the context of the latter part of this thread, however.....



The notion of privacy mentioned in the last post is a very philosophically challenging subject. I recently read a report written by the 'privacy commissioner' of Canada which makes thought provoking reading. A couple of highlights below:

Annual Report from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

"It is my duty, in this Annual Report, to present a solemn and urgent warning to every Member of Parliament and Senator, and indeed to every Canadian:

The fundamental human right of privacy in Canada is under assault as never before. Unless the Government of Canada is quickly dissuaded from its present course by Parliamentary action and public insistence, we are on a path that may well lead to the permanent loss not only of privacy rights that we take for granted but also of important elements of freedom as we now know it.

We face this risk because of the implications, both individual and cumulative, of a series of initiatives that the Government has mounted or is actively moving toward. These initiatives are set against the backdrop of September 11, and anti-terrorism is their purported rationale. But the aspects that present the greatest threat to privacy either have nothing at all to do with anti-terrorism, or they present no credible promise of effectively enhancing security.

The Government is, quite simply, using September 11 as an excuse for new collections and uses of personal information about all of us Canadians that cannot be justified by the requirements of anti-terrorism and that, indeed, have no place in a free and democratic society."

And this:

"A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around, if all our telephone conversations were monitored, if all our mail were read, if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away. It's only a difference of degree from the intrusions already being implemented or considered.

The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will - indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves - is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.

If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy."

full report here: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/information/ar/02_04_10_e.asp

best
Matt

 

[Martyn]

All very fair points. The balance between police powers and police accountability / civil rights is a difficult political balance. Unfortunately, every right that the general population might have is one that a terrorist, or armed robber, will also have - including access to information or intelligence, and the right not to be searched, for example.

I agree, favouring civil rights over police powers can impact nagatively on the community. I was reading up on the sus laws and came accross this thought provoking article...

The blacks are betrayed in the name of liberalism

It highlights some of the issues well, particularly the impact of loosing the sus laws. But that may be a concequence we have to accept, or find a better way to deal with.

In this case however what is being debated here is more a conflict between separate human rights - in the case of s44 TA2000 searches, the police are acting in accordance with article 2 - the right to life, whereas there is a concern that the actions being taken if unreasonable may breach article 8 - the right to privacy. What would most people value more?

What would people value more? It's a good question. In the past, many hundreds of thousands of people have given thier lives in wars, purely fighting for the principles of freedom and liberty. On the face of it, it's a simple decision, be blown up or be searched. it would seem an easy and obvious choice, but is it? One year after the London bombings, it's not so obvious. Yes there is a need to protcet society, but there is also a need to preserve the principles of our society, that our grandfathers thought were worth fighting and dying for. Sounds overly emotive perhaps, but it's a strong message and one we should at least consider.

The other query seems to be regarding the publication of intelligence to justify the continuance of, for example, threat level assessments and s44TA2000 authorities.

The problem with disclosure of intelligence is that it at best renders it useless, and at worst aids the enemy.

Specific intelligence about specific plans could never be released - you would not tell a terrorist cell that you knew what they were planning, they'd simply go and do something else, and you'd be back to square 1.

General intelligence should not be open forum either. You must consider where it comes from - either electronic surveillance or human sources, generally speaking. If disclosed intelligence was traced back to a human source, then you have just signed their death warrant. If electronic surveillance / intelligence-gathering capabilities become known, then alternative methods of communication are devised [losing the intel] or disinformation can be transmitted. Look up the history of ULTRA - it won the battle of the Atlantic, but if the other side knew that Britain had cracked the Enigma cypher, then they would have changed cypher and we would have lost all advantage. It isn't an ideal situation - but there is no alternative than to trust the authorities. The checks and balances are there - and for the general good. I can't think of any viable options at present.

Agreed completely. I dont think anyone would argue that point. What we need to see, is a mechanism in place for assessing risk and balancing it against the erosion of our liberties. We dont need to know the details of the intelligence, but we should be able to see the mechanism for the "checks and balances". We need to know the checks and balances are there. The mothods used, should be as transparent as possible, without compromising the integrity of the intelligence itself. Having faith in the system is reasonable, even a necessity, but having blind faith is foolish.

Anyway, isn't this all a bit deep for a bushcraft forum? I'm supposed to be lurking and checking for motorbike camping tips.

It's a bit deep for any forum.

 

[leon-1]

Martyn, you made an interesting point there about what our Grandfathers (or come to that any serviceman in the last 100 years or more) had been fighting to protect our civil liberties and our rights / way of life.

However if asked I think they would probably tell you that this is not really what they were fighting against and that means must. The guys that fought in The World Wars, with all respect that they are most definitely due, were not faced with the same threat that people are faced with now and they have the sense to know that, they would be able to see that sometimes it is neccesary to impose rules that are not populare like curfew, rationing and the blackout if it will benefit the many.

I am not saying that we should bring this sort of thing in, but that this was something that had to be done for a period of time and possibly new laws could be very much the same. If you wish the lesser of 2 evils.

I do know that there is no serviceman that I have met Ex or serving that would say "sit back and do nothing and let people blow the hell out of us".

 

[Martyn]

Martyn, you made an interesting point there about what our Grandfathers (or come to that any serviceman in the last 100 years or more) had been fighting to protect our civil liberties and our rights / way of life.

However if asked I think they would probably tell you that this is not really what they were fighting against and that means must. The guys that fought in The World Wars, with all respect that they are most definitely due, were not faced with the same threat that people are faced with now and they have the sense to know that, they would be able to see that sometimes it is neccesary to impose rules that are not populare like curfew, rationing and the blackout if it will benefit the many.

I am not saying that we should bring this sort of thing in, but that this was something that had to be done for a period of time and possibly new laws could be very much the same. If you wish the lesser of 2 evils.

I do know that there is no serviceman that I have met Ex or serving that would say "sit back and do nothing and let people blow the hell out of us".

Good point.

 

[bogflogger]

This has gone off at a slight (although important and relavent) tangent to the main issue.

The simple fact is, that this blanket Stop/Search is NOT going to stop terrorists, and as someone who both lives and works in Central London, I can tell you that this is actually being used to Stop/Search/Arrest people for carrying knives (including legal ones), for carrying Drugs, or for any outstanding Court Fines, etc, and as such has little or nothing to do with preventing terrorism.

This is actually a very disturbing development (which has historical parallel's in Nazi Germany and Soviet era policing).

I am reasonably certain that Section 44 of the Terrorism Act is actually NOT the legislation being used by the BTP for these Day to Day Stop/Search Operations.

I have been in contact with BTP HQ to ask precicely which Act(s) of Parliament is being used for this, but they were unable to give me a precise list of legislation that they are working under, which leads me to believe that this action is both Unconstitutional and Illegal.

This matter will only be resolved through the Courts.

 

[leon-1]

This has gone off at a slight (although important and relavent) tangent to the main issue.

The simple fact is, that this blanket Stop/Search is NOT going to stop terrorists, and as someone who both lives and works in Central London, I can tell you that this is actually being used to Stop/Search/Arrest people for carrying knives (including legal ones), for carrying Drugs, or for any outstanding Court Fines, etc, and as such has little or nothing to do with preventing terrorism.

This is actually a very disturbing development (which has historical parallel's in Nazi Germany and Soviet era policing).

I am reasonably certain that Section 44 of the Terrorism Act is actually NOT the legislation being used by the BTP for these Day to Day Stop/Search Operations.

I have been in contact with BTP HQ to ask precicely which Act(s) of Parliament is being used for this, but they were unable to give me a precise list of legislation that they are working under, which leads me to believe that this action is both Unconstitutional and Illegal.

This matter will only be resolved through the Courts.

You may as well include Northern Ireland in your list as well as with the British Army supporting the RUC as they did this for quite a long time.

You mentioned outstanding court fines and the carrying of drugs, am I to believe that these are totally legal activities.

If you have a court fine that is outstanding you obviously have done something to deserve it.

If the person carrying drugs is carrying it in a quantity that could be classed as that of a supplier / distributor would you really want them out on the street supplying your kids with drugs.

With the way that the UK has become is it fair that someone could be shot with an illegal firearm, when possibly if the perpetrator of the crime had been stopped and searched it would not of happened.

If it cleans up the streets maybe it is a good thing, I have nothing to hide and IF I am carrying a knife I would have a pretty good reason for it.

 

[bogflogger]

Please lets be clear about this, I am NOT condoning evading Court Fines, or Drug use (neither of which are the point of my post).

However, there IS a Fundamental Issue, relating to Human Rights Legislation IE: The Right to Unrestricted Travel, that is being Ignored/Flouted at present.

There is also of course, the Obvious Fact, that this is Only Affecting People Using Public Transport.

Anyone with an ounce of "Street Cred" is Fully Aware that "gun toting, drug dealing gangsta's" are more likely to be found by stopping them in their Audi's and BMW's, Not by Routinely Harrassing and Inconveniencing the Travelling Public "In The Interests of Public Safety" (which is pretty questionable anyway).

As to carrying a (s.139 legal) knife, you WILL be arrested at the Search Location, with all the Time Wasting and Inconvenience that is entailed with a trip to the Police Station, before your solicitor gets you released for carrying a Legal knife.

Do YOU fancy that as part of your daily commute on a regular basis?

Especially, if the knife you are carrying is Legal, under the provisions of the CJA 1988.

I would also make the point, that it is entirely possible that you can have Outstanding Court Fines that you know Nothing about (Congestion charge/moved adress/Bureaucratic Incompetence/etc).

I am Surprised that you are prepared to give up the Freedom and Liberty that so many people fought for, quite so meekly.

 

[bogflogger]

I have to ask, how many people have been searched here, and felt it was inappropriate? And how many have seen what a few kilos of TATP does to the human body?

I was at Russell Square. OK?

 

[chewie]

The blacks are betrayed in the name of liberalism

Interesting article, I haven't seen it before, thanks.

Having faith in the system is reasonable, even a necessity, but having blind faith is foolish.

MPA Stop and Search Scrutiny
Metropolitan Police Authority - stop and search
Metropolitan Police Statistics
British Transport Police

It's all out there, you just need to know where to look. Terrorism search authorities [s44] are reviewed at chief constable equivalent level weekly, and although the contents of these reviews won't be making it to the web due to the specific content, I know that it is done properly, thoroughly and with due consideration to the ECHR. My faith in the system is not blind, it is experiential.

I do know that there is no serviceman that I have met Ex or serving that would say "sit back and do nothing and let people blow the hell out of us".

Could not agree more.

This is actually a very disturbing development (which has historical parallel's in Nazi Germany and Soviet era policing).

I am reasonably certain that Section 44 of the Terrorism Act is actually NOT the legislation being used by the BTP for these Day to Day Stop/Search Operations.

I have been in contact with BTP HQ to ask precicely which Act(s) of Parliament is being used for this, but they were unable to give me a precise list of legislation that they are working under, which leads me to believe that this action is both Unconstitutional and Illegal.

This matter will only be resolved through the Courts.

Where to begin... Well, one difference between the UK and Soviet Russia/Nazi Germany is that matters can be resolved in the courts.

As to the chances of an ACPO-level officer condoning and publicising an illegal operation, well, I'm tempted to ask what colour the sky is on your planet. On the tube network, such searches are legal either if a s44TA2000 authority is in force, or on the 'if you don't like it, you can't come in' basis. Furthermore, I can positively assure you that there is no way a patrol officer will obey an unlawful order to stop and search someone, even if a chief officer was self-destructive enough to issue one. The press [the free press - another difference between us and Soviet Russia / Nazi Germany] would crucify all concerned.

If it cleans up the streets maybe it is a good thing, I have nothing to hide and IF I am carrying a knife I would have a pretty good reason for it.

This is actually the opinion of the vast majority of the public that I have discussed the matter with.

... there IS a Fundamental Issue, relating to Human Rights Legislation IE: The Right to Unrestricted Travel, that is being Ignored/Flouted at present.

There is also of course, the Obvious Fact, that this is Only Affecting People Using Public Transport.

Anyone with an ounce of "Street Cred" is Fully Aware that "gun toting, drug dealing gangsta's" are more likely to be found by stopping them in their Audi's and BMW's, Not by Routinely Harrassing and Inconveniencing the Travelling Public "In The Interests of Public Safety" (which is pretty questionable anyway).

As to carrying a (s.139 legal) knife, you WILL be arrested at the Search Location, with all the Time Wasting and Inconvenience that is entailed with a trip to the Police Station, before your solicitor gets you released for carrying a Legal knife.

Especially, if the knife you are carrying is Legal, under the provisions of the CJA 1988.

I would also make the point, that it is entirely possible that you can have Outstanding Court Fines that you know Nothing about (Congestion charge/moved adress/Bureaucratic Incompetence/etc).

I am Surprised that you are prepared to give up the Freedom and Liberty that so many people fought for, quite so meekly.

Oh dear me.

If you get arrested with a legal knife, you will be out the charge room door so fast that an observer would think you were wearing rocket-propelled roller skates. s139CJA88 is bread-and-butter work in London, no-one is going to get disciplined for an unlawful arrest over an SAK Classic - and the custody sergeant will not authorise detention. Your right to unrestricted travel is not affected - you never had a right to "unrestricted travel whilst carrying stolen or prohibited articles".

Let's just consider some simple facts before we denounce the police state in London.

The London Metropolitan Area has a population of 12-14 million souls, plus a few million commuters and tourists depending on time of day. Let's say approximately 15 million people on average.

The Metropolitan Police has about 30,000 officers at current levels. You could split it roughly half-and-half between uniform patrol and all the specialists [CID, firearms, counter terrorist command, protection, public order, training, the list seems endless...], so maybe 15,000 uniform officers available in total. Allowing for 24/7 cover on shifts, days off, annual leave, court, training and other abstractions, you are lucky if 20% of them are on operational duty at any given time. So, perhaps 3000 uniform officers spread out over the Metropolitan Police Area to police 15 million people. That equates to 1 officer per 5000 harassed citizens, without including the 10,000 incidents per day [rising], 1,000,000 crimes per annum [falling], and the curse of paperwork that blights the working PC while he or she isn't carrying out 'blanket searches.'

I think a little perspective might be needed.

Why do you think the police do what they do? I know of no-one who has joined the police wanting to turn Britain in to Nazi Germany. Some join for the excitement [and are soon disillusioned], some because it's the best job they can get, but the vast majority join to do something worthwhile for their fellow citizens - not to harass them or take away their freedoms.

Unless the citizen in question happens to be a criminal. The police do seem to enjoy taking away criminals' freedom.

It really is this simple - would the police rather be criticised for doing too much, or not enough? I have dealt with more people in one day who have been killed or maimed through terrorism, than I have dealt with complaints for unlawful searches in 20 years. Not only that, but if you don't like being searched, you lose 2 minutes of your life, plus optionally another hour registering a complaint. If you get blown up, you lose a lot more, and you won't be able to complain to the IPCC about it.

If you choose to carry a knife round London, and don't want any aggravation with the law, make sure it is an ordinary folding pocket knife with no locking mechanism and a blade length under 3"/76mm, and leave it in your pocket unless you are using it appropriately. I've always managed with an SAK classic or a leatherman squirt round town, and never had anyone bat an eyelid at either. It's not like I might need to fell a tree in Hyde Park.

 

[bogflogger]

Your right to unrestricted travel is not affected - you never had a right to "unrestricted travel whilst carrying stolen or prohibited articles".

Perhaps you would be good enough to show me where I suggested that this related to travelling with stolen or prohibited articles?

An interesting twisting of what I actually said.

Furthermore, are you making accusations that I am a criminal?