"Millions of people around the world"? Is that daily, or monthly? You mean millions are subject to random search? That's been the case forever.

THe point Andrew Brown made is that he could see he was being used to "balance" the stats. There was no suspicion really that he was a threat; his account of how cursory the search was - of what it potentially missed - shows that it didn't serve the purpose of anything except raising peoples' suspicions about him, them, each other.

I'd like to see your proof that "random stop and search can make an effective contribution to an overall security response". Point me to a study which demonstrates that. I've provided the null hypothesis: *random* stop and search makes no difference to the incidence of terrorism. Now you disprove it. That's journalism, done scientifically. What you're doing is just being contrary, which isn't journalism.

And I think you'll find that when suicide bombers are stopped by security, it hasn't been a random search process. It's targeted on behaviour.

Arse to your "humility". I'm a citizen; it's my money that's being spent; it's my life that's at risk too (I take the Tube); and I think that balancing the stats by S+Sing someone who you don't think poses any threat is a stupid way to focus the effort.

Here's a comparison: would you rather that the police randomly went along to every place where religion is practised to listen and inspect what the preacher says, or focused on places where messages of hate are clearly being taught? I know which I think more effective.

"I'd like to see your proof that "random stop and search can make an effective contribution to an overall security response". Point me to a study which demonstrates that. I've provided the null hypothesis: *random* stop and search makes no difference to the incidence of terrorism. Now you disprove it. That's journalism, done scientifically. What you're doing is just being contrary, which isn't journalism." - from Charles

There's a useful commentary here from an adviser to the Rand corp and national security expert.

http://www.rand.org/commentary/072605ND.html

Useful points are:

Accepted wisdom seems to be that security checks can do nothing to stop a determined suicide bomber willing to kill indiscriminately. But the mere presence of police can deter less determined terrorists and planners. The relevance of that to our discussion is that you & Andrew Brown seem to want to gauge the effectiveness of what you see measured against the objective of stopping a determined terrorist. This is not advisable. It's not what they are doing.

The public likes security to be egalitarian. We will surrender some privacy and accept some inconvenience - but like to see it applied fairly to all. Obviously, security measures which are accepted by the public are more likely to be effective - less likely to be challenged in court or resisted on the ground, say.

Security planners like to build some unpredictability into all security measures. It complicates terrorist planning. So random searches are necessary - otherwise the pattern would be observable and therefore an exploitable weakness.

Reassuring anxious passengers - which random checks can achieve - is a legitimate goal. "Terrorists intend their violence to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm that, in turn, will cause people to exaggerate the threat. In combating terrorism, we not only seek to prevent terrorist attacks but also to reduce the terror they create."

This seems all good sense to me, and drawn from experience and thought.

I'm afraid your jibe at me that I am being merely contrary and non-journalistic misses the mark. The kind of journalism I am interested in is that which, when faced with something that seems odd or surprising or counter-intuitive or daft, instinctively asks - Why? What's going on? What am I missing that would make this explicable? And then to make enquiries at least till I understand it and the motivations behind it. Sometimes it is still odd, surprising or daft & then I write that...But I am not much interested in those forms of journalism, or those journalists, that stop at the first hurdle and condemn, sneer and ridicule from a distance.

Les

The proper basis for selectivity is observed behavior. Customs officials routinely do this. For example, unusual behavior at a border crossing from Canada prompted an alert customs agent in 1999 to ask Ahmed Ressam to open the trunk of his car. He bolted, but was captured. His trunk turned out to be filled with explosives destined for a bombing at Los Angeles International Airport.

The cursory examiniation detailed by Brown, who contrasts it with people who really wanted to search, shows that this wasn't "observed behaviour" checking. As he said, it was "balance the stats" checking. I repeat: that's ineffective.

What you're describing isn't journalism. It is sheer contrariness. Andrew Brown is reflective and a very good journalist, for my money. (He's a friend too, but I thought that anyway; the friendship bit comes extra.) You haven't offered anything apart from a pointer to a commentary which exactly backs up the point *I* made in my comment: And I think you'll find that when suicide bombers are stopped by security, it hasn't been a random search process. It's targeted on behaviour.

Random search and lots of police might make "people" think they're safer. Stop and search is only useful if it's targeted to behaviour.

The search method has very poor sensitivity and specificity.
Random checks are a step towards a society of violence and angst where people are judged by their appearance, nationality, behavior (and religion). And it opens a large door for abuse.

Arrogant journalists? You really missed the topic..
These random checks are characteristic of only oppressive and backward regimes, and it is simply unacceptable in a free society. That is what his posting is all about. So, everybody should be above being stopped at random.

You're making a poor fist of following the argument, Charles. I'll say again, random searches are not about picking out individual terrorists in the act of bombing. I don't think they are. The police officer who stopped your friend doesn't think they are. None of the literature I've skimmed thinks they are. Common sense and a moment's thought will lead to the conclusion that they aren't. So it is absurd of you to repeat: "that's ineffective". No one has said they are effective - at that.

One of your other problems is that you have an entirely binary, on-off approach to the question of random or selective searches. Why? Has it not occurred to you that random searching and selective searching might go hand in hand? Complement each other? Make it easier for security forces to do their job? Do you not know how bitterly searches based on appearance, race or ethnicity are resented?

I've pointed to some other benefits of random searches, from disrupting planners, and increasing alertness and security mindedness and a sense of confidence. You don't seem to think they matter. Fair enough. Think what you want. But things don't go away just because you decide to ignore them.

You say Andrew Brown is a friend of yours, reflective and a very good journalist. I have no reason to challenge any of that. I do say that his blog post betrayed an unpleasant elitism and a disagreeable sense of his own importance. When I see someone aggrandising himself in a "don't you know who I am?" way, and caricaturing officers as buffoons for the amusement of his circle, I feel mildly ill - whatever the person's day job.

Les

you have an entirely binary, on-off approach to the question of random or selective searches. Why? Has it not occurred to you that random searching and selective searching might go hand in hand? Complement each other?

You tell me where the easy middle ground between "random" and "selective" lies, and I'll watch with interest. Fair warning: I did statistics.

My point is that searches should be selective - selectiing people whose behaviour is really out of kilter.

You've not pointed to anything more concrete than the fanciful stuff in your head; the RAND piece has no data, apart from one incident which was a decidedly non-random search. (I see you've realised you need to follow this up.)

Andrew was amused by the irony of the situation. As you've not bothered to find out about him, he also writes on religious topics - he was the Indie's religious affairs correspondent for a while. So stopping him over a matter which involves religion-fuelled nutters when he's about to see a senior police officer is about as good as irony gets on a random day, I'd say.

Les wrote: Has it not occurred to you that random searching and selective searching might go hand in hand? Complement each other?

Charles wrote: You tell me where the easy middle ground between "random" and "selective" lies, and I'll watch with interest. Fair warning: I did statistics.

I think people reading will be scratching their heads, wondering why you are making such heavy weather of this.

Most will understand that police officers can operate a stop and search which includes picking out people in an arbitrary way without cause and perhaps to some count or other formula (random). And alongside that officers might also select people who have been identified as fitting a profile (selective). I would think they can imagine officers spending time doing that, and it making perfect sense and being relatively efficient. (Bearing in mind the given, that stop and search will not, and is not primarily intended to, catch a determined suicide bomber at the point of launching an attack.)

They don't then need an overly aggressive elitist hopping up and down jabbing a finger in their chest and saying, there's no easy middle ground there, I'm warning you, I did statistics, you know.

But since it matters so much to you, here is an example of a peer reviewed study you crave. It has statistics in it.

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/chakrabarti/

Here, for readers who aren't going to skim the whole thing, is the pertinent bit from the abstract:

To improve the efficiency of airport security screening, the FAA deployed the Computer Assisted Passenger Screening system (CAPS) in 1999. CAPS attempts to identify potential terrorists through the use of profiles so that security personnel can focus the bulk of their attention on high-risk individuals. In this paper, we show that since CAPS uses profiles to select passengers for increased scrutiny, it is actually less secure than systems that employ random searches. In particular, we present an algorithm called Carnival Booth that demonstrates how a terrorist cell can defeat the CAPS system. Using a combination of statistical analysis and computer simulation, we evaluate the efficacy of Carnival Booth and illustrate that CAPS is an ineffective security measure.

The authors are basically arguing that profiling is less secure than random, but what really can make a difference is improved questioning procedures. Crudely, officers pick up useful information from body language and tone of voice.

No doubt, you will have quibbles with this. But if you do, they are quibbles with the authors, not with me. I don't pretend this is the last word on a difficult and fast moving subject. But it does fulfil your earlier request, 'I'd like to see your proof that "random stop and search can make an effective contribution to an overall security response". Point me to a study which demonstrates that.'

You seem to be taking this more seriously now, and I welcome that. I hope you will have the grace to apologise for your initial post on your blog which began,

“Well, he looked like a religious nutter, Sarge” - no, that’s Andrew Brown, you berks

Remember that Brown had said, "The cop gave me a spiel about how I had been stopped entirely at random. They didn't discriminate at all among the people they stopped, and certainly not on grounds of ethnicity or appearance."

I think your comments are offensive towards the officers doing their job. I don't think religious nutter is a phrase that has any usefulness in serious discussion. But mostly I am offended by your distortion in pretending to think that what was by the authority's account a random and non-selective search was actually a purposeful but muddleheaded one.

You compound that every time you express amazement at the irony of it. It doesn't matter that your friend was the Indy's religious correspondent. It wouldn't matter if he was Queen Nefertiti herself. It was, on the face of it, a random stop, and to pretend otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation that does you great discredit.

Les