In other words: "Hey, Muslims, other people who call themselves Muslim are being naughty boys, so we're going to target your entire group to be on the safe side. Deal with it"
__________________
If you are worried (as you should be, but for reasons of ID theft, not "national security") that someone was going to go through your rubbish, shred it before you throw it away.
But what would you have us do? If a binman sees something written on a piece of paper that he's just chucked in the back of the wagon and reads it, should he be arrested for breach of privacy???
Where did I say "everyone"? Oops, I didn't.
Irrelevant. You asked for an alternative method, I gave one.
__________________
No, but I refer you to the logical fallacy of the Burden of Proof as mentioned earlier in the thread. *You* have made the suggestion "It couldn't be (in the first instance) that perhaps he fitted a description of a known or reported drug dealer?"
Well, yes, it *could* have been the case. But you will have to prove your side before asking me to prove mine.
Burden of Proof...
Again, prove that they are not.
If there are *reasonable grounds* for suspecting a particular skinhead group, no, I would have no objection.
But going from the suggestions in this thread it idea seems to be that *all* skinheads would be targetted and treated as suspects, whether there is any proof or not.
*THAT* I would object to.