abuse of anti terror laws

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by brighton hippy, Aug 30, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/08/28/anti-terror-laws-hold-kid-boozers-1

    now nicking under age drinkers is a good thing not sure court is needed though.
    But using anti terror law is a bad thing.
    same as jeering Blair or wearing an anti brown t-shirt is not an act of terrorism :roll:
    IF plod isn't watched your end up with 90 days in solitary for dropping litter looking at a copper in a funny way :twisted: .
    Much as beating and torturing hippy's and chav's is a fun pastime. Unfortunately grown ups are meant to follow rules.
  2. Linky broken
  3. Brighton Hippy, we obviously both live in the same neck of the woods and I have been following this story with interest. Whatever you may think of the man concerned (and there were some very choice comments on the Brighton Argus website), using legislation against the general public that was pushed through on the assurance that it was only to be used against 'Terrorists' is WRONG.

    Two issues arise from this, one is that this person was only one of 500 others that were detained by Sussex Police under the terrorism act during the 2005 Labour Party Conference in Brighton (including poor old Walter Wolfgang who was ejected by hired bouncers for heckling Jack Straw then detained when he tried to get back in). The second is that the complaint was raised in 2005, has it really taken 3 years for what looks like a straightforward complaint to be dealt with?

    I have to agree with brighton hippy on this, with the current legislation going through and that already passed, you can be banged up on nothing more than suspicion, kept for 42/90 days incommunicado then released (maybe?) with no evidence being presented and no idea why you were detained in the first place - a slippery slope indeed.
  4. still cannot see the link?
  5. "The file could not be found for a number of reasons such as the file being moved or deleted." :(
  6. I don't have a link, but the gist of the story, from the Brighton Argus, Is below:

    'Police wrong to class peace protester, 83, as terror suspect'

    'An 83-year-old peace protester who was stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act for wearing an anti-Blair t-shirt has had his complaint against police upheld.

    John Catt made headlines at Brighton's Labour Party Conference in 2005 when he was searched on his way to campaign for the release of Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Deghayes, carrying a sketch pad and felt tip pens.

    The incident followed the ejection of Walter Wolfgang, another octogenarian, from the party conference for shouting “nonsense” during Jack Straw’s speech on Iraq.

    Three years on, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has upheld Mr Catt's complaint that Sussex Police acted unlawfully by using the Terrorism Act to stop him.

    Responding to the ruling the force said it would now review its stop and search training. It is understood that no disciplinary action will be taken against the ofifcer involved in the search.

    Mr Catt, from Withdean, said: "Although I am by and large satisfied with the IPCC’s ruling, I am left in no doubt that Sussex Police will continue to misuse the Terrorism Act against law abiding citizens engaged in legitimate peaceful protest at the next Labour Party Conference in Brighton."

    He added that he believed that the officer responsible should face disciplinary action and that no-one from the police had apologised to him.

    Mr Catt, who was 80 at the time, was wearing a t-shirt bearing the slogan “Bush, Blair, Sharon to be tried for war crimes, torture and human rights abuse, the leaders of rogue states”.

    On the reverse it read: “Guantanamo Bay torture, support the hunger strikers, save Omar and all the others, contact your PM now."

    He was also carrying a sketchpad and artists’ materials in a carrier bag.

    Police records showed the purpose of the stop and search was "terrorism" and "grounds for intervention" were "carrying placard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info (sic)".

    Mr Catt said he was threatened with arrest if he failed to comply with the stop and search request. Property found on the suspect amounted to "board and pens", the records showed.

    In a statement the officer involved said he was concerned that Mr. Catt could be involved in "disorderly conduct and anti Conference behaviour."

    Mr. Catt made a formal complaint against Sussex Police for exceeding their powers under the Act and infringing his civil liberties. The IPCC was satisfied that “the stop and search was conducted more for a public order policing purpose rather than a purpose relating to terrorism. Using the stop and search powers in the Terrorism Act for public order purposes is not consistent with the intentions of the Act and in contravention of Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice".

    It recommended Sussex Police should "ensure that clear advice is provided to all officers about the limitations on this stop search power; in particular, the power can only be used for stop and searches relating to terrorism and only where the purpose is to search for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism."

    The ruling added that the officer who carried the stop/search "demonstrated a poor understanding of the limitations on the stop/search under the Terrorism Act which has in turn led him to undertake an unlawful stop and search".

    However the IPCC said there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Mr. Catt was specifically targeted as a means of harassment or intimidation.

    A Sussex Police spokesman said: "We have received the findings of the IPCC and they will be acted upon. In particular, this guidance will be taken into account in the briefing of officers for next year's Labour Party Conference in Brighton." '
  7. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=282583&in_page_id=34
    police use terror laws on under age drinkers
    talk about sledge hammer to crack a nut.
    The Act was brought out for terrorism but it suits us very nicely,' said Insp Neil Mutch of South Yorkshire Police.

    Inspector Mutch is hopefully a misquoted idiot

    otherwise its time to get out the V for vendetta masks :x cause we are all in for a kicking
  8. Once upon a time in Europe there was a War actually it was rather a large War,
    blah blah blah blah ............... and the allies won the war and everyone lived happily ever after...
    morral of the story.... they won the war because they were weak on laws against possible nazi sympathisers or spies?or because every time someone talked losely about secrets they let them go??? nah i dont think so.... they bloody disapeared and spent long stretches behind bars....i'm sorry if this pisses on your chips but the only way to beat arseholism is to treat them accordingly ... i.e a so called british muslim is found with 3 other men in peshwar with a fake passport and or no explaination other than oh i was erm just backpacking through packistan. Bullshit break the hands of anyone who tries to limit our freedom or hurt our families.
    Anyone who disagrees is obviously one of those do gooders ( human rights fcukers)
    If this country gets any softer on this s#it then we may aswell give up now.
    oh and while were at it gag the stupid destructive media from spreading negativity about our wonderful armed forces the cnuts.
  9. I noticed this kind of stop and search at the clmate camp in Sipton last year. I was working as a legal advisor for supporters when a man was stopped walking down the street on his own, not part of the protest. The man was refusing to give his name and address to the police, the act under which they had stopped him did not make it compulsory for him to do so. When I then pointed this out to the 5 policemen that had stopped the man, they changed their mind and decided that it was now the Terrorism Act that he had been stopped under and he was now compelled to give them the information they wanted.

    All of this is an abuse of police powers, yet what can be done about it? They illegally get your name and address from you (at one point when I myself was stopped and searched they told me it was compulsory for me to have my photo taken, luckily I knew it wasn't so didn't wait for the FIT to arrive. What about all the people that don't know the law on this??) but how do you prove they did this? Unless people have the time to complain to the IPCC and follow it up, the police will continue to get away with it.

    Can't wait until next year when I leave this country. I have been back 2 months and things are getting worse in this police state.
  10. A bit scary that sentence.. "It suits us very much". Whilst I would gladly stamp on scrotal drinkers and their feckless breeders, I would not pretend it was a counter-terrorism move. And if Old Bill finds a handy "legal Leatherman" tool, he is likely to use it often and favour it. Welcome to the gulag.
  11. Eh?
  12. WHY would anyone refuse to give info that would help them kind of NOT be put in a position of being a suspect???

    Sounds like they are either being awkward or there is something more sinister going on hence in my view and in the coppers shoes (( fck this your going down the alternative route))
  13. Well basically chuffit fck em if they come under the anti terrorist laws then they must be a bad egg so buh bye to the sock kuckers.
    I will lose zero sleep over this countries trash, as a nation we deserve to live without louty arrseholes.
  14. So tell me again how under-age drinking qualifies kids for arrest under the anti-terrorism laws?
  15. No prob dealing with under age drinkers not sure it needs court time waiting at the cop shop for mum or dad to get you should be enough unless its the 2nd time.
    pull2eject would probably be in favor of us all having gps trackers and cctv in our homes just in case :roll:
    I wouldn't object to the old bill asking for my ID. though if they set up a VCP at the end of my road with no good reason I would.
    Bit of bloodymindness is a good thing.
    Its Policing with consent its our law not yours yes getting everybody to ask police permission before we leave are house would cut crime but its unreasonable.

    so is using anti terror law for minor stuff.
    underage drinker not a terrorist hippy not a terrorist. walking home from pub middle of the night yes you can stop me if theres been a break in thats reasonable. BUT SAYING ITS AN ANTI TERROR stop is taking the piss :twisted: