Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by vvaannmmaann, Jul 8, 2010.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Seems Theresa is making her presence felt.
Anti-terrorism stop and search powers dropped - Telegraph
Score one for commen sense.
Section 44 was too often used by the plod as a means of getting back at members of the public who did not 'respect their authoritah'
Like the stupid copper at the Gurkha Demo who came onto us like the Gestapo, thick tw@t
Some of the reasons given for turning people over under this act were, er, creative, to say the least.
It appears from the news reports that the Home Secretary has ordered the 'abandonment' of section 44. Unfortunately, that is an instruction she has no authority to give since to do so would, In the words of Lord Templeman in M v Home Office  3 All ER 527 "..establish the proposition that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the Civil War.". It will be for Parliament to expressly or impliedly repeal section 44 which, unless and until that happens, the Police are under a duty to apply which they will no doubt continue to do so as the provision was intended to be used - as a means of gathering low-level intelligence in addition to its deterrent effect.
Reasonable suspicion will now replace the absence of reasonable suspicion upon which almost nothing will turn since it is an extremely low threshold. Reasonable suspicion is not an objective test of reasonableness. It is a subjective test. In other words, the question is not: "Would a reasonable person regard the grounds relied upon as reasonable"? Rather, it is "Did that particular officer believe that the grounds relied upon were reasonable in all the circumstances". The requirement of 'reasonable suspicion' is simply the imposition of an objective standard which may be subjectively satisfied. In other words, the loss of section 44 will not make a great deal of practical difference.
I beg to differ me ole mucker. S44 powers are authorised for a set period in a set locality (normally a force area) by the Home sec. All she has to do is stop authorising its use. It would be a grave mistake in my view. It is used to make the intelligence gathering environment as unpermissive as possible for terrorists (if I go on a dummy run on the tube will the BTP be there doing random stops) and IMHO what upsets the public is not so much opening their bag as the rigmarole of giving details that are the checked for the stop slip we have to issue.
What upsets the public is cops strutting about using S44 as a catchall excuse for ****ing people about whenever they feel like it.
On a personal level I couldn't give a stuff if I am allowed to search people or not ... it would make no difference to my pay packet what so ever ........ it would make the public less safe but hey.... they pay the salary bills.
It may not make a great deal of practical difference. However as Trotsky points out the problem is not Section 44 per se. It is the perception of the public as they provide all those details for the "stop" slip. Not even in Northern Ireland did "stop and search" routine procedures reach this level of control. For thirty years ordinary people of all groups and ages automatically accepted searches of their persons and belongings with little dissention. It became so commonplace that people from NI when on visits to other countries would automatically present their bags to bemused shop staff for inspection.
There are ample powers without Section 44, and as Trotsky says, it can be introduced where felt necessary. And yes the Home Secretary can make an order - back to the law books (Iolis!)
What actually annoys me is not the Stop and Search. It is the plastic plod and a few misinformed MPS using Sect 44 (and 43) for Stop and Account, which the section(s) does not provide for.
Mate, there is no power for stop and account, beyond the common law understanding that we can talk to whom we want and there is a civil duty to assist police, so don't understand why anyone would use S44 unless they were going to search you.
I think that dropping this law is completely stupid. How are the police going to detect terror suspects or people drug trafficing? Do they have to wait on a warrent and by that time the person has escaped or sold the drugs?
You are clearly retarded, S44 is not the sole source of Int. It was however a way to irritate and annoy the general public whilst generating adverse publicity for the Police. There are better ways to get information.
They should have reasonable suspicion before searching Terror Suspects, nothing stopping that, and as for drug trafficing there are powers to stop and search them too, but they dont need to use Section44 to carry out those stops. Provision has always been available for both these circumstances.
Separate names with a comma.