UK Police cause us to be more vulnerable to terrorism

#1
When will the Modern day Gestapo ever learn? Perhaps if they had used this power as intended in would still be there for them to use.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/article6984942.ece


Court strikes down anti-terror stop-and-search powers
A key element of the Government’s anti-terror laws was declared illegal today because it breaches human rights.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that sweeping powers allowing police to stop and search people without having grounds of suspecting their involvement in terrorism are illegal.
Judges at the court in Strasbourg made their unanimous decision in a case involving two people stopped near an arms fair in east London in 2003.
They ruled that Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton’s right to respect for a private and family life had been violated when they were stopped and searched under Section 44 of the Terrorism 2000 Act.
 
#2
So the Police get a Power to search people without suspicion,

They searched people without suspicion,

The Courts rule this is wrong,

You say, if they hadn't searched people without suspicion then they would still have the power to search people without suspicion?

:?
 
#4
Bravo_Zulu said:
Quite why we've allowed a faceless European court to pass judgement on the laws of this country signed by HM the Queen I can't fathom...
And that is the true crux of the matter.
 
#5
Bravo_Zulu said:
Quite why we've allowed a faceless European court to pass judgement on the laws of this country signed by HM the Queen I can't fathom...
Because lawful rule of our land was handed over to The Eurotrash without asking.
 
#6
Closet_Jibber said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
Quite why we've allowed a faceless European court to pass judgement on the laws of this country signed by HM the Queen I can't fathom...
Because lawful rule of our land was handed over to The Eurotrash without asking.
Indeed,and were now totally up le creak without le paddle !
 
#7
Perhaps targeting those who might actually match profiles in regards to appearance or activity might have yielded better results and less complaints? Like most new powers recently, it seems to have been over used in situations unrelated to their original purpose.

I hope it's the town councils and their 'waste surveillance' next...

CW

Quis Separabit
Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
 
#8
CaptainWillard said:
Perhaps targeting those who might actually match profiles in regards to appearance or activity might have yielded better results and less complaints? Like most new powers recently, it seems to have been over used in situations unrelated to their original purpose.

I hope it's the town councils and their 'waste surveillance' next...

CW

Quis Separabit
Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
In some areas.... :roll:
 
#9
MittMayo said:
So the Police get a Power to search people without suspicion,

They searched people without suspicion,

The Courts rule this is wrong,

You say, if they hadn't searched people without suspicion then they would still have the power to search people without suspicion?

:?
It is the use of the power completly out of context and far too frequently. My point was that if it had been used for the purpose intended, ie in specific areas for limited periods of time this would have been less likely to have gone to court in the way it did.

In the case of the Met they used the 'entire Metropolitan Police area forever'.
 
#10
Western's link seems not to work, so here's one that does. I'd be interested to know how he came up with the thread title; presumably there's something in the missing Times online page that explains how temporarily inconveniencing a small number of people makes the country more vulnerable to terrorism...

Edited to add: will this judgement apply to S60 CJPO authorisations as well?
 
#11
Closet_Jibber said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
Quite why we've allowed a faceless European court to pass judgement on the laws of this country signed by HM the Queen I can't fathom...
Because lawful rule of our land was handed over to The Eurotrash without asking.
Agreed, though in this case they've actually got the right end of the stick. We have a right to walk down the street unhindered. Stop and search should not be used however and whenever the police see fit.
 
#12
It all went a bit down hill when we abolished the burning of witches IMO. Just think we could perhaps get a new *Fawkes* night but this time the catholics wont be so nervous.
 
#13
Bravo_Zulu said:
I'd be interested to know how he came up with the thread title; presumably there's something in the missing Times online page that explains how temporarily inconveniencing a small number of people makes the country more vulnerable to terrorism...
He's suggesting that by using the power inappropriately, they've managed to have it declared illegal and lost the use of it.

Personally, I don't think stop and search is something that should ever be carried out without a reason to suspect (except as a condition of entry).
 
#15
DeltaDog said:
Closet_Jibber said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
Quite why we've allowed a faceless European court to pass judgement on the laws of this country signed by HM the Queen I can't fathom...
Because lawful rule of our land was handed over to The Eurotrash without asking.
Agreed, though in this case they've actually got the right end of the stick. We have a right to walk down the street unhindered. Stop and search should not be used however and whenever the police see fit.
Your wrong. Stop and Search should. Anti terrorism powers shouldn't. If they weren't used as and when a Police Officer saw fit then the bloke with the knife on a night out, the car with a boot full of cannabis or the burglar with 5 stolen watches in his undercrackers would have just walked straigh passed the plod.

The problem with the use of these powers were as Western said. Blanket authority, instead of just leaving it up to the bobby out and about to justify why he wanted to search you. If you think these changes in legislation will change who gets searched you're sadly mistaken. They'll still get searched only under different legislation such as PACE, Drugs act, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act etc etc etc. If its anything like where I work they'll only get searched when they need it as the bobby will not be wanting to fill in the mandatory 2 bits of paperwork after the search.
 
#16
Bravo_Zulu said:
DeltaDog said:
...(except as a condition of entry).
Entry to what? :?
Potential targets. For example, I don't see a problem with searching everybody who boards the tube in the morning if there's a credible threat. If anyone is unhappy with it, they are free to take a bus instead.

I do think that searching a person, like searching a house, should be something which is taken seriously and carried out for a very good reason. It should never become the norm.
 
#17
DeltaDog said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
I'd be interested to know how he came up with the thread title; presumably there's something in the missing Times online page that explains how temporarily inconveniencing a small number of people makes the country more vulnerable to terrorism...
He's suggesting that by using the power inappropriately, they've managed to have it declared illegal and lost the use of it.

Personally, I don't think stop and search is something that should ever be carried out without a reason to suspect (except as a condition of entry).
Pretty much as DD explained. I thought it was a good power for combatting terrorism and it has now gone as the result of its misuse, abuse or whatever.

Working link http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6984942.ece
 
#18
Closet_Jibber said:
Your wrong. Stop and Search should. Anti terrorism powers shouldn't. If they weren't used as and when a Police Officer saw fit then the bloke with the knife on a night out, the car with a boot full of cannabis or the burglar with 5 stolen watches in his undercrackers would have just walked straigh passed the plod.

The problem with the use of these powers were as Western said. Blanket authority, instead of just leaving it up to the bobby out and about to justify why he wanted to search you. If you think these changes in legislation will change who gets searched you're sadly mistaken. They'll still get searched only under different legislation such as PACE, Drugs act, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act etc etc etc. If its anything like where I work they'll only get searched when they need it as the bobby will not be wanting to fill in the mandatory 2 bits of paperwork after the search.
I think we're in agreement. My point is the police shouldn't have the right to compulsorily stop and search somebody simply because they feel like it, and that's what this court case was about from what I can gather.

If the police reasonably suspect a person of having drugs on them, for whatever reason, then I have no problem with that person being stopped and searched.
 
#19
Search of persons

(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.
(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.

Power to stop and search

44 Authorisations

(1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
(4) An authorisation may be given—
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.
(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.
45 Exercise of power (1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)—
(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and
(b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.
(3) A constable exercising the power conferred by an authorisation may not require a person to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, an outer coat, a jacket or gloves.
(4) Where a constable proposes to search a person or vehicle by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) he may detain the person or vehicle for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out at or near the place where the person or vehicle is stopped.
(5) Where—
(a) a vehicle or pedestrian is stopped by virtue of section 44(1) or (2), and
(b) the driver of the vehicle or the pedestrian applies for a written statement that the vehicle was stopped, or that he was stopped, by virtue of section 44(1) or (2),
the written statement shall be provided.
(6) An application under subsection (5) must be made within the period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the vehicle or pedestrian was stopped.
46 Duration of authorisation (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.
47 Offences (1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) fails to stop a vehicle when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1);
(b) fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(2);
(c) wilfully obstructs a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2).
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(c) both.
 
#20
DeltaDog said:
Closet_Jibber said:
Your wrong. Stop and Search should. Anti terrorism powers shouldn't. If they weren't used as and when a Police Officer saw fit then the bloke with the knife on a night out, the car with a boot full of cannabis or the burglar with 5 stolen watches in his undercrackers would have just walked straigh passed the plod.

The problem with the use of these powers were as Western said. Blanket authority, instead of just leaving it up to the bobby out and about to justify why he wanted to search you. If you think these changes in legislation will change who gets searched you're sadly mistaken. They'll still get searched only under different legislation such as PACE, Drugs act, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act etc etc etc. If its anything like where I work they'll only get searched when they need it as the bobby will not be wanting to fill in the mandatory 2 bits of paperwork after the search.
I think we're in agreement. My point is the police shouldn't have the right to compulsorily stop and search somebody simply because they feel like it, and that's what this court case was about from what I can gather.

If the police reasonably suspect a person of having drugs on them, for whatever reason, then I have no problem with that person being stopped and searched.
I see. We are in agreement and I'm failing to read properly.

I blame that epic night shift I've just done! :wink:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top