Cable Forum - Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Anti terror laws ruled illegal.. (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33660301)

Mr Angry

12-01-2010 22:24

Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

From here.

Let the games commence.

Gary L

12-01-2010 22:34

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

That puts a spanner in the workings of a Police State.

martyh

12-01-2010 22:54

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

reading the article it would appear that a journalist and a peace protester felt that their human rights had been violated to such an extent they felt it nescesary to put everybody elses' life in danger by stopping random searches of suspect people

we can't have it both ways ,we have to sacrifice some freedome in the interests of catching terrorists

Derek

12-01-2010 23:01

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

"I am disappointed with the ECHR ruling in this case as we won on these challenges in the UK courts, including the House of Lords."

I'm sure that in the upcoming election no political party will try to make something of a foreign establishment overruling every British court thats been asked if these powers were lawful.

Damien

12-01-2010 23:23

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34943781)

The police being able to stop people without cause is too far. I don't want to give up my freedoms because of a few terrorists. A line needs to be drawn and we seem to have crossed it long go.

Derek

12-01-2010 23:25

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34943796)

The police being able to stop people without cause is too far.

It'll just revert back to the powers the Police have under the Ways and Means Act 2009

Of course then there will be an outcry that certain racial or religious groups are targeted more than others.

Stuart

12-01-2010 23:29

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

One thing I'd like to ask: How effective *are* these measures at preventing terrorism? I doubt terrorists would go to all the effort of sending out someone to photograph a potential target, when the chances are they could find out a lot about it from Google.

I personally don't think they are successful.

Damien

12-01-2010 23:30

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34943798)

It'll just revert back to the powers the Police have under the Ways and Means Act 2009

Of course then there will be an outcry that certain racial or religious groups are targeted more than others.

How is searching people at random any help anyway. Maybe for knife crime or something...

Maggy

12-01-2010 23:33

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Well what I'd actually like to know is how many terrorists have actually been arrested on random stop and search,charged and successfully prosecuted?

I mean just how does one pick out whom is a terrorist before they have committed a terrorist act except by surveillance and intelligence reporting?

After all surely a terrorist is going to be very aware of the possibility of stop and search at certain places and certain times and completely random stop and search is very unlikely to catch anyone with half a brain.So stop and search needs to be a lot more specific to be successful.

Is losing such weapon in the war on terrorism likely to make a lot of difference? :erm:

Gary L

12-01-2010 23:35

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34943798)

It'll just revert back to the powers the Police have under the Ways and Means Act 2009

Of course then there will be an outcry that certain racial or religious groups are targeted more than others.

We don't mind. we're too tired with it all to care anymore. :)

martyh

13-01-2010 00:04

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34943796)

The police being able to stop people without cause is too far. I don't want to give up my freedoms because of a few terrorists. A line needs to be drawn and we seem to have crossed it long go.

i see your point but they do have cause technically because they may be terrorists ,a bit of a poor argument i know but thats the one the police will use .i know there will be police who are over zealous in the implementation of the rule but i do still think it's needed and i daresay that during any random searches some knives or guns will have been found and removed from the street

Maggy

13-01-2010 00:18

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34943802)

We don't mind. we're too tired with it all to care anymore. :)

You may be but some of us are fed up with the lack of common sense displayed by this regi errr government and the adopting of what amounts to kneejerk reaction politics and laws with apparently little actual discussion or decision about how it all works and joins up with other laws.:(

Tarantella

13-01-2010 00:36

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34943812)

The point is that though we all know islamic terrorists are both terrorists and muslims and the government know islamic terrorists are both terrorists and muslims and the police know islamic terrorists are both terrorists and muslims, the police force cannot be seen to discriminate against a minority.

To counter this for every 10000 muslims they stop and search they must stop and search 150000 or so other people which is a criminal waste to time and taxpayers money.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/policing-and-crime/security-minister-hit-by-police-stop-and-search-$1343348.htm

martyh

13-01-2010 00:41

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

actually having done a bit of digging around it would seem that it's all the Mets fault because it's they that have been abusing the spirit of the law

the original law is intended as a temporary measure implemented (presumably in times of high alert)in a set area for a max of 28 days but the Met have been using it continuously as an alternative to the PACE laws which demand resonable suspicion for a search

Quote:

Whilst the s.44 authorisation is supposed to be temporary (up to 28 days), and limited to a defined area, the entire Metropolitan Police area had been covered, and the power had been continuously renewed (and continues to be). Many other police forces behave in the same way.

http://mtpt.wordpress.com/2010/01/12...op-and-search/

SMG	13-01-2010 01:00

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34943796)

I don't want to give up my freedoms because of a few terrorists.

Are you serious?

How many terrorists do you need to blow up one aircraft. :rolleyes:

beeman

13-01-2010 08:29

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 34943850)

Are you serious?

How many terrorists do you need to blow up one aircraft. :rolleyes:

Why woulnt he bee serious? i personally would much ruther die free then live in a totaliarian police state.

over the years MILLIONS of people have knowingly laid down their lives for the very freedoms we so freely give away today in the name of anti-terror.

Pierre

13-01-2010 08:41

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34943781)

we can't have it both ways ,we have to sacrifice some freedome in the interests of catching terrorists

So they would have you believe.......... the politics of fear.

---------- Post added at 07:39 ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34943796)

The police being able to stop people without cause is too far. I don't want to give up my freedoms because of a few terrorists. A line needs to be drawn and we seem to have crossed it long go.

agreed.

From the article

Quote:

In my view, section 44 is being used far too often on a random basis without any reasoning behind its use," he said

This is very true and the police (and local authorities) are like pigs in sh** with their new powers, stopping people taking photos of buildings etc

---------- Post added at 07:41 ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 34943850)

Are you serious?

How many terrorists do you need to blow up one aircraft. :rolleyes:

one, and he ballsed it up. Not to mention that all the west intelligence services knew about him, but just forgot to tell each other.

Angua

13-01-2010 08:48

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 34943850)

Are you serious?

How many terrorists do you need to blow up one aircraft. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, the classic fear factor.

Reality for the vast majority of us is nothing is likely to happen to us. Security at airports could still be circumnavigated and NO amount of stop & search will change this.

The terrorists are winning by default, as our government are allowing the fear of their action to take away the majorities rights with their knee jerk useless policies.

I am with beeman on this!

Osem	13-01-2010 09:51

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Andy Hayman's view:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6985504.ece

Mr Angry

13-01-2010 10:25

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

As someone who lived through the troubles™ here in Northern Ireland and who was one of many thousands who were subject to searches each and everytime they went to the city centre and any shop therein I can state, categorically, that stop and search was not a deterrent nor did it have any discernable affect on the activities of the then terror activists.

A terrified state, whether by fear or action, is no state to live in.

I think that this post from the Times site pretty much nails it.

"Andy Hayman, with the way the government, police, and other parts of the State are acting in the name of protecting us from terrorism, I simply do not want the State's protection from terrorists. It feels more like State protection is some kind of massive protection racket.

I feel much safer with the spontaneous response of the British people to the 7th July 2005 London bombings: We're Not Afraid. It leaves the terrorists having achieved nothing more than death and destruction - a failure of terrorism. It leaves them having failed to achieve their real ends with their terrorist means. That leaves their terrorism useless, a waste of their time, effort and lives. Why would they continue with futile methods?

Unfortunately, the way the State has responded has turned what was initially a terrorist failure (52 murdered, many more injured, but We're Not Afraid as the spontaneous response within days of the attack) into a much bigger success for the terrorists. It means they bombed us into doing real social (and economic) harm to ourselves.

Stop and search is just one example of how terrorists are succeeding in terrorising the State into harming our society.

Andy Hayman, you have been a part of the problem, a tool of terrorists. They have successfully used you to harm our society. And you're still supporting such social self-harm."

arcamalpha2004

13-01-2010 10:42

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 34943887)

And when they realise they cannot target aircraft I wonder where they will target with as much destruction, you guessed it the airports.
The intelligence had the information and failed to act on it.
I would sooner not have stop and search powers that can be used by some over zealous officers, if you think the police have none of these in their ranks you have been living in cloud cuckoo land.
I would sooner enjoy the very miniscule freedom we have in this country right now, which is being eaten away at day by day.

Tarantella

13-01-2010 12:06

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34943925)

And when they realise they cannot target aircraft I wonder where they will target with as much destruction, you guessed it the airports..

Hmm no, it will be other forms of transportation.

Earl of Bronze

13-01-2010 18:40

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34943781)

we can't have it both ways ,we have to sacrifice some freedome in the interests of catching terrorists

No we don't have to give up our freedom's in the interest of security and catching terrorists

As Benjamin Franklin once famously said....

Quote:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

nomadking

13-01-2010 18:57

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

So the carrying of a knife, gun, bomb and/or drugs etc with an intent to use, is an essential liberty?:rolleyes:

Hugh	13-01-2010 19:01

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

No, but the assumption that everyone's innocent until proven guilty is, along with due process and cause.:rolleyes:

nomadking

13-01-2010 19:14

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

So, no investigation of a crime can ever take place because everyone is assumed innocent? You couldn't even question somebody because that would assume that they could be guilty.
Is there no murderer until after somebody has been convicted of that murder?:rolleyes:

martyh

13-01-2010 19:24

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34944276)

it is a basic principle in law that you are innocent untill proven guilty and it's the investigation that proves innocence or guilt

on the subject of this thread my opinion has changed somewhat since my first post .I think the police have enough powers under the PACE laws for stop and search when the country isn't at high alert like now .For the metropolitan force to continually use the anti terror law in the way they have is wrong imo and shows a willingness to totaly ignore the spirit of a law that is only meant to be used on rare occasions and for terrorists not every tom dick or harry walking down the street

Mr Angry

13-01-2010 19:26

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34944276)

investigation of a crime

Is entirely different from "thinking" someone might commit a crime. Of course where a crime has been committed investigations should take place.

Earl of Bronze

13-01-2010 19:42

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34944262)

So the carrying of a knife, gun, bomb and/or drugs etc with an intent to use, is an essential liberty?:rolleyes:

Just because a small proportion of the population carries a blade, or an illegally held firearm, or distributes illegal drugs, does not mean *I* should be treated like a potential criminal. If the police ever decide to "give me a tug" under Nu-Liebours anti-freedom laws I shall refuse to comply. If that means I end up in the cells, so be it....

martyh

13-01-2010 19:47

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze (Post 34944295)

you're not going to start acting all weird on buses are you just to test that theory :D

danielf

13-01-2010 20:07

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34944298)

you're not going to start acting all weird on buses are you just to test that theory :D

I might be wrong here, but Police do have the right to stop and search someone, provided they have a reasonable suspicion a person has committed a crime or intends to commit a crime. Presumably they would need to name the reasons for their suspicion should something come to trial.

The problem with this law is that it allows them to search someone even without suspicion. The law is meant to apply to specific areas and specific times, but in practice is applied everywhere at all times. Which is wrong...

martyh

13-01-2010 20:12

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34944308)

thats what i said

Hugh	13-01-2010 20:54

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34944276)

You appear to be misunderstanding what I said - it is one of the basic tenets of UK law that guilt has to be proved, not innocence;

The only way this can be validated is by investigation of the crime, collation of evidence, and presentation of this evidence to CPS (to see if they agree there is enough evidence to support a prosecution), and then a trial to review and judge the evidence, at which point guilt or innocence is decided. Up till then, the accused are suspects, nothing more.

But I am sure you knew that.:rolleyes:

Nidge

14-01-2010 10:20

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Don't search them just shoot them, they can't complain then can they??

Pauls9

14-01-2010 10:57

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze (Post 34944295)

Our lad spent a year after graduating living in London and visiting towns and universities around the country selling magazine subscriptions. This often involved waiting for the rest of his team at a railway station before travelling. Since he is half south American, to an untrained eye he can look somewhat middle eastern, especially in the summer. He was stopped, questioned and searched on a number of occasions, all without the police finding any evidence, since there was none in the first place. Can you imagine the embarrassment in front of crowds of travellers? The one occasion he had had enough and started asking why they were doing this, he ended up in the cells, was strip searched, fined for not co-operating and now has this record against him. It says something for his sense of right and wrong that he didn't go down the path of "radicalisation".

Quote:

Don't search them just shoot them, they can't complain then can they??

Don't forget, "they" could easily be you and me, if we had a different skin colour.

Yes, stop and search and the terrorism act are there with good intentions, but the police do seem to overstep the limits too often.

Maggy

14-01-2010 14:52

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

I would still like to know just how many terrorists have been caught by stop and search?:erm:

Saaf_laandon_mo

14-01-2010 15:04

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nidge (Post 34944673)

Don't search them just shoot them, they can't complain then can they??

That's already happened - just as the Mendez family.

martyh

14-01-2010 15:18

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34944823)

I would still like to know just how many terrorists have been caught by stop and search?:erm:

none that i've heard of ,but that doesn't mean we don't need it at certain times like high alert but definately not all the time

Tarantella

14-01-2010 16:35

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34944823)

I would still like to know just how many terrorists have been caught by stop and search?:erm:

That would require more paperwork.

BBKing

14-01-2010 18:11

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek L

a foreign establishment

I've said it about a trillion times, but the ECHR is not a foreign establishment, it was set up by the British (specifically Sir Winston Churchill and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe*) to teach the rest of Europe basic lessons about how to avoid a police state. For some reason in 1945, with fascists in Spain and Portugal and Stalinists running the Eastern Block and threatening power in France, Italy and Greece this seemed like quite a pressing issue. The rule remains: if your government repeatedly gets caught by the court doing something it shouldn't, get a new government.

It's also nothing to do with the European Union, which it predates by some years - the EU mandates signing up to the ECHR as a condition of membership, but not the other way round - the Court involves far more countries, under the auspices of the Council of Europe.

* A Conservative Home Secretary, Nuremburg war crimes prosecutor and the man who sent Derek Bentley to the gallows. The girly wet liberal.

Derek

14-01-2010 20:12

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing (Post 34944970)

*SNIP*

No idea who Derek L is so I'll reply on his behalf. :)

The history of the court will not be of interest to the majority of people out there. They'll see law passed by the UK parliament being torn up by, to their minds, a foreign establishment, and I'm pretty sure in the next 3-4 months that will be dragged up by various political parties to score points.

danielf

14-01-2010 20:19

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34945065)

There appears to be a consensus on this board that the court, foreign or not, has reached the right conclusion though.

Chris

14-01-2010 20:22

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing (Post 34944970)

Quoted without snippage in the vain hope that somebody might actually read and take note of it. Although, sadly, Derek is probably right, Labour and Tory alike will most probably use it to score cheap political points in the months ahead.

It worries me that British laws are now routinely over-ruled by an institution that our grandparents set up in order to share what they considered to be British values to the rest of Europe.

Derek

14-01-2010 20:24

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34945071)

There appears to be a consensus on this board that the court, foreign or not, has reached the right conclusion though.

They probably have, however if the Government passed a law allowing small children to be used for target practise which was later ruled illegal a significant chunk of the population would be unhappy at being told by 'Europe' they can no longer do it.

martyh

14-01-2010 20:24

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34945071)

There appears to be a consensus on this board that the court, foreign or not, has reached the right conclusion though.

have the court said the law is illegal or the way it's being used ?

Tezcatlipoca

14-01-2010 21:11

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nidge (Post 34944673)

Don't search them just shoot them, they can't complain then can they??

Shoot who? The people who brought this legal action? (both stopped at random while on the way to attend a lawful & peaceful protest - one was a peace protester, the other was a journalist attending the protest to film it)

Do you think that Section 44 should be changed, so that instead of the police having the power to stop & search people at random without the need for any reasonable suspicion at all, they should instead have the power to "just shoot" random people without the need for any reasonable suspicion at all?

Perhaps this person who was stopped & searched under s.44 for that dastardly act of taking a photo of a Fish & Chip shop in Chatham High Street should simply have been "just shot"?

Perhaps all those other photographers, random innocent members of the public, and tourists, who have been stopped & searched under s.44, should simply have been "just shot"?

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

Ruling

Press Release

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34944823)

I would still like to know just how many terrorists have been caught by stop and search?:erm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ECHR ruling

84. In this connection the Court is struck by the statistical and other evidence showing the extent to which resort is had by police officers to the powers of stop and search under section 44 of the Act. The Ministry of Justice recorded a total of 33,177 searches in 2004/5, 44,545 in 2005/6, 37,000 in 2006/7 and 117,278 in 2007/8 (see paragraphs 44-46 above). In his Report into the operation of the Act in 2007, Lord Carlile noted that while arrests for other crimes had followed searches under section 44, none of the many thousands of searches had ever related to a terrorism offence; in his 2008 Report Lord Carlile noted that examples of poor and unnecessary use of section 44 abounded, there being evidence of cases where the person stopped was so obviously far from any known terrorism profile that, realistically, there was not the slightest possibility of him/her being a terrorist, and no other feature to justify the stop.

85. In the Court's view, there is a clear risk of arbitrariness in the grant of such a broad discretion to the police officer. While the present cases do not concern black applicants or those of Asian origin, the risks of the discriminatory use of the powers against such persons is a very real consideration, as the judgments of Lord Hope, Lord Scott and Lord Brown recognised. The available statistics show that black and Asian persons are disproportionately affected by the powers, although the Independent Reviewer has also noted, in his most recent report, that there has also been a practice of stopping and searching white people purely to produce greater racial balance in the statistics (see paragraphs 43-44 above). There is, furthermore, a risk that such a widely framed power could be misused against demonstrators and protestors in breach of Article 10 and/or 11 of the Convention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34945082)

have the court said the law is illegal or the way it's being used ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ECHR ruling

87. In conclusion, the Court considers that the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act are neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. They are not, therefore, â€œin accordance with the lawâ€ and it follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

martyh

14-01-2010 21:17

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

so what that means is that s.44 stop and searches are no longer allowed even in times of high alert ,so basically the met have shot themselves in the foot by abusing a power that could have helped them and saved lives

oh and thanks for the clarification Matt D

rogerdraig

14-01-2010 21:48

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

the ruling doesnt mean stop and search will have to stop it just means that they need to put in more measures to protect rights see

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...in=hudoc-pr-en

Quote
Whether the interference was â€œin accordance with the lawâ€ In the Court's view, the wide discretion conferred on the police under the 2000 Act, both in terms of the authorisation of the power to stop and search and its application in practice, had not been curbed by adequate legal safeguards so as to offer the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference.

unquote

so if they put in better safe guards then it could still be used dont see a huge problem with the judgement myself

martyh

14-01-2010 22:05

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogermevans (Post 34945162)

so it was ill thought out legislation in the first place ?

Maggy

14-01-2010 22:06

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

So the number of terrorists caught under a law aimed at finding and deterring terrorists remains at zero and no one in our government has twigged this fact.It takes an external court set up by this country to point this fact out and still this government fails to twig the fact that this law is failing to achieve it's objectives...

Sounds like a script for Yes Minister to me....another BBC gem.;)

martyh

14-01-2010 22:08

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34945174)

you just gave me a mental image of Sir Humphrey Appleby trying to justify it :D

rogerdraig

14-01-2010 22:12

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34945172)

so it was ill thought out legislation in the first place ?

just as they noticed when they used similar powers to arrest a MP

give them an inch and they take a mile comes to mind lol

danielf

14-01-2010 22:14

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34945132)

I don't think so. The government is planning to appeal to the 'grand chamber' and during the appeal process the ruling is ineffective, and stop and search powers remain available.

Found a bit in that great source of information. The British journal of Photography

Quote:

He adds: 'I am disappointed with the [European Court of Human Rights] ruling in this case as we won all other challenges in the UK courts, including at the House of Lords. We are considering the judgment and will seek to appeal.'

Later on Tuesday, the Home Office amended Hanson's statement adding that 'pending the outcome of this appeal, the police will continue to have these powers available to them.'

Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police has confirmed to BJP that it had not issued any new instructions to its officers, according to a spokeswoman.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has also confirmed in a generic statement released to the media that the powers will continue to be used. 'As a result of the government decision to seek to appeal the ruling and following legal advice, the use Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 remains in force in accordance with authorisations currently in place nationally,' says the ACPO's lead on stop and search Chief Constable Craig Mackey.

Derek

14-01-2010 22:15

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34945172)

so it was ill thought out legislation in the first place ?

Pretty much. For a government with so many lawyers in it some of their legislation has been very shoddily thought out.

Unless of course it was all a ploy to make money out of crap legislation... :erm: :D

The whole Section 44 legislation seemed pretty unnecessary to me, most cops who think someone needs searched will find a reason (within the law of course) to search that person and get a note of their details.

martyh

14-01-2010 22:21

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34945182)

thats what i thought PACE was for :shrug:

Tezcatlipoca

11-05-2010 00:45

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

"Stop and search photographer held again under terror laws"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Lewis @ The Grauniad

A photographer who prompted a debate over police powers last year when he was apprehended for taking photographs of a London church was subjected today to an almost identical stop and search under anti-terrorist powers while trying to photograph the capital's skyline.

Grant Smith, a renowned architectural photographer, was taking photographs at One Aldermanbury Square, near London Wall, when he was stopped by officers from City of London police.

He said they prevented him from using his camera to film the stop and search, and held his arms behind his back as they searched through his possessions.

It is the second time in six months that Smith has been stopped by City police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows officers to stop and search anyone without need for suspicion in designated areas. In December, the police stopped him from photographing the spire of Sir Christopher Wren's Christ Church. His treatment prompted a public debate over anti-terrorist powers, and led to several senior officers appearing to rein in the inappropriate use of the laws.

Today, in a repetition of the earlier stop and search, Smith said he was first approached by a security guard asserting he could not photograph a building. When he asserted his lawful right to continue taking images, police were called.

He said two uniformed officers detained him, one by grabbing his arms behind his back, and refused requests to record the stop and search on his camera. He added that they even refused to let him use a pen and paper to note down their details.

(snip)

Great :rolleyes:

the_neurotic_cat

11-05-2010 08:44

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

It doesn't surprise me that our laws are deemed illegal by the EU ... our laws are probably so badly written by the pillocks in parliament that a chimp with crayons would probably do a better job at formulating practical legislation.

Tezcatlipoca

17-05-2010 22:28

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

More on the City of London Police & s.44... :rolleyes:

City Police still using Terror Act to bother photographers

The City Of London Police War On Photography

Idiots :rolleyes:

I hope that the coalition does something about s.44 when it looks at New Labour's myriad of terrorism legislation.

Osem	17-05-2010 23:07

Re: Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D (Post 35023575)

More on the City of London Police & s.44... :rolleyes:

City Police still using Terror Act to bother photographers

The City Of London Police War On Photography

Idiots :rolleyes:

I hope that the coalition does something about s.44 when it looks at New Labour's myriad of terrorism legislation.

Why??? Little old men at Labour conferences, blokes protesting outside Westminster with placards and Japanese tourists taking pics of Big Ben and the London Eye are obvious security risks.... :rolleyes:

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:12.