News 6 year old searched using anti terror laws

[tierk]

Just read this article.

Six-year-old girl searched by police under terror laws | News

I can remember when they were discusssing bringing this part of the anti terror legislation in and everyone in the "know" was telling us that it would only be used in special circumstances and that there would be a lot of oversight and control over these new special powers.

I can also remember, distinctly, pretty much all the people that were /are against giving the Police even greater powers and that this would be open to abuse and that it would have a far greater effect on our civil liberties than was being made out.

As soon as it was passed into law it has been used and abused by the Police.

When the Terrorism Act 2000 was presented to parliament, it was argued that its measures were essential to meet the threat of international Islamic terrorism. Yet its powers are being used today against people who are protesting peacefully against the government. The very loose definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act leads to a real danger of Section 44 stop and search powers being used to suppress political dissent. Section 44 was used to search protestors outside the DSEi Arms Fair at the Excel Centre in Docklands in October 2003 and against anti-war protestors on their way to the Fairford Air Base earlier in 2003. It appears that stop and search was used on both these occasions for no other reason than to intimidate legitimate protestors. One protestor at the Fairford military base, for example, was reportedly ordered by police to strip down to his vest and wait in the cold for twenty minutes during a search at night when the temperature had fallen to minus four degrees.

Not exactly what it was supposed to be used for and certainly not effective either as far as catching terrorists....

In the year 2002/3, police in England and Wales stopped and searched an average of 60 people a day as suspected terrorists, the majority while driving. That amounted to 21,577 stops and searches in one year under Terrorism Act powers. Whereas 13 per cent of stops and searches under normal police powers resulted in an arrest, the arrest rate for stops and searches on suspicion of terrorism was just 1.7 per cent. And the overwhelming majority of these arrests had nothing to do with terrorism. Only eighteen arrests in connection with terrorism were made in that year as a result of the 21,577 stops and searches carried out. None of these arrests resulted in a conviction for terrorist offences.[7] In other words, although tens of thousands of people were stopped and searched under suspicion of terrorism, these searches did not lead to a single conviction. The figures recorded in the following year showed a similar pattern.[8] By 2004/5 when one hundred people were stopped each day, 455 arrests were made out of 35,776 searches, a rate of 1.2 per cent.[9]

As for it being regulated and used only in special cases....

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) stops could only be carried out by police if they had 'reasonable suspicion'. But in Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 new powers were introduced to allow stops and searches in order to prevent terrorism - no such suspicion was required. To regulate the use of such wide powers a special process of ministerial authorisation was set up to restrict such stops to a limited place and time where it was thought, on the basis of specific intelligence, necessary to prevent terrorism. And before police forces could use these powers, an authorising officer of Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) rank had to issue an order with the reasons for the authorisation. The order could last no longer than 28 days and the Secretary of State had to approve the authorisation within 48 hours.

However, in practice, the Metropolitan police has had a rolling authorisation across its whole district since February 2001. This has been justified on the grounds that the whole of London has been under permanent threat of terrorist attack over this time. And this fact only emerged by chance. It was only during a court hearing into the policing of protests at an arms fair in the Docklands in October 2003 that it emerged that the Section 44 powers had, in fact, been renewed every 28 days since the Act came into force in February 2001. Till then, the public had not even been told that these powers were in permanent effect.

All of the above quotes are taken from the following article

IRR: Racial profiling and anti-terror stop and search

Which pretty much covers everything that is wrong with this law.

Personally i think this entire legislation needs to be reviewed and large sections of it need to be removed from the statute books, as it is laws like this that are slowly eroding our civil liberties, via the back door. They have no place in a civilised country and they sure as hell doesnt deter terrorists from doing what they want to do.

Discuss.

 

[old.Tohtori]

A simple way to introduce a total police state with the ability to remove the freedoms from people, when so wanted.

Unver some lovely covers ofcourse.

Anyone who thought "it's good, it stops terrorist and that's it" was a bit silly to be honest.

 

[Bugz]

It's a bit of a shit news article that tells us nothing of the full circumstances.

Yes, it's definitely a new era in which police search children more often now but security check children at the airport all the time.

If it's an act of gross misconduct then sure, let the punishments fly but until more information is released, I don't want to judge.

 

[`mongoose]

Yeah I was going to post this yesterday but didn't because the details were very sketchy.

Apparently it was a 43 yr old man, 11 yr old Daughter and his neighbour's daughter who was 6 or 7 I believe.

What worries me is that yet again it's the same police force involved. The Met seems to be hit with scandal after scandal. It's been accused of institutionalised racism continually over the last decade and then we had the g20 policing debacle and these complaints here. This isn't the first time they've been accused of misusing the anti-terror laws and there's quite a few cases on the go against them.

I think there's meat to this story however as the Met complaints team have already called for this to be investigated by an independant inquiry planel so I suspect those officers involved are going to be hung out to dry.

I wish we had less of these sensationalist pieces and more facts. Why were they searched? On what grounds were they stopped? What was their guardian doing to attract the attention of the officers? There's a whole world of context here that we're not being given either through lazy reporting or lack of detail.

It's all very well to point the finger at the legislature but tbh it's not the legislature that's at fault here, it's the implementation. Yes it's open to abuse but all power is. The key is to find those who abuse it and get shot of them.

I suspect this is a case of power trip + not liking someone's attitude = abuse of legislature. If I am right in my suspicions I hope they get drummed out of the force or seriously rogered by the disciplinary panel because they've gone way out of line on this.

M

 

[Chilly]

Getting rid of that rolling authorisation and going to a much more select and restrictive authorisation zones (ie visiting dignitaries, buckingham palace on big days, no 10, etc etc).

 

[old.Tohtori]

11 yr old Daughter and his neighbour's daughter who was 6 or 7 I believe.

It's a conspiracy!

The kid was 11, the other kid was 6, 11/6 which if you turn around is 9/11!

 

[Scouse]

It's no fucking surprise. It's what the intelligent people have been saying all along.

Don't care if that's offensive to anyone, btw. There's a reason why there've been all the "snooping at Universities" stories in the press recently - because when a population starts to become ideologically alienated it's the thinkers that become that way first.

The laws being passed are quite obviously meant to be used against the population at large - because as capitalism progresses the biggest threat will come from people who reside here and are ideologically disenfranchised.

It's not rocket science.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's not rocket science.

What if the people get fed up with it, rebel with RPGs and the rich escape to the moon?

 

[Wij]

The laws being passed are quite obviously meant to be used against the population at large - because as capitalism progresses the biggest threat will come from people who reside here and are ideologically disenfranchised.

I don't really think 'Capitalism' is the point here. Communist regimes had a pretty poor record on shutting up dissenting voices. The point is where a government thinks it has a right to rule despite the opposition of the people because it thinks it knows best. New Labour is guilty of this very much like the old communist states.

 

[tierk]

Bugz i think you are missing the point, it is irrelevant the circumstances of the search in this case. The legislation was only supposed to be used in cases that they had intelligence reports on a serious and viable threat and not in the way it has been used ever since its inception.
Examples:

BBC NEWS | UK | Police 'misuse' anti-terror laws

Police stop and search 100 people a day under new anti-terror laws - Crime, UK - The Independent

There were also supposed to be serious controls and guidelines to be followed before any use of this law was actually sanctioned. I cant imagine that this has been followed in any serious way as the numbers of people involved and the off hand manner in which people have been stopped using this law.

I had first hand experience of this shitty law after 7/7. Eleven stop and searches in less then 2 months. There was certainly no controls or guidelines followed prior to me being stopped and searched, it was done in a totally arbitary manner, which i suspect is the case with 99% of the stop and searches that occur daily in the UK.

If it was such a great tool for stopping terrorists then why on earth didnt the 7/7 bombers get stopped?

If a terrorist wants to commit an act of violence on innocent civilians, it is almost impossible to stop it using this legislation. The same applies to that other idiotic fiasco, National ID cards, as if an ID card will stop them. I mean if they know how to make a bomb you would think they would be able to get a ID card sorted out?

These are just further trips down the road of police state, 1984 like and they are used as an excuse to intimidate the general public, while they go about their everyday lives.

 

[Scouse]

I don't really think 'Capitalism' is the point here. Communist regimes had a pretty poor record on shutting up dissenting voices. The point is where a government thinks it has a right to rule despite the opposition of the people because it thinks it knows best. New Labour is guilty of this very much like the old communist states.

You could substitute my sentance with <insert regime here>, but the point I made is still more than valid. Dissent from within is a huge problem for capitalism in particular as the inequalities of wealth give rise to compound problems.

And quite rightly imho

 

[Wij]

Obviously much more than the repression and squalor of communist regimes.

(or the downright made-up-ness of other alternatives you might mention )

 

[tierk]

You could substitute my sentance with <insert regime here>, but the point I made is still more than valid. Dissent from within is a huge problem for capitalism in particular as the inequalities of wealth give rise to compound problems.

And quite rightly imho

TBH i cannot say 100% for sure that it is being implemented for the uses that you are suggesting but it is difficult to see it being used for anything else, as it certainly is not an effective way to deal with terrorism.

One thing is for certain though, we have been heading down this path for a lot longer then people realise, certainly before the 2001 which everyone assumes is the start of this trend. It has been a slow steady progression of steps that have led us to where we are today.

The first time the anti terror laws were passed in 1974 there where provisions in it that meant that it had to be renewed annually i.e. it was supposed to be a temporary measure. However by the time it had been renewed in 1989 this changed to become ongoing unless revoked, which will never happen.

It will be same with the monthly need for the the current legislation to be renewed on a monthly basis, once people get used to it being there and stopped and searched regularly enough it will become permanent.

 

[tierk]

Obviously much more than the repression and squalor of communist regimes.

(or the downright made-up-ness of other alternatives you might mention )

Please explain what communist regimes have anything to do with this discussion or am i missing something here?

 

[Scouse]

Wij is making the assertion that terrorism was a problem under Communist regimes as well as under Capitalist regimes.

Terrorism under Communist regimes happens for very different reasons than under Capitalist regimes tho.

 

[tierk]

Wij is making the assertion that terrorism was a problem under Communist regimes as well as under Capitalist regimes.

Terrorism under Communist regimes happens for very different reasons than under Capitalist regimes tho.

I am pretty sure that they also had issues with terrorism just like everyone else did but its difficult to make a comparsion between what was in effect a dictatorship and a democracy.

We shouldnt have laws in place that effectively make us the same as dictatorships.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Although this may stick in some craws, if the police have a legitimate reason to search, then children are fair game. Terrorists are widely known to have used children in various schemes and play on their innocent appearance.

That said, it hinges on whether the search was justified in the first place and this I think is where they have to investigate. If it emerges it was harassment rather than legitimate searching, then they should be put on a rocket into orbit without a spacesuit.

 

[rynnor]

Does anyone seriously believe that random stop n search powers catch terrorists??

I mean really - what are the odds - they must be astronomical

To catch terrorists you need intelligence reports or a tip-off and once you have those you dont need random stop n search because you have reasonable suspicion so this is a pointless act as far as terrorism goes.

As to its application there are very good reasons why you shouldnt give the police random stop n search powers because they have repeatedly shown they will abuse them.

I think the Harry Potter actors case is an interesting example.

He took a picture of armed police on his phone - this is now illegal under the terrorism act as it can be construed as preparation for terrorism.

So they searched him, confiscated his camera, downloaded and went through all the pictures on his camera, found some pictures of weed he was growing and charged him for that

All because he took a picture of a policeman - I mean that's seriously out of proportion - we are f00ked!

 

[Shagrat]

The main point which really needs to looked at here is that it specifically states in Section 44 of the Terrorism Act that officers performing stop and search in areas designated under the Act to allow these searches have to be "uniformed" and the officers who accosted this man were plain clothed.

And searching children? If I was the man involved I would have both the coppers pulled up on kiddie fiddling charges.

I really worry about the country I live in sometimes, the sooner we can get rid of Labour and scumbags like Mandelson the better.

 

[tierk]

....the sooner we can get rid of Labour and scumbags like Mandelson the better.

Wont make a blind bit of difference, as they are all the same once in government.

 

[Scouse]

Although this may stick in some craws, if the police have a legitimate reason to search, then children are fair game. Terrorists are widely known to have used children in various schemes and play on their innocent appearance.

And that, in a couple of sentences, is why we should have just let Hitler have Britain.

We're just too damn stupid to know what to do with freedom

 

[Turamber]

One of the firms I subcontract too was visited by the police a couple of years ago, as they were investigating one of our clients. They produced a court order forcing the firm to give them the information they wanted.

As a matter of course we rang the Professional body that authorises our activities to see what protocol is in such a case. They asked us to scan it and e-mail it over to them to check. They then compared the judge's signature to a database of judges signatures to ensure it wasn't signed by police officer instead.

Apparently the Police are infamous for sidestepping the regulations and signing court orders themselves, which then get accepted on the nod! We were all shocked and disgusted ... needless to say I am not one little bit surprised that the anti-terrorism legislation has been misused, and I am sure ID cards would be too.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

And that, in a couple of sentences, is why we should have just let Hitler have Britain.

We're just too damn stupid to know what to do with freedom

Read and comprehend the whole post before knee jerking.

 

[cHodAX]

Comes to something when the police are so desperate for recruits that they employ Gary Glitter.

 

[Scouse]

Read and comprehend the whole post before knee jerking.

I read and comprehended it first time. Just went back and did the same. It's still an idiotic position and if you can't comprehend why that's not my fault