Posted May 27, 200718 yr Stop and quiz powers considered Police would stop and question rather than stop and search The government is considering giving police officers across the UK "stop and question" powers under new anti-terror laws, says the Home Office. The proposal, allowing police to ask people about their identity and movement, is among measures being considered by Home Secretary John Reid. The measure is so far used only in Northern Ireland. Police elsewhere have to have "reasonable suspicion" a crime has been committed before they can stop people. Anyone who refuses to co-operate could be charged with obstructing the police and fined up to £5,000, according to the Sunday Times. Critics including civil liberties campaigners, Muslim groups, opposition parties and Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain expressed their concerns about the effectiveness of the proposals. Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary, warned that Britain must take care that its anti-terror legislation does not alienate whole communities, such as Muslims. The deputy Labour leadership contender told BBC1's Sunday AM programme: "We've got to be very careful that we don't create the domestic equivalent of Guantanamo Bay, which was an international abuse of human rights, acted as a recruiting sergeant for dissidents and alienated Muslims and many other people across the world." He would wait to see the details of the proposals but insisted they should be clear in balancing civil liberties with protecting people's security. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, told the same programme that the Conservatives would consider the proposals on merit. "If they are measures that are truly necessary to combat terrorism...then we will support them but these things should be done on a basis of trying to get some consensus across political parties," said Mr Hague. The ex-Tory leader warned that the proposals must be "consistent with popular consent" and not "alienate the people we need in the fight against terrorism". Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg accused the government of seeking a "police state" and warned it would only increase radicalism. Ahmed Versi, editor of Muslim News, a newspaper for British Muslims, warned that extending police powers would be "counter-productive" to improving relations with Muslims and could drive some towards extremists. Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was essential to separate security issues from the "politics of fear" and warned that ethnic minorities, especially Muslims, were already more likely to be stopped by police. A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We are considering a range of measures for the Bill and 'stop and question' is one of them." When it emerged on Thursday that three men suspected of wanting to kill UK troops had disappeared, Mr Reid criticised his political opponents and judges for stopping the use of tougher measures against terror suspects. He promised new anti-terror measures and told MPs that the government could consider suspending some parts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) so it can impose tougher control orders. Should police have more powers? The Home Office would not comment on suggestions the new laws were to be rushed through before Tony Blair steps down as prime minister on 27 June. Greater powers to remove vehicles and paperwork for inspection are also believed to be part of the measures. Writing separately in the Sunday Times, Mr Blair said the disappearance of the three suspects under control orders was a symptom of a society which put civil liberties before fighting terror. The prime minister described this as "misguided and wrong" and said prioritising a terror suspect's right to traditional civil liberties was "a dangerous misjudgement". He said: "If a foreign national comes here, and may be at risk in his own country, we should treat him well. But if he then abuses our hospitality and threatens us, I feel he should take his chance back in his own home country." The Sunday Times claims police minister Tony McNulty told Mr Blair the new "stop and question" measures would be "very useful UK wide". It quoted a letter sent to the prime minister which said the measures would be "a less intrusive power" than stop and search, which are widely seen as unpopular with the public. Campaign group Liberty also criticised the proposals and said the police should not have powers to question people "willy-nilly". Director Shami Chakrabarti said: "This looks like political machismo, a legacy moment. "Stopping and questioning anyone you like will backfire because people will be being criminalised." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yet another example of this Govt's cynical control freakery.... And, yet again, they use "terrorism" as the excuse... Well, fukk me, we had Christ knows how many terrorist bombs go off in the 70s and 80s, the Police had these powers of "stop and search" (the notorious "suss laws") and who did they target mainly...? Irish Catholics...? Nope, they targeted young black males.... Expect a similar abuse of power if this sh!te goes through... We had riots in Brixton, Toxteth and Handsworth in the early 80s mainly due to these very things, the "suss laws" were a mistake then, and they are a mistake now... They are not a credible crime-fighting tool, they are in fact going to create even more sh!t in our society... Because, let's face it, we all know who are gonna be the main targets of this - Muslims, young black males and anyone else who isn't white.... These laws are RACIST.... And frankly, I don't think they're even all that effective... Riots were caused because of the "suss laws" back in the early 80s, it WILL happen again, because people just wont stand for it. And the £5000 quid fine for non-compliance is absolutely outrageous.... <_< <_< The police have plenty of powers, they hardly even use the ones they DO have effectively enough, perhaps if they got their arses out of their fukkin' cars and out of their paperwork and actually POUNDED A BEAT LIKE THEY USED TO, then that would be deterrent enough.... This is not necessary
May 27, 200718 yr Oh I think I can even top that Scott The government after failing to bring in unlimited detention without trial has now created plans to detain people they suspect as terrorists under the mental health act :manson: so now terrorist suspects are going to be detained under the mental health act to bypass human rights laws and parliament and police procedure :manson: Edited May 27, 200718 yr by Vic Vega
May 27, 200718 yr Author Oh I think I can even top that Scott The government after failing to bring in unlimited detention without trial has now created plans to detain people they suspect as terrorists under the mental health :manson: so now terrorist suspects are going to be detained under the mental health act to bypass human rights laws and parliament and police procedure :manson: :o :o :o That is totally outrageous.... Surely this is NOT what the mental health act was brought in for.... People seem to think that we don't need a Charter of Human Rights or a Constitution or Bill of Rights, well, when you hear about stuff like this, it's pretty damned obvious that we do need it.... Never mind "enemies of the state", I reckon the enemy IS the State.... The State is an enemy to every free-thinking person in this country, be they white, black, muslim or whatever.... <_<
May 27, 200718 yr :o :o :o That is totally outrageous.... Surely this is NOT what the mental health act was brought in for.... People seem to think that we don't need a Charter of Human Rights or a Constitution or Bill of Rights, well, when you hear about stuff like this, it's pretty damned obvious that we do need it.... Never mind "enemies of the state", I reckon the enemy IS the State.... The State is an enemy to every free-thinking person in this country, be they white, black, muslim or whatever.... <_< Yeah here are some of the extracts from the article : The Government has established a shadowy new national anti-terrorist unit to protect VIPs, with the power to detain suspects indefinitely using mental health laws The Government has established a shadowy new national anti-terrorist unit to protect VIPs, with the power to detain suspects indefinitely using mental health laws. The revelation is set to reignite the row over the Government's use of draconian measures to deal with terror suspects amid accusations they are abusing human rights. The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was quietly set up last year to identify individuals who pose a direct threat to VIPs including the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Royal Family. Using these powers, the unit can legally detain people for an indefinite period without trial, criminal charges or even evidence of a crime being committed and with very limited rights of appeal But the new unit uses the police to identify suspects - increasing fears the line is being blurred between criminal investigation and doctors' clinical decisions. Scotland Yard, which runs the shadowy unit, refuses to discuss how many suspects have been forcibly hospitalised by the team because of "patient confidentiality". But at least one terror suspect - allegedly linked to the 7/7 bomb plot and a suicide bombing in Israel - has already been held under the Mental Health Act. The existence of FTAC, part of the Metropolitan Police's specialist operations department which oversees anti-terrorist investigations and royal and diplomatic protection, slipped out in the fine print of a Home Office report. The report makes it clear FTAC is a counter-terrorism unit and says: "We aim to make the UK a harder target for terrorists by maintaining effective and efficient protective security for public figures." Human rights activists fear the team, whose existence has never been publicised, may be being used as a way to detain suspected terrorists without having to put evidence before the courts. It also comes amid a continuing row over proposed mental health legislation which will make it easier to 'section' someone deemed a threat to the public. Last night human rights group Liberty said the secret unit represented a new threat to civil liberties. Policy director Gareth Crossman said: "There is a grave danger of this being used to deal with people where there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution. "This blurs the line between medical decisions and police actions. If you are going to allow doctors to take people's liberty away, they have to be independent. That credibility is undermined when the doctors are part of the same team as the police. "This raises serious concerns. First that you have a unit that allows police investigation to lead directly to people being sectioned without any kind of criminal proceedings. "Secondly, it is being done under the umbrella of anti-terrorism at a time when the Government is looking at ways to detain terrorists without putting them on trial." Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: "The Government is trying to bring in a wider definition of mental disorder and is resisting exclusions which ensure that people cannot be treated as mentally disordered on the grounds of their cultural, political or religious beliefs. "When you hear they are also setting up something like this police unit, it raises questions about quite what their intentions are. "The use of mental health powers of detention should be confined to the purposes of treatment. But the Government wants to be able to detain someone who is mentally disordered even when the treatment would have no benefit. "Combined with the idea that someone could be classed as mentally ill on the grounds of their religious beliefs, it is a very worrying scenario." That part I bolded if true is the most sinister thing I have ever come across in politics <_< <_< considering someone mentally disordered on basis of cultural, political and religious beliefs is the sort of thing you would expect in Zimbabwe or old style Russia NOT this country :angry: Edited May 27, 200718 yr by Vic Vega
May 27, 200718 yr Author That part I bolded if true is the most sinister thing I have ever come across in politics <_< <_< considering someone mentally disordered on basis of cultural, political and religious beliefs is the sort of thing you would expect in Zimbabwe or old style Russia NOT this country :angry: This is really quite disturbing... Isn't this the sort of thing that the Chinese Govt is doing to justify its oppression of Falun Gong members...? And didn't they do something similar to justify their brutality towards the bhuddist monks in Tibet...? I'm no fan of religion, but to imply that followers of certain religions are somehow mentally ill smacks of sheer Fascism, or Stalinism..... I wonder to myself sometimes if this is the sort of country I really want to live in to be honest..... I've never been as totally ashamed of my country as I have been since the Iraq invasion of 2003 and all the sh!t that's followed it, critical..? Yes, but actually ashamed...? Never. But now..... <_<
May 27, 200718 yr it shouldnt bother any law abiding citizen... it isnt the 70's, the police cant beat up suspects easily now. with knife crime, drug crime and terrorism on the rise then these measures should be a good thing. the safety of innocent people should come first, and if it prevents 1 atrocity then its worth it!
May 27, 200718 yr Author it shouldnt bother any law abiding citizen... it isnt the 70's, the police cant beat up suspects easily now. with knife crime, drug crime and terrorism on the rise then these measures should be a good thing. the safety of innocent people should come first, and if it prevents 1 atrocity then its worth it! You're right, it AINT the 70s, which is why we shouldn't tolerate it.... I really get angry with the "it shouldn't bother any law abiding citizen arguement", bollocks it shouldn't.... It should bother the law-abiding citizens even MORE to have some pig stop them and interrogate them every other day in the street - "Where you going..?", "Why are you going there?", "Who are you going to meet..?", "What's in the rucksack?"... FUKK OFF!!!!! I aint putting up with that sh!t.... That aint gonna prevent atrocities mate (quite the opposite, it will cause RIOTS like the original Suss Laws did), what WILL prevent atrocities is the so-called "intelligence services" NOT dropping the bag like they did on July 7th, and keeping a closer bloody eye on people who actually HAVE been identified as a significant threat (instead of bullsh!tting us that these guys were "clean-skins".... <_< ), better surveillance, more trained officers who can actually recognise what is and isn't a good lead... Even Thatcher never saw the need for this sort of thing in mainland UK during the IRA bombing campaign, so I don't believe that it's necessary now....
May 28, 200718 yr it bothers me that we live in a society where safety checks are now necessary, it aint just about terrorism, but knife crime too. if theres a criminal problem then the police need to be able to tackle it.
May 28, 200718 yr it bothers me that we live in a society where safety checks are now necessary, it aint just about terrorism, but knife crime too. if theres a criminal problem then the police need to be able to tackle it. It won't be white people being stopped Rob it will be blacks and asian looking people so given that the majority of knives in this country are carried by young whites stop and search will be as useful as a chocolate teapot and just lead to demonisation of blacks and asians by the police and set race relations back a generation Edited May 28, 200718 yr by Vic Vega
May 28, 200718 yr Author it bothers me that we live in a society where safety checks are now necessary, it aint just about terrorism, but knife crime too. That's a pretty laughable claim as well Rob... Knife crime has existed for decades, it's far from being a new phenomenon; in Glasgow, it's been part of the culture for many youngsters to carry knives since the days of the 60s street gangs (the "Tongs" and so on...). So, I'm rather unconvinced that all of a sudden the coppers need these new powers to tackle that.... The facts are, the police carried out something like 20-odd thousand "stop and searches" in the past few years, only 27 of which resulted in any kind of prosecution, so that's, what, one in a thousand....? Hardly an effective crime-prevention tool... And the facts are that you simply cannot trust the Police with something like this, they have proven time and time again they are institutionally racist, and they will target ethnic minorities more than anyone else... Yeah, they're better at PR now than they were in the 70s, but fundamentally I don't believe their underlying attitudes are any different....
May 28, 200718 yr so.... lets have gangs of young men walking around 'tooled up' unchecked then <_< But what good will this measure do to help get gangs of young white men who are the main knife carriers off the street ? you know and I know that 99% of those being stopped by the police will be young blacks and young asians by police carrying out their own racial agendas
May 28, 200718 yr Author so.... lets have gangs of young men walking around 'tooled up' unchecked then <_< Come on dude, you know and I know the Police wont be predominately stopping and searching young white guys in Partick, Parkhead or Wester Hailes; it'll be young black guys in Brixton, Peckham or Hackney... And I'm sorry, you've yet to convince me just why I, as a tax-paying, law-abiding free citizen of this country should have to tolerate Police State tactics.... Merely saying "it's for our own good" just don't cut it with me... I seem to remember the Tories saying that about Clause 28 and the Criminal Justice Act, not to mention Nu Labor and its laws preventing freedom of protest in PUBLIC AREAS such as Parliament Square and the Cenotaph..... As Ben Franklin once said "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" And here's one from one of our greatest Parliamentarians - William Pitt, the Younger - “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” That's exactly what this Govt wants us to be - Slaves of the State..... <_< <_< Why oh why dont we have great leaders like Pitt or William Wilberforce in this country any more....? I doubt either of them would get elected these days, they'd be seen as a bit "too leftie" for the likes of The Scum....
May 29, 200718 yr but this is 2007.... not 1807!. again i dont agree with the notion 'dont upset the ethnics'... as if blacks and asians ARNT criminals!... some are, some whites are, and as knife crime, drugs and terrorism is now rife then the authorities need to have the powers to stop these crimes. id sooner the police do that then go pick on easy targets like motorists... <_<
May 29, 200718 yr Author but this is 2007.... not 1807!. again i dont agree with the notion 'dont upset the ethnics'... as if blacks and asians ARNT criminals!... some are, some whites are, and as knife crime, drugs and terrorism is now rife then the authorities need to have the powers to stop these crimes. id sooner the police do that then go pick on easy targets like motorists... <_< So, does that mean just because these guys said that then those principles should not still stand or not still be something which we should actually value...?? For someone who goes on about heritage and history and "protecting our culture", you sure are a bit blase about defending the democratic principles and freedoms which OUR forefathers actually fought for tooth and nail mate.... The Chartists, Suffragettes, Labour Movement, The Abolishionists... Any of this mean anything to anyone....? And, you still dont see the facts do you....? It WILL be blacks and Asians targeted mainly by this, as opposed to whites, totally disproportionately.... This is WRONG, the whole idea of stop and seach is WRONG and a total anathema to a free, democratic society.... Maybe YOU want to live in some Fascist or Communist Police State, I for one, DO NOT!!!!!! I am more than willing to accept the very slight chance of an increase in criminality or a terrorist attack (and, let's face it, it is "slight" no matter what the Govt or the shrieking Tabloids say...) as opposed to tolerating having my every action interrogated by the authorities... Or maybe you're just happy to have all your rights taken away, to be branded a criminal merely for walking down your street, to be biometrically IDed, scanned, catalogued, put on some DNA database.... More fool you then mate... Bottom line, the Police operate in this country by PUBLIC CONSENT, they do NOT automatically have the right to demand outrageous powers which take away liberty from ordinary citizens (well, mind you, not that it really IS the police that are asking for these powers anyway, it's more the Govt.....). You risk taking away the very nature of "policing by consent" once you walk down this very dangerous path.... Don't you see that this is actually what the terrorists want..? They want to destroy our way of life.... Well, guess what, freedom and liberty and the right to walk down the street without some copper hassling us, the right to protest on public land as and when we want to, IS our way of life... Those rights are being taken away... The terrorists have won already, Nu Labor is playing directly into their hands..... By the way, you wanna know why the Police "pick on" motorists...? The Govt-enforced quotas mate...... Take those away, and I guarantee much of the harrassment of motorists would actually tail off dramatically.....
May 29, 200718 yr i dont like it any more then you do scott.... but lawlessness has to be tackled, if these measures help curb gun/knife/drugs offenses then why not! i accept itll do little to deter terrorists, but violence in our society is more probable then terrorism. again i dont believe that in this day and age the police will pick on ethnic minority groups at a disproportionate rate... its far more difficult nowdays for the police to be openly racist.
Create an account or sign in to comment