Stop and Search - illegal says the EHCR.

[Sid Squid]

Now many people might think that's OK, and you might too, the powers granted to the Police under the various recent pieces of 'Anti Terror' legislation haven't made many people happy, and have, it has been claimed, been widely abused. So we should be happy that they have been pronounced illegal, right?

Well, I'm not.

Not because the laws themselves have been decided wrong, (I believe they may be wrong, not always, but they are far from always correctly applied), but because we in our country didn't decide, the EHCR did that for us. It demonstates that we have lost the ability to govern and control our own laws. In fact there have been three court judgements here in Britain that sided with the government on this before the EHCR decided.

So, what do you think?

For your perusal and understanding; click here (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15278556), and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal).

[5hort5]

Not related to calipers so I don't give a ****

[zsv650]

who the hell is the ehcr.

[sunshine]

I disagree with there ruling stop and search policies should stay, public safety if someone is stops and searched and the police find arms/firearms/bombs there being carried for one reason to potentially cause harm to someone else. meaning keeping the law is the best thing to do.

[ArtyLady]

It is worrying that the ECHR (European court of human rights) has this power but on the other hand I think that stop and search power was being abused - so double edge sword really.

[ArtyLady]

I disagree with there ruling stop and search policies should stay, public safety if someone is stops and searched and the police find arms/firearms/bombs there being carried for one reason to potentially cause harm to someone else. meaning keeping the law is the best thing to do.

The problem is that people get stereo-typed on appearance which is very wrong.

[zsv650]

oh the eu may have bloody guessed in the word's of william wallace freeeeeedom.

[fraser01]

Just to point out that this is only aimed at anti terrorism laws, the normal stop and search powers under the police and criminal evidence act are unaffected...

[Filipe M.]

Everything about this situation is a double edged sword.

On the one hand, the stop and search powers. Abused, not always correctly applied, but the fact is they serve a purpose. It's just a shame anyone with a camera can be stopped on these grounds (even one of the DPReview staff has been stopped and searched under the terrorism act while reviewing a camera at their usual photo spot near London Bridge). Unfortunately common sense is failing us again.

As for the ECHR ruling and the loss of local government powers (and I say local as in nation), it's the same everywhere in Europe. Here in Portugal the European Courts are being looked at as the top of the food chain, who people appeal to when the "local" government / courts have failed them. Some actually go to the point of using them as a sort of blackmail, and it's not at all uncommon to hear stuff that after translation to popular language reads "if the government doesn't give us what we want, we will file a complaint with the European Courts who will slap the government back into shape."
Unfortunately, it does happen, and it takes power away from the local governments everytime the EU steps in and deauthorises them in front of their own people. So even though I actually consider it a good thing when you do have someone else to appeal to when the government has screwed up, the truth is, right or wrong, any government that is constantly being told off by the EU ultimately will lose the people's trust and won't be able to do its there to do in the first place.

[Ed]

Sid - I am entirely happy. Section 44 was an affront to civil liberties, a solution to a problem that did not exist. You only have to read the figures in the Guardian article - truly shocking.

The applicants in the ECHR had lost in the High Court, in the Court of Appeal, and in the House of Lords. So, under domestic law, section 44 was perfectly lawful. If it took the ECHR to tell the Government that section 44 was unlawful, that's fine by me. The grounds on which it did so were the absolute absence of any judicial or parliamentary scrutiny of the power, and the huge possibility of unrestricted abuse by the executive. And the figures speak for themselves. This Government signed us up to the European Convention on Human Rights - which, frankly, was a long time coming - now it has to live with the consequences.

Human rights is not the only area where we answer to Europe. There are a whole host of areas where we have lost the right to self-determination: for example, in consumer matters there are many Brussles directives that we have introduced into domestic law, we have no choice but to introduce them. I've occasionally mentioned the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 on here - they are a good thing and did a lot to bring our rather archaic consumer protection laws up to date. There are loads of others - financial services regulation, fishing quotas, Community Trade Marks, the list goes on and on. Is it a good thing? Depends, I suppose, if you see self-determination as an absolute.

[simesb]

I would rather the British courts found in favour of the public going about it's business in privacy and without fear of persecution. It's a shame that ECHR even had to rule on this.

I don't feel that there is enough unbiased information out there for me to come to a decision on whether membership of the European Community is a good thing (which I guess is behind the OP) so I shall have to sit on the fence. I don't think it's a bad thing, just not sure it's a good thing.

[zsv650]

you do know who set the eu up don't you.

[Stu]

yeah but, you've got to love the words Labour’s plans may be irrelevant, given that the party is likely to lose the coming general election.:D

[maff]

It wont be long before all laws of our laws are from europe. By 2012 wesminster will become nothing but a museum

[yorkie_chris]

I would rather the British courts found in favour of the public going about it's business in privacy

This government does not believe in privacy or freedom.

[ethariel]

Got to toss my 2 penneth in here....

Stop and search - got something to hide? if not really whats the issue?

What tweaks my goat is passing too much power outside the country, we are not 'Part' of bloody europe and hopefully never will be (the channel makes that abundantly clear).

[madcockney]

Sid - I am entirely happy. Section 44 was an affront to civil liberties, a solution to a problem that did not exist. You only have to read the figures in the Guardian article - truly shocking.

The applicants in the ECHR had lost in the High Court, in the Court of Appeal, and in the House of Lords. So, under domestic law, section 44 was perfectly lawful. If it took the ECHR to tell the Government that section 44 was unlawful, that's fine by me. The grounds on which it did so were the absolute absence of any judicial or parliamentary scrutiny of the power, and the huge possibility of unrestricted abuse by the executive. And the figures speak for themselves. This Government signed us up to the European Convention on Human Rights - which, frankly, was a long time coming - now it has to live with the consequences.

Human rights is not the only area where we answer to Europe. There are a whole host of areas where we have lost the right to self-determination: for example, in consumer matters there are many Brussles directives that we have introduced into domestic law, we have no choice but to introduce them. I've occasionally mentioned the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 on here - they are a good thing and did a lot to bring our rather archaic consumer protection laws up to date. There are loads of others - financial services regulation, fishing quotas, Community Trade Marks, the list goes on and on. Is it a good thing? Depends, I suppose, if you see self-determination as an absolute.

I think that we are over legislated anyway, and that UK governments of all persuasions in recent times seem to think that they own us and that they are not put into government to look after and represent us. (Something has gone wrong; lets bring out another law to make it more difficult for the population instead of looking at the current law and its implementation and whether it needs tweaking a bit.) The problem is as ED indicated there was no redress when things go wrong or control of how the law was implemented. This law was being abused and I for one would be complaining to high heaven if I was being stopped on a whim, or when the police just did not want me to report or see certain things.

I come from a large city where in my youth I saw large numbers of blacks and others with characteristics that set them apart as being non white British being harassed. Now there is a quandary here as if the majority of unlawful activity is being done by say blacks, then to a certain degree you will watch them more, but the problem is when you take it too far. Don't forget that we would have anything resembling our human rights embedded in our legal system if UK citizens had not taken cases to the European Court. The number of times the UK government lost against it's own citizens became very embarrassing and costly.

(I for one am a great supporter of the police, but often think they create their own problems by the way they often handle situations, and antagonise citizens. Police are there to represent the law and uphold it; They are not the law. The government is there to put in place effective laws for the citizens of the country that have their support and do not impede the citizens normal life.)

We at present, as bikers, have a problem with North Wales Police stopping bikers at a whim. If this was done on a colour basis rather than on vehicle type basis don't you think the police would be questioned under racial discrimination law. I personally think that the police should be challenged on this stop all motorcyclists policy, as it assumes that all are bad boys and girls, and if the ECHR could help then I would use it as would many others. (In fact N Wales Police have contacted local communities recently asking for their input to carry on stopping these noisy, speeding bikers in North Wales.)

One final point that we must not forget. The EU has done far more good for the population of the UK than the negatives which tend to appear when they affect us directly. For instance I have deep feelings for what the UK fishing industry has gone through, particularly where these quotas and regulations appears to be discriminating against the local population and forcing them to throw dead fish back in the sea, but if there had not been any quota system at all would there now be any fish around our shores?

[yorkie_chris]

Stop and search - got something to hide? if not really whats the issue?

Of course only criminals care about the freedom to do what they like ;-)


Ok these laws allowed the police to harass the press on the way to a demonstration for no good reason. If they've got reasonable suspicions about someone the law was already in place to allow them to be stopped and searched.

Id cards? What have you got to hide? Govt. knowing where you are every minute of the day, weren't planning on doing anything illegal, were you?

So the removal of a free press is the second step in establishing a dictatorship, so what? Who cares if a few protesters get battered?They came for the trade unionists etc etc...

[simesb]

Stop and search - got something to hide? if not really whats the issue?

Hmm - where to begin...

So you are happy for the police to stop you on your bike whenever they want and on a whim because you have nothing to hide? Are you sure? Number plate correct, tax disc displayed, no tinted visor, tyres in perfect roadworthy condition, etc, etc, etc. You'll be signing up if they do a trial of GPS monitoring of your vehicle because 'you have nothing to hide' and never break any law, including speeding?

That's before we start looking at your finances, behaviour in your own home, and more worryingly your intent?

It is the thin end of the wedge. At what point do you think the state should have to provide just cause for looking into your private life. You seem to think they shouldn't need cause and shouldn't need judicial oversight - that worries me deeply.

[Spiderman]

I for one am very glad about this!

All too often the govt of this country introduces laws they say they "need" for the very small minority of things that existing laws dont cover. Fair enough we say. And then they go on to abuse those powers against those the law wasnt intended for. Terror laws only being the most recent example of this type of abuse.

As an old school raver i was one in of the "groups" who suffered this "targeted policing" many years ago. Laws under the Criminal Justice Bill were said to be required to stop illegal raves on land they didnt own....but oh yeh, it'll never be used for other purposes. :roll: Even to this day they are used to give police draconian rights over me and my friends sitting in a park with a stereo on. We can be told to disperse if there is more than 4 of us just sitting listening to music and have our "equipment" confiscated. They also use it to try and deny our legal right to freedom of assembly.

In the same vein it took for the European Court to tell this country it had no right to stop people bringing in ANY quantity of booze or fags and there is no need to prove "personal consumption" to justify quantities. And that it was illegal to confiscate those goods, let alone of peoples private cars and vans to be crushed has not stopped it still continuing. This country still says it will police its borders to stop peoples legal right to bring in what they want.

So a nice big 2 fingered gesture to the European Courts there and a continued trampling on our rights.

And dont forget this is only the terror law stop and search facility...

Just to point out that this is only aimed at anti terrorism laws, the normal stop and search powers under the police and criminal evidence act are unaffected...


So for all of you who will read this in something inflammatory like The Sun who will no doubt scream that "Europe takes away our freedom to defend ourselves from armed terrorists walking our streets" just remember there are plenty of reasons the cops can stop you and turn your pockets out.

[yorkie_chris]

And despite the pile of b*llocks terror laws, blowing stuff up was illegal before that.

I think there is good reason the US constitution in its original guise calls for the citizenry to be well armed in case the government starts to become an inconvenience. Power corrupts.

[madcockney]

One thing I should state as I mentioned the EU in my previous posting is that the ECHR is part of the Council of Europe and not the EU, though many, if not all members of the EU are members of the Council of Europe.

[Sid Squid]

Just to point out that this is only aimed at anti terrorism laws, the normal stop and search powers under the police and criminal evidence act are unaffected...
Which I said in the first post and is made abundantly clear in the two news articles I linked to, no?

There's still plenty of Police power left for you to abuse :D.

Everything about this situation is a double edged sword.
The winner! Although to be fair I'm sure plenty of others got the point too. Generally speaking I'd say most people who have even the slightest appreciation of the circumstance would be pleased, but, as you so rightly point out, there's a whole lot more to this than that.

I disagree with there ruling stop and search policies should stay, public safety if someone is stops and searched and the police find arms/firearms/bombs there being carried for one reason to potentially cause harm to someone else. meaning keeping the law is the best thing to do.
And if this had been a piece of legislation that had actually functioned in that way, I'd probably be more disposed to it's use.

But it isn't, is it? It's a harassment charter.

PS.
Not related to calipers so I don't give a ****
Thank for your input - most illuminating.

[hardhat_harry]

I remember the labour conference a couple of years old and an old guy was shouting "shame" from the back of the auditorium to one of the speakers, he was bungled out by three "bouncers" using anti-terror law legislation.

[madcockney]

Of course only criminals care about the freedom to do what they like ;-)


Ok these laws allowed the police to harass the press on the way to a demonstration for no good reason. If they've got reasonable suspicions about someone the law was already in place to allow them to be stopped and searched.

Id cards? What have you got to hide? Govt. knowing where you are every minute of the day, weren't planning on doing anything illegal, were you?

So the removal of a free press is the second step in establishing a dictatorship, so what? Who cares if a few protesters get battered?They came for the trade unionists etc etc...


Totally agree. The police have always used the excuse that if you have nothing to hide etc., now the government is. Why can't we have entry to your house if you have nothing to hide. Sorry no! Go and get a search warrant.

ID cards are just a way to track us, and that will be the law abiding, well most of the time :grin: , as terrorists and criminals will still find a way around this, and it will end up as just another costly way of proving who you are when you apply for credit, etc. I used to travel abroad on business many years ago where the laws were more draconian, and you had to carry some form of ID as a visitor at all times. (Locals had to carry ID cards.) Was I glad that things were different in the UK. On top of that I would be very suspicious of the security of data held, and that comes from somebody heavily involved with data security in IT.

I am a private individual; the government, the law, and the police should respect that.

[yorkie_chris]

Oh but ID cards will stop terrorists, just like they did in Spain when all those trains accidentally exploded...

[simesb]

Or the 9/11 pilots who were in the country illegally - oops, they WERE in the country LEGALLY.

[Ch00]

Terror laws were over used imo. They have now been massively scaled back, with increased guidence for officers. I havent used it for a long while for a couple of reasons the main one being - how can I spot a terrorist? what do they look like? If there is real and hard info then there are other powers to stop that person. Secondly there are enough other powers as menationed to deal with things.

ID cards are pointless too as we already have one its called a passport!

[Spiderman]

A suicide bomber dont care if he has ID with his fingerprint on it cos in a short while you may just find his finger along with other lots of bits of him exploded all over the place somewhere.

Retina scan? Give me 5 mins and you can have my retina if you can find it in amongst the jumbled mess of twisted fiery metal that is.

[Messie]

Tbh I'm a bit on the fence about ID cards. I understand the issue about the possibility of big brother watching you, and certainly there are worries about data security.

But I see a major plus - they have the potential to prove my innocence or indeed that I am who it says, and not someone else trying to be me.
Other countries seem to cope with them OK

[yorkie_chris]

How do they have the potential to prove your innocence?

[Spiderman]

Tbh I'm a bit on the fence about ID cards. I understand the issue about the possibility of big brother watching you, and certainly there are worries about data security.

But I see a major plus - they have the potential to prove my innocence or indeed that I am who it says, and not someone else trying to be me.
Other countries seem to cope with them OK

As YC asks, how can they prove your innocence? In this country you are now guilty unless you can prove your innocence in most cases it seems.

Anyhoo...most other countries have very simple ID cards, its the insane amount of data and "services" they want to put onto the UK ID card that is making it so unpalatable to most people.

If it was simply a card with my pic, name, address and DOB printed on it and nothing else then i'd have one.
But wait i already have one of those, its my driving licence. So why do we need more than that?
If they wanted to give a driving licence style ID card to those who dont or arent old enough to drive it would save the Govt literally billions of pounds too but oh no, the plans for the ID card are designed to be far more invasive and need far, far more databases to store ever more of our private information on to.

Hence no right minded and forward thinking individual should ever agree to the Govts plans for ID cards.

Same money should be spent on all the other vital services that so lack funding, NHS for one prime example.

[Biker Biggles]

Sid - I am entirely happy. Section 44 was an affront to civil liberties, a solution to a problem that did not exist. You only have to read the figures in the Guardian article - truly shocking.

The applicants in the ECHR had lost in the High Court, in the Court of Appeal, and in the House of Lords. So, under domestic law, section 44 was perfectly lawful. If it took the ECHR to tell the Government that section 44 was unlawful, that's fine by me. The grounds on which it did so were the absolute absence of any judicial or parliamentary scrutiny of the power, and the huge possibility of unrestricted abuse by the executive. And the figures speak for themselves. This Government signed us up to the European Convention on Human Rights - which, frankly, was a long time coming - now it has to live with the consequences.

Human rights is not the only area where we answer to Europe. There are a whole host of areas where we have lost the right to self-determination: for example, in consumer matters there are many Brussles directives that we have introduced into domestic law, we have no choice but to introduce them. I've occasionally mentioned the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 on here - they are a good thing and did a lot to bring our rather archaic consumer protection laws up to date. There are loads of others - financial services regulation, fishing quotas, Community Trade Marks, the list goes on and on. Is it a good thing? Depends, I suppose, if you see self-determination as an absolute.

I got to find myself agreeing with you again Ed.Im sure that underneath that hardline Thatcherite shell lurks a thoroughly decent Liberal.:D

[Messie]

TBH I hadn't really thought of specific examples, more in a general type of way; maybe proving I was somewhere else and not at the scene of the crime.

Bit waffly I know, but I don't find the thought of ID cards scary.

[Spiderman]

Bit waffly I know, but I don't find the thought of ID cards scary.

Allow me to do a bit of scaremongering then :)

Imagine in a few years they introduce these cards for us all. With all the biometrics that no-one wants or needs. Then they add the RFID to them so "for your convenience" you dont even need to take it out your pocket when the local plod wanna ask you for it, they just wave a scanner over you and hey presto all your details. (feeling like you may as well have been chipped at birth yet?)

And then a few years down the line the credit card companies ....who are also running with the RFID ball already and having contactless cards and readers put into shops... team up with the ID card people and hey presto your ID card is also your mean of paying for things. Just to make it easier for you, you keep being told thats why, so it must be right?

The one day you go on a march to protest against govt plans to further add more "uses" to your ID card and find yourself put on a database of "dissenters". These databases already exist today btw, the Govt have admitted that much.

Then the Govt decides that all those people on that particular dissenters database are also possibly the type to contribute to tech-terrorist causes, you know websites that say they oppose the govt and are trying to raise money to fight them govt in court, like the NO To Bike Tax group are doing. And hey presto cos you "could" be someone who sponsors this new type of terrorism your ability to spend your own money is stopped cos they have full control over your ID card. And if you try and spend cash then you're even more of a target cos you're only using cash in an attempt to be untraceable and thus proving your guilt of giving money to unsuitable causes...otherwise you'd be using your state approved and issued money/ID card wouldnt you?

After all if you got nothing to hide......



Far fetched! I hear you cry. Lunatic and a fantasist they say as they point their fingers in my direction.

Imagine telling your own grandparents that one day we'd have so many CCTV cameras that our daily movement would be caught aprox 300 times a day in cities and that cop cars would be able to read the numberplate of each and every car that passes in front or behind them and send out tickets based on what the computers say.

They'd probably have said to you that it was a far fetched idea and called you a lunatic and a fantasist.

Yet look at the reality of the world we live in and how easily these systems have already been forced on us.

Have no doubt in your mind that ID cards are the beginning of the slippery slope that will also see less and less freedom to each individual and more and more power at the fingertips of govt to deny you your basic rights.

[Biker Biggles]

I think that is a very good yardstick.When looking at some new techno gadget or bit of legislation allowing use of said gadget we should ask what our grandparents would have made of it.After all they fought for the freedoms we so glibly give away.
And for a taste of what life could be like you just need to look at China.Soon to be the worlds biggest economy and hence most powerful nation and there is absolutely no tolerance of any dissent.They could be running our databases in a few years time and we thought it was all OK because we trust our leaders.Oh dear.

[Spiderman]

There is already a company in america that offers the super rich and super full of themselves implntable chips that work like contactless credit cards, you simply wave your hand over the reader and your bill is paid. A lot of the top hotels (7* plus) have these readers installed in covert places too so the staff dont know who the very high profile clientèle actually are. It'd be obvious Mr X is a super rich person if he had to go thru the process at the check in deas and was then asked to wave his hand over a normal looking credit card machine right?
So they have them set up in very nondescript places, like just another normal looking panel in a paneled wall in the bar area and all Mr X has to do is be told he location beforehand by email and just pass by it when he wants to check in and out. The data his chip needs to work is transfered when he checks in.

Some very high value individuals are actually being forced to have these chips installed as part of their kidnap and ransom insurance policies so they can be traced by the insurance company/police and the insurance dont have to pay multi million pound ransom fees.

So dont think this stuff is years away either, its just round the corner waiting for the first steps to be put in motion so all the rest can follow.

[madcockney]

Many years ago a new DSS computer system was being installed and the government said that the security forces, and other government departments would have no links to it and could not interrogate the data held relating to any particular people. (At that time DSS, Inland Revenue, and Customs and Excise were totally different departments.) A few years later it came to light that the police at least had a direct link into the system. From memory that was hurriedly severed.

Passports: It has already been proved that these can be scanned from a distance, so all the personal contained within becomes freely available.

RFID: There is already discussions of tracking people as well as products using it. The discussions at present appear to revolve mainly around hotels and shops watching how people move around and their buying patterns rather than just what they buy, and knowing when the stock on the shelf needs replenishing. Oh and in education there has been discussion on tracking students sometime in the future as the technology matures using it so that the school knows where a student is at any particular time.

[Biker Biggles]

Without a firm set of rights to stop others compiling data there will always be constant mission creep with this technology.Who would have thought ten years ago that street surveillance systems designed to prevent your gran getting mugged would be far better employed issuing parking tickets with the aid of ANPR

[Spiderman]

RFID: There is already discussions of tracking people as well as products using it. The discussions at present appear to revolve mainly around hotels and shops watching how people move around and their buying patterns rather than just what they buy, and knowing when the stock on the shelf needs replenishing. Oh and in education there has been discussion on tracking students sometime in the future as the technology matures using it so that the school knows where a student is at any particular time.

RFID the utopia that The New World Order of Govts dreamed of for so long.

All they need to do is force it into "institutions" like the military, then hospitals for all the staff (its for their safety you know) amd then into schools (its for their safety you know) and before long, just like CCTV it will be everywhere.

And the "function creep" you mentioned at the beginning, even this countries own "czars" who oversee these things have complained time and time again about it yet it continues and is justified by the "need" for it.

[Messie]

OK I'm a little bit scared now but I'll keep taking my anti-paranoia pills and I'm sure I'll be fine ;)