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, and here.

[5hort5]

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

who the hell is the ehcr.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

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...

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.

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.