Now illegal for police to conduct stop and search

[Thedelldays]

Is this 100% correct?

 

Just heard on the radio that the European court of human rights has pushed through laws and this practice by th police is now prohibited..

 

 

Surely that cannot be a complete blanket ban?

Would be utter madness if so

[RedAndWhite91]

Why has it been banned? We're hardly living in 1981 Brixton are we?!

[krissyboy31]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453878.stm

[Saint_clark]

Whatever, just pull people over because it looked like they had their seatbelt off if you want to search the car.

If they are on foot, then they look like a suspect in a case.

[Colinjb]

If so, another tick in the 'I f**king hate the european liberal softy nanny state' box.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Is this 100% correct?

 

Just heard on the radio that the European court of human rights has pushed through laws and this practice by th police is now prohibited..

 

 

Surely that cannot be a complete blanket ban?

Would be utter madness if so

 

Withdraw my orignal comment and I am replacing it with:

 

Police shouldn't just randomly stop someone in the street, if they have evidence fine, but simply working on suspicion is a dangerous precedent.

Edited 13 January, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[Colinjb]

Perhaps it's illegal for police to 'pick' on a certain ethnic group?

 

Perhaps it's 'sensible' to check suspects and that using race to argue bias is an insult to the men and women who conduct the intelligence work in the first place.

 

HA! Got you before the edit.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Perhaps it's 'sensible' to check suspects and that using race to argue bias is an insult to the men and women who conduct the intelligence work in the first place.

 

HA! Got you before the edit.

 

You did, I read the BBC article and why it was banned and decided to get rid of conjecture

[Ponty]

Good.

 

Anything that holds back the tidal wave of Government powers and Police state has to be a good thing.

[Saint_clark]

Good.

 

Anything that holds back the tidal wave of Government powers and Police state has to be a good thing.

 

The disbanding of government?

[Ponty]

I wouldn't go that far...

[Ponty]

Perhaps I should rephrase it to:

 

Anything that holds back the tidal wave of abuse of Government powers and our slide into a Police state has to be a good thing.

[RonManager]

I wouldn't go that far...

 

Could be worth a 6 month trial?

[Verbal]

Good.

 

Anything that holds back the tidal wave of Government powers and Police state has to be a good thing.

 

Have a gold star. Section 44 is a police-state measure used by to harass British citizens based on no 'intelligence' whatsoever. In more than ten years since hitting the statute book, and after thousands upon thousands of pointless, occasionally abusive 'stops', it has trapped a grand total of 0 terrorists.

 

A word of advice: if you're ever stopped under Section 44, NEVER give your name and address. The police are only allowed to ask, not demand, under the Act. But if they succeed in getting your name, it will automatically be added to a centralised Section 44 list. There is no prospect of your getting it removed, and no guarantee that it won't be used against you.

[Saintandy666]

Well, being able to stop and search anyone on any ground with no suspicion sets a dangerous precedent. It is a slippy slope and to be honest sounds like something from a police state, not the free country we are meant to be. Thank **** for the EU

[dune]

Another victory for the socialist left and another defeat for homeland security.

 

Our airports security police want the power to profile passengers and to be able to single out those that are more likely to be suicide bombers yet the Politically Correct lefties are dead against it. It's utter madness. Police Offiers develop hunches from years of experience, yet the left are willing to let people die in a terrorist attack in case it hurts the feelings of those whose profile makes them more likely to be a terrorist.

 

Two people board a plane:

 

The first is a blue rinsed granny, the second is a twentysomething muslim. It's bleeding obvious which one is more likely to blow up the plane. And if one of these people is to be searched it should always be the young muslim.

 

I hope that when we get a Tory government common sense prevails and if necessary we withdraw from the European Human Rights legislation.

[jeff leopard]

Two people board a plane:

 

The first is a blue rinsed granny, the second is a twentysomething muslim. It's bleeding obvious which one is more likely to blow up the plane. And if one of these people is to be searched it should always be the young muslim.

 

I hope that when we get a Tory government common sense prevails and if necessary we withdraw from the European Human Rights legislation.

 

Well, that will work wonderfully until a white UK born citizen boards a train or plane with exploding pants on.

 

This notion of picking out people from suspect countries wouldn't have stopped the london underground bombers or the attempted shoe-bomber, all of whom are british.

 

If you want to wage war against the entire Muslim community for the sake of British security, then the EDL awaits. Knock yourself out.

[Sheaf Saint]

Another victory for the socialist left and another defeat for homeland security.

 

Our airports security police want the power to profile passengers and to be able to single out those that are more likely to be suicide bombers yet the Politically Correct lefties are dead against it. It's utter madness. Police Offiers develop hunches from years of experience, yet the left are willing to let people die in a terrorist attack in case it hurts the feelings of those whose profile makes them more likely to be a terrorist.

 

Two people board a plane:

 

The first is a blue rinsed granny, the second is a twentysomething muslim. It's bleeding obvious which one is more likely to blow up the plane. And if one of these people is to be searched it should always be the young muslim.

 

I hope that when we get a Tory government common sense prevails and if necessary we withdraw from the European Human Rights legislation.

 

But doesn't everybody get subjected to the same security searches at airports already regardless of whether they are a blue-rinse granny or a 20-something muslim? So what's the problem? They still get searched either way.

 

The point mof this thread is not about airport security - that is a completely seperate issue - what we are discussing here is the repealling of the police powers to stop and search anybody in the street without needing any cause or suspicion to do so. Can you not see how such powers can be abused, and go against the basic human right of freedom to walk the streets without police harrassment?

[hutch]

I agree, Dune. Personally I would ban all blue-rinsed Grannies from all airports and aeroplanes.

[dune]

Well, that will work wonderfully until a white UK born citizen boards a train or plane with exploding pants on.

 

This notion of picking out people from suspect countries wouldn't have stopped the london underground bombers or the attempted shoe-bomber, all of whom are british.

 

If you want to wage war against the entire Muslim community for the sake of British security, then the EDL awaits. Knock yourself out.

 

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but with the new chipped passports there is the potential to store far more information on a given passenger.

 

Terrorists will always try to make themselves less obvious, but the fact remains that most muslims are not white and as such profiling is a tool that we can ill afford not to use.

[bungle]

Ronnie O'Sullivan is white. You are just a simple racist.

[View From The Top]

Section 44 is oft used against football fans in an arbitrary manner, as anyone who caught a train to Swansea last season can testify to.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Once again dune, out you come with you 'faaarkin muzzie's/socialists/europe' tripe.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Section 44 is oft used against football fans in an arbitrary manner, as anyone who caught a train to Swansea last season can testify to.

 

+1. I was one of them.

[solentstars]

If so, another tick in the 'I f**king hate the european liberal softy nanny state' box.

its the same old looney right wingers posting the usual predicable nonsense,their is no socialist left,just a rightwing labour party and a right wing tory party.

[solentstars]

Once again dune, out you come with you 'faaarkin muzzie's/socialists/europe' tripe.

 

:smt023

[bungle]

If so, another tick in the 'I f**king hate the european liberal softy nanny state' box.

 

There's an oxymoron. "liberal nanny state". You don't even know what liberalism is.

[norwaysaint]

This is showing quite a few people up for ignorance on the nanny state and liberal name calling.

 

Surely in a nanny state the government take a more intrusive and directly interfering role with their powers. This is a move in the other direction.

 

Powers to interfere and control are being taken away from the state here, whether for better or worse.

 

Colinjb, by complaining about this, you're calling for more of a nanny-state.

[aintforever]

But doesn't everybody get subjected to the same security searches at airports already regardless of whether they are a blue-rinse granny or a 20-something muslim? So what's the problem? They still get searched either way.

 

The point mof this thread is not about airport security - that is a completely seperate issue - what we are discussing here is the repealling of the police powers to stop and search anybody in the street without needing any cause or suspicion to do so. Can you not see how such powers can be abused, and go against the basic human right of freedom to walk the streets without police harrassment?

 

With airport searches it's about using time and resources most effectively. of course everyone needs to go through some checks but profiling can target more thorough, effective checks to those more likely to be terrorists.

 

I would prefer the Police to have the power of more random stop and search checks because if they can only search obvious threats then it is pretty simple for a terrorist to avoid being checked.

 

Obviously this can be abused but I would rather have a few cases of victimisation than be more open to attack.

[Special K]

This is section 44 of the Terrorism Act. I think the power to stop and search is still valid under PACE, unless anyone knows any different?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Another victory for the socialist left

 

You're confusing socialism with liberalism, kind of ruins your credibility.

[View From The Top]

So stripping back intrusive laws are a sign of the nanny state and the liberal left?

 

LOL at the right wing goons.

[Gemmel]

The world isn't a very nice place these days and at some point the police thought these powers would help them combat a real and growing problem.

The threat is stronger than ever and now the ability to act on instinct, suspicion or appearance (Yes appearance is valid) is withdrawn, the only conclusion is that however minor an effect, our ability to defeat and combat that threat is weakened and that can't be a good thing in my mind.

[pilsburydoughboy]

I agree, Dune. Personally I would ban all blue-rinsed Grannies from all airports and aeroplanes.

 

Jesus i have just had my hair done

[Baj]

This is worth a good read, saw mark thomas do this skit at Glastonbury

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/09/liberty-central-stop-and-search-police

[Saints11]

This is worth a good read, saw mark thomas do this skit at Glastonbury

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/09/liberty-central-stop-and-search-police

 

 

This Mark Thomas seems to be a bit of a prat/

[Colinjb]

There's an oxymoron. "liberal nanny state". You don't even know what liberalism is.

 

I've got to stop being sarcastic on this forum.

[richie]

I work in London and was stopped under S.44 about 3 months ago at Baker street tube.

 

Police officer was very polite and let me know my rights (work in criminal justice system anyway) but it was a totally pointless exercise.

 

Police officer said to me 'I dont suspect you of being a terrorist as I can see you are on your way to work but we are given this power by the chief constable to stop people in this area under S.44'

 

I said to him if you know i'm not a terrorist and have done nothing to arouse suspicion why are you stopping me. Answer... because we have been given the powers and are obliged to stop people. Not his fault but thats the problem the rules are they dont need a reason!! It serves no purpose and gets people's backs up.

 

As the stats show it has achieved nothing. I have no problem with stop and search but s.44 is a total utter waste of time. It treats everyone as potential criminals.

[GenevaSaint]

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but with the new chipped passports there is the potential to store far more information on a given passenger.

 

Terrorists will always try to make themselves less obvious, but the fact remains that most muslims are not white and as such profiling is a tool that we can ill afford not to use.

 

Dune, the loony left introduced S44 in 2000, whereas Chris Grayling (loony right) in todays independant said The tories would change the law to cut use of stop-and-search. How does that tally up with your loony left views?

 

There are also some great statistics on Stop-and-search from 2008-2009 197,344 people were searched. 60% of these were White, just 15.6% were Asian or Asian British. How does that fit with your profiling? Sounds like an abuse of powers by the police to me (see below, and above)

 

I was searched about a year ago, "because tensions were running high in the area (Woolston) after the murder of Lewis Hamilton". A murder that had happened about 12 months before the event. What a load of ****e, I was walking home from the pub with my brother in law on a friday night like 1000's of other people. And I'm white, terrorism my arse.

[Thedelldays]

can the police stop someone who that have a genuine suspicion with..?

 

if so, then this who new ruling can only be a good thing...

if it stops ALL stop and search then it is clearly plain daft

[GenevaSaint]

can the police stop someone who that have a genuine suspicion with..?

 

if so, then this who new ruling can only be a good thing...

if it stops ALL stop and search then it is clearly plain daft

 

"questioning people without grounds for suspicion was illegal"

 

A bit wooly in my eyes, what constitutes grounds for suspicion? In Dune's eyes all Asians fit into that criteria. As would have all Irish during the "troubles", actually, that would have to be all whites as the majority (I'd guess) of Catholics are white in the UK.

 

But I do agree, stopping it completely is madness.

[JustMike]

they will be taking away their handcuffs next, just in case it hurts the suspects wrists!

[Thedelldays]

if a copper thought I had a meat cleaver hidden up my jumper..could he stop me in the street and search me...or would I be free to wonder the streets and hack up anyone I like in the name of human rights..?

[Saintandy666]

Another victory for the socialist left and another defeat for homeland security.

 

Our airports security police want the power to profile passengers and to be able to single out those that are more likely to be suicide bombers yet the Politically Correct lefties are dead against it. It's utter madness. Police Offiers develop hunches from years of experience, yet the left are willing to let people die in a terrorist attack in case it hurts the feelings of those whose profile makes them more likely to be a terrorist.

 

Two people board a plane:

 

The first is a blue rinsed granny, the second is a twentysomething muslim. It's bleeding obvious which one is more likely to blow up the plane. And if one of these people is to be searched it should always be the young muslim.

 

I hope that when we get a Tory government common sense prevails and if necessary we withdraw from the European Human Rights legislation.

 

I always get worried when people speak about this. How do you know what a Muslim looks like? Because I'm pretty sure there is no definite look of all Muslims unless of course you are just referring to stopping all people with 'brown' skin.

Edited 13 January, 2010 by Saintandy666

[View From The Top]

if a copper thought I had a meat cleaver hidden up my jumper..could he stop me in the street and search me...or would I be free to wonder the streets and hack up anyone I like in the name of human rights..?

 

They couldn't use S44 as it's to do with anti-terrorism but has been used, incorrectly, by the OB as a control tool, hence its use at the Swansea game.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

if they succeed in getting your name, it will automatically be added to a centralised Section 44 list. There is no prospect of your getting it removed, and no guarantee that it won't be used against you.

 

Against me how ?

[INFLUENCED.COM]

I would rather have a few cases of victimisation than be more open to attack.

 

The world isn't a very nice place these days and at some point the police thought these powers would help them combat a real and growing problem.

The threat is stronger than ever and now the ability to act on instinct, suspicion or appearance (Yes appearance is valid) is withdrawn, the only conclusion is that however minor an effect, our ability to defeat and combat that threat is weakened and that can't be a good thing in my mind.

 

 

Agree with these comments but take on board that, according to figures posted, this was introduced within the prevention of terrorism act(probably to avoid complaints etc)and has thus far not been proven to prevent the same, however, would hazard a guess a percentage will have been charged with other offences as a consequence of originally being stopped under this code.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

It treats everyone as potential criminals.

 

Which is exactly what we all are

[Thedelldays]

Which is exactly what we all are

we are these days...now we have CRB checks etc etc

[Wiltshire Saint]

if a copper thought I had a meat cleaver hidden up my jumper..could he stop me in the street and search me...or would I be free to wonder the streets and hack up anyone I like in the name of human rights..?

 

So you start a thread on something that you have no idea about and then, when someone posts an article (post 3) you don't bother reading it to find out the answer to your question. Instead you just make stupid post after stupid post. Don't get me wrong, I really don't mind people who aren't too intelligent. There is room in the world for everyone, but when you repeatedly start stupid threads or post stupid comments it just becomes a bit tiresome. Everything you say is tinged with some kind of mental retardation (and I don't mean that as an insult, it just seems to be the case).

 

The very first paragraph of that article says this:

Police powers to use terror laws to stop and search people without grounds for suspicion are illegal, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled

 

It clearly says the police cannot use TERROR LAWS. Not all laws are terror laws TDD. There are other laws. And these other laws are there to try and stop people who may be committing crimes. So, if a police officer sees you acting suspiciously and "where there is evidence that serious violence has or may take place." (Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) then you may be searched.