Blair to push tough anti-terror law

[dong20]

Blair to push tough anti-terror law - Yahoo! News UK

"The 'stop and question' power would enable police to interrogate people about who they are, where they have been and where they were going... Police would not need to suspect a crime had taken place. If suspects failed to stop or refused to answer questions, they could be charged with a crime and fined..."

<....>

"Interior minister John Reid is proposing other measures to combat Islamist militants, the report said. These would give police the power to take documents away for examination even if their value as evidence was not immediately obvious and the power to remove vehicles to examine them."

Has the man not done enough damage?

That and the threat by Reid to opt out of parts of Human Rights legislation...It appears he feels a need for a final twist of the knife before being booed off the stage.

N.B. Such Police rights do already exist in Northern Ireland.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I've got one tip for you Dong - get a constitution - and write it down!!
You'd be surprised how much harder it'd be for politicians to do that shit if you did, y'know...

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

I've got one tip for you Dong - get a constitution - and write it down!!
You'd be surprised how much harder it'd be for polititions to do that shit if you did, y'know...

I was under the impression that the constitution only counted if it backed up a polititians argument and meant nothing if it didn't.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I was under the impression that the constitution only counted if it backed up a polititians argument and meant nothing if it didn't.

Your constitution* means nothing at all - it is not a real constitution - it is a set of guidelines that, as you say, can be changed, at a whim (my addition), to suit those in power...

* I say 'your' I mean UK, I see you are in Kent and therefore I assume.. apologies if I err

 

[dong20]

I've got one tip for you Dong - get a constitution - and write it down!!
You'd be surprised how much harder it'd be for politicians to do that shit if you did, y'know...

Doesn't seem to be working too well for the US these days, though in principle I agree. I think having resigned Blair should forfeit the rights to try and force through such legislation. His role should be transitional, let him enjoy his farewell tour but keep away from anything substantive.

 

[bartonside]

In the last ten years the Labour government has slowly turned this country into a police state and this proposed legislation will be the final nail in the coffin of individual freedom. The prospect of good, law-abiding citizens being stopped for no reason and questioned by the police is a dismal prospect, as is the £5,000 ($10,000) dollar fine if you don't co-operate. As with so many other measures (like the proposed and ludicrously expensive identity cards) this is trumpeted as another measure in the fight against terror. Well, idenitity cards couldn't have prevented the London bombings and neither will casually stopping people in the street. They might get lucky but it is easy for anyone intent on seditious acts to disguise their aim.

 

[D_Ted Riding Hooded]

Interior Minister???? I always thought he was Home Secretary.........

 

[D_Ted Riding Hooded]

In the last ten years the Labour government has slowly turned this country into a police state and this proposed legislation will be the final nail in the coffin of individual freedom. The prospect of good, law-abiding citizens being stopped for no reason and questioned by the police is a dismal prospect, as is the £5,000 ($10,000) dollar fine if you don't co-operate. As with so many other measures (like the proposed and ludicrously expensive identity cards) this is trumpeted as another measure in the fight against terror. Well, idenitity cards couldn't have prevented the London bombings and neither will casually stopping people in the street. They might get lucky but it is easy for anyone intent on seditious acts to disguise their aim.

I think we were only 'citizens' under Cromwell....Surely we are 'subjects' under the rule of a monarch.....sorry for being so picky!!:redface:

 

[dong20]

Interior Minister???? I always thought he was Home Secretary.........

Same thing. International news markets.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

"The 'stop and question' power would enable police to interrogate people about who they are, where they have been and where they were going... Police would not need to suspect a crime had taken place. If suspects failed to stop or refused to answer questions, they could be charged with a crime and fined..."

Why is traditional police work just not good enough anymore? Why this?

Granting the police virtually unlimited powers to stop and search on a whim is a frightening propostion and should be opposed on the grounds of common sense, if nothing else. History tells us such powers are certain to be abused sooner or later, as much by well intentioned authority figures as by tyrants.

Here the police generally have to have "probable cause" before they can stop, search and interrogate suspects. That basically means police must be able to demonstrate why they had a reasonable suspicion that a crime had taken place. This hasn't always been interpreted consistently, though.

Also, there are an increasing number of exceptions. Provisions such as our "Patrot Act" and the recent illegal spying of the Bush administration have further weakened consitutional protections from search and surveillance.

 

[dong20]

Granting the police virtually unlimited powers to stop and search on a whim is a frightening propostion and should be opposed on the grounds of common sense, if nothing else. History tells us such powers are certain to be abused sooner or later, as much by well intentioned authority figures as by tyrants.

The last time police had such powers was in war time.

Here the police generally have to have "probable cause" before they can stop, search and interrogate suspects. That basically means police must be able to demonstrate why they had a reasonable suspicion that a crime had taken place. This hasn't always been interpreted consistently, though.

That's pretty much the case here, currently at least. There were some dubious flirtations with stop and search in the past but by an large the police are not allowed to undertake random stop and search. If this legislation is enacted it will mark a very very disturbing step up in police powers. I can only hope that the legisation is struck down by the Lords. My worry is that too many will simply not understand the implications.

Also, there are an increasing number of exceptions. Provisions such as our "Patrot Act" and the recent illegal spying of the Bush administration have further weakened consitutional protections from search and surveillance.

Similar thing here. Right now I'm both too tired and too angry about this to really articulate my thoughts clearly.

 

[davidjh7]

Re-check the Patriot act---it allows probable cause to be completely bypassed, as well as writ of habius corpus, right to council, etc. if there is SUSPICION of anyting related to any form of terrorist activity---terrorist activity to be defined by the officer at the time. Terrorist activty could be interpreted as looking muslim, or saying Bush is an idiot. And the police here have abused the Patriot act extensively, which is why some (finally) in the government are finally questioning its broad powers. We DO live in a fascist state---we just haven't had it publicy declared yet....

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The last time police had such powers was in war time.

And that is exactly the rationale used by many original proponents of the Patriot Act here: We're at war with a faceless, shifting enemy so we need to weaken our sturdy constitution to deal with him.

Of course, As davidjh7 pointed out, there have been abuses on the part of overzealous (and unapologetic) prosecutors. I recently witnessed a dramatic example of this occurring in my home town:

The case of Brandon Mayfield

Right now I'm both too tired and too angry about this to really articulate my thoughts clearly.

I hope your lack of confidence in the House of Lords oversight ability proves to be misplaced.