I will no doubt be accused by some of being hopelessly naive for holding this opinion, but it is the opinion I hold. This latest police-harass-photographer scandal has reminded the world’s media that Britain has introduced some pretty draconian legislation in recent years. The suggestion that the officer involved in harassing a journalist who was taking pics of St. Paul’s Cathedral did not act unlawfully is quite worrying.
All this has happened before. Remember the “sus” laws? I don’t, I’m far too young. These gave the police powers to go around causing misery to people they didn’t like. In the bad old days before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), large sections of society felt like they were being treated poorly by the authorities. We all know what the culmination of that was. PACE limited police powers to search people, crucially to situations where the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person might be in possession of certain listed items (e.g. prohibited items, fireworks, etc.). There is an equivalent power for drugs searches.
By and large, the PACE restrictions are A Good Thing because they strike a balance between the power to search (necessary in the battle to maintain peace on the streets) and the knowledge that that power can be challenged if someone feels they have been searched unfairly. This is a very important accountability issue. If you have ever been searched you will have been told why you are being searched and you should have been given one of those “receipts” which should outline the grounds for the search and the power used.
Step forward the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 43 gives a police officer the power to search someone who he “reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist”. Sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it? Your behaviour or location in an area at a particular time or appearance leads an officer to think you might be planning to blow something up so he has the power to find out whether you are about to blow something up. I can’t argue against that.
Section 44 gives the power to an officer to stop and search a person or vehicle for no other reason than that a senior officer has generally authorised searches in that area. And that is a pretty wide-ranging power. It means that any officer in that area can search any person he pleases without breaking the law.
I have no particular objection to being searched if I have brought attention to myself for some reason. I was once searched by police because I was carrying some record cases and the officer told me that similar ones had been stolen nearby. Fair dues. But when officers start getting uppity with people taking photos of London’s landmarks then you know things have gone wrong. Taking a photo in a public place is not against the law. Taking a photo of a key public building does not make you a terrorist.
I generally give the police the benefit of the doubt when they hit the headlines. I know a few officers socially and they are intelligent professional people not power hungry thugs. But it only takes one officer to do something so brainless as to harass someone who isn’t doing any harm to bring the whole system into disrepute. My Met buddy tells me that they have been told not to go around using S44 powers without good reason. It seems to me that there is never a good reason. If an officer has grounds then he can use S43. If not he should stay well away.
Britain is not a “police state” but bits of egregious legislation like Section 44 (and there are plenty of nasty morsels knocking around) are quite likely to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the law abiding majority. If the police are going to put people’s backs up by using unnecessary powers unnecessarily then they are just going to alienate the very people who might otherwise help them put real miscreants behind bars.
The next government must have a wholesale review of the spaghetti of police legislation. A new PACE, perhaps?
RSS - Posts
XX Britain is not a “police state” but bits of egregious legislation like Section 44 (and there are plenty of nasty morsels knocking around) are quite likely to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the law abiding majority.XX
A “Police state” does not rely neccessarily on the Police being the enforcers.
Who else has these powers? And what of other powers, such as councils spying on rubbish bins, or children been taken into care because the Parents think “junk food” reccomandations from the doctor are a pile of shite, Firemen and bin men encouraged to video traffic offenders, and report them, park keepers fining Mothers for letting her kid feed ducks, Nieghbours being paid by local councils to curtain twitch, a heavily politicised, and in the “Government” pockets police force, the most spied on public in Britains history, teenage kids arrested, because they tell the teacher they can not understand what the other pupils are saying, because the others speak NO English…..etc, etc….?
Add them all together.
Just do not give ONE example and say “We are not a police state”.
Well, I gotta speak the truth as I see it! I honestly, truly believe that we are well on the way to becoming a police-type state.
I don’t know about others, but I am actually SCARED to speak the truth on contentious issues, e.g. immigration, because of dreadfully draconian laws which have, as guidance, the words; ‘The fact that what is said is true, shall be no defence!’ What the hell sort of country is that if it’s not a police-state?
VS – a very good point, but I think you would agree that a blog would get very boring if each post included everything that the author thought was wrong with the world
“… and another thing! … and another thing!”
**Overall** we are not in a police state and I hope that with a few judicious repeals and reforms we can steer away from that direction.
Dickiebo! Hola. Which law is that you quote??
The haphazard application of various ill thought laws does give an appearnce of a proto police state but I do feel we are still too sensible a nation to proceed down that particular road.
“I will no doubt be accused by some of being hopelessly naive for holding this opinion…”
Not by anyone who matters…
But Von Spreuth is quite right about the ‘police state’ not relying solely on abuse of power by the police. Yes, a few appeals would help, but when the government of the day sees fit to ignore ECHR rulings at will, what are the citizens to do?
The rationale behind S.44 is that enough untargeted searching in a given area makes it a hostile environment to conduct reconnaissance or to pick a target safely. That makes sense in theory, but doesn’t take into consideration the people subject to those searches. I absolutely despise using S.44 for searches, it is completely counter productive and just alienates the public – that’s why a large number of S.44 stop slips were being submitted for unattended vehicles – they just wanted the forms and didn’t care what was on them so they got lots of useless bits of information and the public were harassed as little as possible.
There were suggestions in the media that we were misusing S.44 in lieu of the correct search powers because most of the arrests that were made as a direct result of S.44 searches were for crime offences instead of terrorism. They didn’t understand the principle of shooting fish in a barrel – if you conduct enough searches on a normal group of the public then you’re going to get people wanted on warrant, carrying drugs or weapons or circulated as wanted for other offences, or just known enough or with enough of a criminal history to warrant an intelligence report for sightings/movement.
I much prefer the principle of targeted searches, for example under S.60 PACE we can search anyone in a given area without reason for example if there have been gang related violence or intelligence relating to mass disorder. You hardly ever get Mrs Miggins or Jo Bloggs searched in those circumstances, it is almost always the blatant scrotes who you haven’t quite got enough grounds under S.1 PACE or S.23 misuse of drugs who get targeted.
If you know that a group of criminals are using a blue 3 series BMW for example, you aren’t going to be stopping red london buses, or yellow fiestas or mopeds looking for that group are you?
XX they just wanted the forms and didn’t care what was on them so they got lots of useless bits of information and the public were harassed as little as possible.XX
We USED to have collators at every station that did the same thing. And for the MOST part did it bloody well.
Now you have a thousand “civil servants”, who, when invited to a brewery for a knees up, can not find any one who knows how to open a bottle. And they are getting a bloody FORTUNE for their “level of….”skill” for doing it.
Bring back local collators. His Desk book, where any officer can fill in details that can later be assesed, and “SUS”.
the police like many other people are bogged down in computer generated crap.
“If you know that a group of criminals are using a blue 3 series BMW for example, you aren’t going to be stopping red london buses, or yellow fiestas or mopeds looking for that group are you?”
Although when you go through baggage screening at airports, although Islamic terrorism is the main threat, Granny and your disabled cousin will still get pulled over for a cavity search if the stats are skewing too far the other way for the diversity peeps’ comfort…
It seems to me that there is never a good reason. If an officer has grounds then he can use S43.
Nail … head …
MCM – Thanks for giving us a bit of an insider’s viewpoint. Your insight is much appreciated. What I wonder about is how on Earth MPs thought this was a good idea. I mean just by reading the words of the section any fool can see what the consequences of it will be. Why can’t MPs see what will happen?
VS – the problem is that the old system was sufficiently abused that people lost faith in it.
Mutley – agree! It seems that bureaucracies have an obsession with The Process rather than being bothered about what it achieves.
Julia – hmm
Patently – cheers
BE – you are talking about a group of apparently trained lawyers who wrote a piece of legislation (socpa) specifically to get rid of one man (Brian Haw) and they cocked it up completely leaving us (the Met) to deal with it and take all the flak from Brian and his nutcase lackies, Swampies in general and every other clueless muppet who wanted to have a dig.
XX they cocked it up completely leaving us (the Met) to deal with it and take all the flak from Brian and his nutcase lackies, Swampies in general and every other clueless muppet who wanted to have a dig.XX
Please note, typical “Met” belief, that THEY are the ONLY police force in Britain that are EVER effected by ANYTHING.Or, indeed, that THEY are the ONLY Police force.
Yes I remember writing a blog post about this issue in feb this year. It’s taken a while for people to complain but happily it seems to be gaining more media coverage. I hope it gains more.
VS – I suspect that MCM is referring to the Met being the force that has to deal with Mr Haw, because he has spent most of his recent days in the Met’s area???
Philipa – yup the frustration has been around for a while but it serves well to remind ourselves of it now and again!!
Von Spreuth – Where exactly is the Socpa designated zone? oh that’s right, it’s in Westminster. The Socpa zone was also very specifically designed to get rid of Brian Haw and also anyone who wished to demonstrate in a way that would block parliament or at the least cause an eyesore for the delicate little souls who work there. Every single demonstration that had to have Socpa approval within the Socpa designated zone is and always has been the responsibility of the Met. In order to demonstrate within the Socpa zone a person or group has to have the authority of the METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER OR AN OFFICER AUTHORISED AND DESIGNATED BY HIM.
Thanks to that nice little line every ‘unauthorised demonstration within the zone’ became illegal and THE MET was required by law to act accordingly and be the sole force to take the flak – hence ridiculous incidents such as the woman reading names of dead soldiers getting arrested, tens of millions of pounds wasted planning for demos that never happened, or that did happen but took place without authority etc with the same groups of people. From the beginning day in day out they have been testing how far they could go before we had to act, or forcing us to either arrest or summons them to court constantly to get test cases and to waste our time and the public’s money.
Socpa was and still is very much a Met problem (although apparently most of it is getting repealed soon) and was designed to be focused on London. I also said they cocked it up in that they completely forgot to make the Socpa zone or the legislation retrospective so when they passed it to get rid of Brian, they couldn’t, and again, we took the flak for having to comply with the legislation and not the tosspots who wrote it.
By the way, I’m a transferee, so I’m well aware of what’s outside the M25 ta very much.
Yes, Blue, I’m glad MSM are slowly catching on. The bloggers lead the way yet again! Apparently they are in talks with Google to restrict the number of pages we can view online. Perhaps it should be the other way around!
I’ve been searched twice under anti terrorism laws. Both times I was exiting a tube station-one was Hammersmith on Saturday evening going to a friend’s flat and carrying nothing. The other time I was exiting Green Park tube with some shopping bags.
Applying Section 43 would have been a joke. If you’re stopping one white male in his Thirties for suspected terrorist offences then where does it end.
Section 44 is far more sinister-it basically says you can be stopped and searched for no reason, which is what happened to me.
At Hammersmith I objected and walked away and they radioed in a description of me to see if I was ‘wanted’ for anything . I know I was searched at Green Park, I think it was because I would have been arrested if I walked away. Now if that isn’t a police state then I don’t know what is.
TC – I don’t think one piece of poor legislation makes a police state. But this bit of legislation is particularly nasty which is why I am calling for it to be repealed. If you were able to walk away the first time doesn’t that tell you something?
And may I politely ask that you stick to one “handle” on here it makes my life easier, thanks.
I witnessed a case last month where a professional black lady had been convicted of assaulting a police officer, during a stop and search procedure under s44 (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, contrary to s89 (1) of the Police Act 1996, as well as wilfully obstructing him contrary to s47 (1)(c) & (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Since this lady now has acquired a criminal record, she is prevented from working with vulnerable people and children which was her main work. Her references about her integrity and abilities were superb. Furthermore, she was found guilty of professional misconduct by the professional body to which she belongs. This is likely to thwart her career prospects to some extent.
She quite rightly pointed out that the ramifications of the incident from which these convictions arose has been disproportionate. She has suffered both personally and professionally and now faces financial hardship. I had great sympathy for her. You did well to highlight s44, Blue Eyes.
“…convicted of assaulting a police officer…”
If a real assault, ans not just some verbal, I’ve no sympathy for her at all.
Sorry BE, don’t really pay attention to what I post under, think this is the same handle.
I agree, one poor piece of legislation does not make a police state. However, thanks to open ended legislation, one poor piece of legislation can turn the tide, and the Anti Terrorism Act (of which Section 43 and 44 are part of) is certainly that.
I nicked this from the Independent:
“Section 44….allows senior officers to designate entire areas of their police force regions as stop-and-search zones. The areas are chosen based on their likelihood of being a terrorism target.
More than 100 exist in London alone, covering areas such as the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace and other landmarks.
Every train station in the UK is covered by a Section 44 order.
Every area of the UK which has a Section 44 in place is known to the Home Office. But, due to the fear that the information could be used by terrorists to plan attacks, most of the the exact locations covered by Section 44 authorisations are kept secret, meaning members of the public have no idea if they are in one or not. ”
And on this webpage (http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-right-of-peaceful-protest/other-police-powers-to-restrict-right-to-protest.html) the following statement appears to be a tad worrying:
“Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Chief Constable to designate an area within which individuals may stop and search a vehicle, driver, passenger, pedestrian and anything carried by a pedestrian for the purpose of searching for articles which could be used in connection with terrorism. There need not be any grounds for suspecting the presence of such articles. Failure to stop and/or obstructing a police constable acting under section 44 is a criminal offence. Currently, the whole of greater London has been designated as such an area under s44.”
The whole of London is designated under Section 44. If that’s correct then I rest my case. Or just google “Police use (or misuse) Section 44″ to see where open ended legislation will get you.
As for the fact that I wasn’t arrested the first time I was searched, I specifically asked what would occur if I walked away and was told what would happen. The second time I was searched was last year, and I’m annoyed that I cannot remember the details (I was sober too). But I do know that my specific question about what would occur if I just walked away was not the same as before i.e. I think I would have been arrested. Damn my memory and damn this anecdotal evidence….
Ted/TC – I am not arguing that S44 is a good piece of legislation. Did you read the title of this post? However I do not agree that this is a police state. Do people get locked up for their political views? No. Do we have kangaroo or secret courts? No. Do people disappear? No.
We have gone far too far in this direction, and Straw’s plans for secret inquests and the issues surrounding David Kelly’s death show clearly how far we have gone but we still are not a police state. And turning things back around would not be very difficult.
Measured – your example had every right to be pissed off at being searched, but there are a thousand ways of expressing your pissed offness which do not involve assaulting the police officer who is dealing with you.
You may be right, guys.
I do not know the precise details of what took place leading up to the offences, but it was evident that there may have been racial overtones such as an element of provocation. A further injustice was that this lady had been misrepresented in the Press. This created its own difficulties as she did not want to make submissions since a journalist was present at the hearing. My observation is that we all thought it was an unfortunate series of consequences for this individual arising from a single incident which appear to be totally out of character.
XX measured
7 December, 2009 at 10:01 pm
a single incident which appear to be totally out of character.XX
Social worker/bent chav defender Brief bollox!
One strike and you are OUT as far as I am concerned.
Measured – what on Earth does “there may have been racial overtones such as an element of provocation” mean? Was she racially abused by the police? She was worried about certain witnesses being called at the trial because a journalist was present? This sounds very odd to me. Please explain.
BE, I suppose it depends on what you call a police state. We have detention without trial, we are stopped and searched without due cause, we are not allowed to protest/demonstrate without permission, we have cctv all over the streets and we’re constantly monitored, we are not allowed to drink in public and we are not allowed to smoke in public places (I could go on).
I agree that we are a long way from Germany in the 30s/40s or the communist Soviet Union (among many others) so we’re not there yet. It’s not as if one morning we’re going to wake up and everything will have changed and we’ll be in a police state. In that respect, WW2 has done us a disservice, as many people assume that a police state only comes into being when a totalitarian state tries to take over other nation states.
My concern is that through the steady drip of illiberal, authotarian and open ended legislation that can be adapted to suit any purpose, that’s where we’re going. It’s not as if one morning we’re going to wake up and everything will have changed and we’ll be in a police state.
What we’re seeing at the moment is us walking down a path that seems to go in just one direction, with no way of us turning back.
I’m not anti-police by any means. I was at the G20 protests last year and was appalled to see first hand, for the first time, the worrying sight of overly aggressive police acting as an agent of the state to quell dissent, let alone inciting/causing violence to discredit the protestors.
And the next week I helped a lone copper handcuff a violent drunk/nutter on the street. That’s what they are there for, and long may they remain, but they’re crossing the line and will continue to do so unless people stand up and say enough.
While I know that we’re basically agreeing, do you really think that police powers will be rolled back by the Conservatives (if they get in of course). Or that they will stay the same, and that some new things will be added? I know what my money’s on….
XX Ted
8 December, 2009 at 8:38 am
While I know that we’re basically agreeing, do you really think that police powers will be rolled back by the Conservatives (if they get in of course). Or that they will stay the same, and that some new things will be added? I know what my money’s on…. XX
But the police powers are NOT that much more different to what they ALWAYS were. Diferent names, different reasons, but there were, since Robert Peel, a 1001 ways you could arrest someone “just because you felt like it”, and, according to the letter of the law, it would be legal, from D&D and D&I (You would be AMAZED how many D&Ds/D&Is were taken in who had not touched a drop all night, (AND got done for it at court because our evidence was so tight), at my station, on my whole damn FORCE), Suspicion of drugs, Suspicion of about to commit an arrestable offence (“I saw him walking down XYZ street, and he lokked in every car window on his way, your honour”), going equipped (Had a screw driver, a hammer and a lenght of wire on him your honour…(aye the guy was on his way home from a late shift as a factory engineer.But THAT never was in the statement, NOR did it come out in court), etc, etc….. Our station called it “The ways and means act”.
And that was in the late 70s early 80s, WAAAYYY before the present shower of non performing apes got into Parliament.
And as to “Political police”, what were the police doing during the print workers and miners strikes, except being T******rs private police force to show she was a strong P.M and show the public she should be voted in again?
Without them she would have had to have found some Island no one had ever heard of, thousands of miles away, to invade to impress the proles.
Oh, and as to “meeting norms”, or “Targets” ask Merseyside police about the “Tick sheets”, where you had to show so many arrests etc per week at your assesments, and after the Toxteth riots, the then Chief Constable, Oxford” denied the existence of strenuously.
Von Spreuth, those are very good points you’re making, and you’ve managed to clarify my response.
You say that police powers have remained largely the same over the years, and they just go by different names which is a good point.
My point is that those powers were used in times where there were a lot more freedoms and less constraints on the general populace (smoking in pubs, drinking on the street etc). At the same time, the same old habitual defenders, thanks to the over populated prisons, can carry on regardless while normal people like myself are suddenly targeted in a variety of new ways. Also, coppers were still on the beat and served the community, while nowadays they are a more centralised, reactionary force that are not seen unless driving by at speed to a crime that has already happened.
My clarified point is this: there is the political context of the equation that changes matters. We’re living in times where our government does not appear to represent, or defend, the people who fund their existence.
We are denied a vote on Europe (let alone who we want to lead it), we go to war against the wishes over the majority of the population. We have an unelected and much hated PM. We have corrupt MPs and Peers in the House of Lords, who we are unable to get rid of, and exist in a world where the laws that they have made do not apply to them. We have more regulations, more taxes, more infringements on our freedom in the name of ‘protecting’ us. obviously, I could go on.
With this context, we are more powerless than ever before. If the police have the same powers as they always did (which is your point, i’m still not sure i agree totally but there you go), then if you put it into the backdrop of the political straight jacket we’re in, then it paints a darker picture.
I do understand your point r.e. the Peel laws etc, but back then you were also allowed to protest in front of Parliament, and you could also take a picture of it too:)
Hope this makes sense, I’ve just banged this out and have to go to lunch.
Ted. If you look at my first post here. in fact it IS the first post on this thread, I think you will find we are greatly in agreement.
@ Von Spreuth
This lady was not a social worker. She is a barrister, having been at the Bar for 26 years with a previously unblemished record.
Her practice was not in a highly renumerated area of law as she represented many who were disadvantaged and vulnerable. As I mentioned, her references from many eminent people were glowing.
@ Blue Eyes
I am not here to defend her, BE and I do not know what occurred precisely when she assaulted a police officer. I just wanted to highlight that I had come across a conviction for this and like other commenters say, the post is a point well made. Whether we are a police state or not, this case demonstrated the police wield considerable powers given the ramifications that can occur from gaining a criminal record.
Measured, as I said “Bent, chav defender”.