Terror law overkill? Police stop 180,000 people under draconian laws but only 255 arrested

Terror law overkill? Police stop 180,000 people under draconian laws but only 255 arrested

www.dailymail.co. uk

Police have used anti-terrorism powers to stop and search almost 180,000 suspects, it emerged yesterday.

Yet only 255 of the individuals they targeted were subsequently detained for terrorist- related offences.

The figures suggest that police may be misusing powers granted to them under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 supposedly for use only in extreme circumstances.

(visit the link for the full news article)

"The figures suggest that police may be misusing powers". I think they don't just suggest it, they smash it into your face. 255/180,000 is NOT a good score. Sure, I expect a few errors from the police, but if they harass 180,000 people, then i expect that at least 1 in 10 will be actually arrestable.

It's a total mockery as we all know they aren't even using these laws on terror suspects. Most of the usage seems to be on teenagers on street corners, protesters, and regular homeowners who forgot to put their garbage out in time.

www.dailymail.co. uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm an American so my understanding of your laws may in fact be lacking...

I have read more than one article where local councils are also (ab)using these laws, to spy on folks for litter and overfilled garbage bins etc...

seems to be a bit over the top...and I have to say based on y'alls suceess with it (or not) the U.S. will quickly fowllow suit and empower our own local city councils and constabulary.

whats next???

It is my understanding that the Daily Mail is the UK equivalent of trash tabloids like the National Enquirer in the US. Their info is not to be trusted.

[edit on 11-2-2009 by spookjr]

255 out 180,000 is .1%, that's a ridiculously low percentage.

Originally posted by deadbang
I'm an American so my understanding of your laws may in fact be lacking...

I have read more than one article where local councils are also (ab)using these laws, to spy on folks for litter and overfilled garbage bins etc...

seems to be a bit over the top...and I have to say based on y'alls suceess with it (or not) the U.S. will quickly fowllow suit and empower our own local city councils and constabulary.

whats next???

They are, and those who fought against these draconian laws said that exactly this would happen.

I work with a person from our local council, he put up a sign in our place of work a few months ago on behalf of the council, asking people to come forward and anonymously report crimes and misdemeanors being committed by their friends, neighbors and colleagues.

They have a hot line specifically for reporting people.

I immediately wrote "Read George Orwell - '1984'" all over it.

It was taken down a few weeks later.

Every local authority is abusing these laws, creating a suspicious and accusing public. It really is 1984.
And I will fight it every step of the way. My grandfather fought the Nazis, and there is no chance I'll sit back and watch our own government become them.

...and I wonder, out of those 255 detained, how many were subsequently charged with any terrorist activities?

The anti-terrorism legislation has proven to be a catch-all excuse for the police to stop or detain people when other laws would prevent them from doing so.
There is little or no common sense used by the police these days, more of a them and us scenario. Sure, they may have a pleasant job to do but when they place themselves above the rest of us they cease to be respected.

Oh how I long for the days of the old community officers, walking the beat and talking to people, exercising common sense a and little leeway in dealing with minor offences, instead of the strict "must-meet-targets so arrest everyone" attitude.

Originally posted by spookjr
It is my understanding that the Daily Mail is the UK equivalent of trash tabloids like the National Enquirer in the US. Their info is not to be trusted.

[edit on 11-2-2009 by spookjr]

You'd be slightly out on that analysis in my opinion. the Daily Mail is nowhere comparible to Enquirer.

They got the info by freedom of information act, and the campaign group 'liberty' has made a comment.on it.

Daily Mail news will generally be as accurate as most newspapers, the only bad thing I would say is they do have a certain position, a kind of right wing, anti-immigration, position, but this just determines what stories they run, how salacious the headline is, etc. The actual facts of the story still have to be correct, or they would be liable like any other newspaper.

Here in the UK we have far stronger laws about lies, defamation and so on in the newspapers that the US, comparison to National Enquirer is erroneous.

Originally posted by Britguy
...and I wonder, out of those 255 detained, how many were subsequently charged with any terrorist activities?

That is my thoughts exactly!! And what exactly does terrorist activities mean? It could be anything nowadays from having weed to being muslim with schizophrenia.

Originally posted by Britguy
...and I wonder, out of those 255 detained, how many were subsequently charged with any terrorist activities?

The anti-terrorism legislation has proven to be a catch-all excuse for the police to stop or detain people when other laws would prevent them from doing so.
There is little or no common sense used by the police these days, more of a them and us scenario. Sure, they may have a pleasant job to do but when they place themselves above the rest of us they cease to be respected.

Oh how I long for the days of the old community officers, walking the beat and talking to people, exercising common sense a and little leeway in dealing with minor offences, instead of the strict "must-meet-targets so arrest everyone" attitude.

I'm just a little too young, but older peoplw would probably tell us, "Remember the Sus laws"

en.wikipedia.org...

In Britain, the Sus law was the informal name for a stop-and-search law that permitted a police officer to act on suspicion, or 'sus', alone.

It was based upon Sections 4 and 6 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 which made it "illegal for a suspected person or reputed thief to frequent or loiter in a public place with intent to commit an arrestable offence" and effectively permitted the police to stop and search and even arrest anyone they chose, purely on the basis of suspicion as a crime-prevention tactic.

The law caused much discontent among certain sections of the population, particularly black and ethnic minority communities, against whom the police use of the law was particularly targeted. The sus law was abolished following race riots in St Pauls, Bristol, in 1980, and in Brixton, London, and Toxteth, Liverpool, in 1981, because its alleged abuse was believed to be a contributory factor to these events. [1] Following Lord Scarman's inquiry into the cause of the Brixton riots, the sus law was dropped.

It could work out even worse this time. Last time it caused riots when they kept using on black people. This time it's the whole country that could end up protesting.

Thats good to know. I for some reason thought they were disreputable. See ya' learn something every day.....

Originally posted by spookjr
Thats good to know. I for some reason thought they were disreputable. See ya' learn something every day.....

They have some biases, but they aren't terrible. they are good on big brother issues normally.

Here are some related articles that show how the laws are used.

Council that snooped on parents now uses anti-terror laws to spy on fishermen

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Council snoops use anti-terror laws to spy on punt operators

www.dailymail.co.uk...

March of the dustbin Stasi: Half of councils use anti-terror laws to watch people putting rubbish out on the wrong day

www.dailymail.co.uk...