[Pulpculture]

Blunkett demands explanation from police

Home Secretary David Blunkett has demanded an explanation from police as to why they used anti-terrorist powers against protesters at an arms show.

Civil rights activists claimed officers made illegal use of provisions in the Terrorism Act to routinely stop and search legitimate demonstrators.

They plan to go to the High Court to seek a judicial review of the police action.

Mr Blunkett requested an immediate report from anti-terrorism chiefs at Scotland Yard.

He said: "The anti-terror legislation was made available for the second anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Centre and therefore was available to the police in case there were terrorist attacks or measures that we had to take to counter terrorists.

"I have asked that the head of the counter terrorism branch should report back on why it was that they chose to use that particular part of the counter terrorism legislation rather than wider public order legislation.

"I don't want to make a judgment until I hear from him what evidence they had at operational level that there was a concern of that sort."

Mr Blunkett, speaking on a visit to Liverpool, said: "It is their job to undertake the operational policing, it is my job to make sure they have the powers available to protect the public."

Scotland Yard had initially denied using the Terrorism Act but later admitted it had been used by some officers involved in policing the Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) conference at the ExCel Centre in London's Docklands.

[Spartacus]

I think this is going to go bent for the Met....

[Pulpculture]

From what I've read they've been naughty! Human rights infringed (hmmm possibly!!!)

Matthew

[CA5]

I would say that the event was policed sucessfully.
If this was the story of the event it means it has passed off without incident.So what if a few beardy weirdy bleeding hearts and liberals stamp their feet as usual.
The Uk is a major target for terror. If they have beefed things up, have a look at the calendar, then so be it.
In other countries including alot of our european neighbours the level of security shown by the met on this occasion is common practice.
Its about time the eternal critics of the security forces shut up.
They all moan like hell but sleep safely in their beds knowing that they are protected 24/7 by the military and other security services.

[Spartacus]

CA5, on Sep 10 2003, 04:58 PM, said:

Its about time the eternal critics of the security forces shut up.
They all moan like hell but sleep safely in their beds knowing that they are protected 24/7 by the military and other security services.

Amen. :ph34r:

[AndyB]

I can only agree with the comments above, if an incident had taken place at the show the police would have been criticised for being to slack.

The great British public have to realise that extra security come at a price, & that generally means infringing on civil liberties. As an IRA leader once said, the police have to be luck all the time, were as a we the terrorist, only have to be luck once!

[Pulpculture]

Never heard such rubbish. When a country allows its police force to miss use legislation it is illegal and will do nothing for the cause. That's why we have laws, surely.

Matthew

[DavidCharnley]

Absolutely, Matthew - we don't want to be in a police state, where any copper can use any piece of legislation under the sun to put somebody in the nick. The arrest must fit the legislation... and its not like there aren't sufficient powers to break up a protest that becomes unruly.

Last time I checked we were still in favour of 'policing by consent'... not much chance of that if your average middle-class liberal who goes out to wave his placard at an arms fair gets prosecuted under the same legislation as a bunch of Al Qaeda terrorists....

[Dogs of Blackpool]

Pulpculture, on Sep 11 2003, 10:00 AM, said:

Never heard such rubbish. When a country allows its police force to miss use legislation it is illegal and will do nothing for the cause. That's why we have laws, surely.

Matthew

At the moment, the only information that the public have is what has been released in the press.

My personal view is that is neither appropriate or fair to teh officers involved to assume that they have abused the legislation.

I fully agree that if it turns out that the Police misused the 2000 Act then yes they have damaged the effectivness if it and also their reputation, but lets not forget folks there is information we are not privy to. If they have used the legislation illegaly then yes they should be dealth with accordingly.

But as police officers we are not supposed to jump to conclusions without being in full possession of the facts.

No doubt we have all been witness to the see saw of british public opinion, if something had happened then they would have been asking for Commissioners head on a silver platter, now that they did use the legislation they want a head, damed if you do damed if you dont.

I am not apolgising if my views are different to other members of this forum, buts lets not leave the poor coppers out to dry when we are only in possession of information provided by the press!!!

[Giraffe]

Cityboy, on Sep 14 2003, 11:00 AM, said:

At the moment, the only information that the public have is what has been released in the press.

I agree, the press have a way of mincing their words, and I think you can only ever take what they say at face value.

[Pulpculture]

What are you on about? I read it in the Sun newspaper so it is fact.

[Whopper Macbig]

I've no problem whatsoever with a bit of beefed-up security. If the security forces have carried out some risk assessment and if they consider it necessary, then fine by me.

However, it's not for them to set the parameters for the way that they operate - that's for our elected representatives to decide and they do it on our behalf.

Lets remember what it is that we are getting so pious about protecting. Ours is a free society where politicians are answerable to us. In turn, the security services operate at the behest of the politicians upholding the sort of values that we elect them for. What our society is not not is a society where the security services can interpret or twist the law to suit themselves.

To my mind, that is the sort of society that we're supposed to be fighting against.

[Pulpculture]

Whopper MacBig, on Sep 14 2003, 06:52 PM, said:

Lets remember what it is that we are getting so pious about protecting. Ours is a free society where politicians are answerable to us. In turn, the security services operate at the behest of the politicians upholding the sort of values that we elect them for. What our society is not not is a society where the security services can interpret or twist the law to suit themselves.

To my mind, that is the sort of society that we're supposed to be fighting against.

Nice

[Carl]

Personally, having read several articles on the subject I can't see what the fuss is all about ?

Several people where pre-warned by Police re anti terorism legislation & legitimate Police powers were used to search people. If individuals are warned prior to an event it means the Police have good reason & in most cases I would profer, sound intelligence. When have we, the Police, ever done anything for the hell of it ????

Arrests from the event were for Criminal Damage which involved red paint which is fair enough. I read nowehere that citizens had been arrested under anti-terrorism legislation. Please correct me if I'm wrong ?

London is a general high risk target area & an arms fair is a great target for various "pressure groups" which IMO in some cases use nigh-on terrorist methods in their approach anyway. The whole legal challenge/press coverage etc is once again a minority pressure group attempting to "highlight" how hard done by they are having been Policed robustly & effectively & not been allowed to cause mayhem & criminal damage.

Now, IMO, far more serious are reports of many of the stall holders being unlicensed & the HO interjection to stop the Police taking action against them ......

Regards,

Carl

[Pulpculture]

Carl, on Sep 15 2003, 09:04 AM, said:

Several people where pre-warned by Police re anti terorism legislation & legitimate Police powers were used to search people.

The Met applied (and got granted) powers under the anti terrorism act due to the anniversary of Sept 11th. To then use these powers on British subjects that are voicing their dismay at UK companies selling weaponary used to kill is outrageous.

They used the act to search anybody with absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Carl - Re your quote, it is not what was done at the time more that fact they were using the powers illegally.

Matthew

[Whopper Macbig]

And another thing, he ranted ......

I'm sure some of the people who were demonstrating have a long-standing oppostion to the international trade in arms. Some of them might even have been on a similar demonstration, say 20 years ago making the same point and arguing about the same principles.

Of course, 20 years ago we were selling arms to our erstwhile friends the Iraqi's with Conservative Ministers personally signing export certificates for the stuff. Never mind all the unspeakable things they did with that weaponry in the interim against their own people, what about the fact that they probably used it against our own Forces earlier this year? Isn't there also a big question mark over the extent to which we (and the Germans) supplied them with much of their WMD capability, only to then use that as a pretext for invading them!?!

This is what this vile trade is all about and the UK is the world's second biggest exporter behind those champions of freedom the Americans. We're still sending stuff to the likes of Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and Algeria and stoking up problems in other hot spots. I've got nothing but respect for the people who want to make legitimate protests about these sales which to be perfectly honest, are an affront to Britain.

Right that's it. I'm off to lie down for a while.

[Spartacus]

Pulpculture, on Sep 15 2003, 10:41 AM, said:

They used the act to search anybody with absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Carl - Re your quote, it is not what was done at the time more that fact they were using the powers illegally.

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/ac.../96007--a.htm#1


As far as this piece of legislation is concerned is it isn't illegal. The ranking officer gave authorisation for the stop and search people. Notice, "stop any pedestrian" there is NO need for reasonable grounds or suspicion.

13B. - (1) Where it appears to a police officer of the rank mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (B) or (as the case may be) © of section 13A above that it is expedient to do so in order to prevent acts of terrorism to which that section applies, he may give an authorisation that the powers to stop and search persons conferred by this section shall be exercisable at any place within his area or a locality in his area which is specified in the authorisation.

(2) This section confers on any constable in uniform power to stop any pedestrian and search him, or anything carried by him, for articles of a kind which could be used for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism.


I've used this power once, and it was for a person with a suitcase at a rememberance day parade; with lots of miliatry personnel around. I had NO grounds to suspect he was a terrorist.. but I did believe that the suitcase could have a bomb in it. I used it as a final restort to what I felt could have been a dangerous situation.. (turned out he had nothing more threatening that a bottle of johnny walker blue label..)

There is a significant amount of hardware at that show... if for some reason there was a hijack or whatever.. the Met would be in deepest rubbish. Whether it was mis-used, or not appropriately used.. thats a different story altogether.

This post has been edited by Bert: 15 September 2003 - 05:07 PM

[Dogs of Blackpool]

Something I have deep problems wiht this post, is that there is the willingness to hang out the officers from the Met with only the basic of information from an unreliable media.

If the power was used unlawfully, then I fully agree that action should be taken, but people WE do not have the full facts, regardless of our personal views about the arms trade, NONE of us were there,, NONE of us were privy to the intel the OIC had at the time.

There seems to be alot of assumptions, it would have been a plum target if there had been a strike.

I feel that writing off the officers before there has been an offical comment made is both unfair to the officers involved and do nothing to show support to our colleagues who are faced with a difficult situation.

Before I get any spam, it is to my intention to upset anyone, but I am not going to say sorry for my views!

This post has been edited by Cityboy: 15 September 2003 - 05:59 PM

[QBD]

Bert, agreed, when such an authorisation has been made under section 13B the any constable using those powers will be acting lawfully provided that the authorisation itself was lawfully given. I note that section 13B does not require the relevant senior officer to have "reasonable" belief or even suspicion. It merely requires him to be of a state of mind where it appears to him that use of the powers in section 13B would be expedient.

That having been said, the senior officer will still be subject to the Wednesbury standards of reasonableness (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223). His or her decision will have been unreasonable if
(1) he or she has taken into account matters which he or she ought not to have taken into account, or
(2) he or she has not taken into account matters which he or she ought to have taken into account, or, exceptionally,
(3) he or she has come to a decision or taken an action that no reasonable person or body could come to or take.

However, this does not mean that such an action would be reversed, merely that it would be declared ultra vires, that is, that the senior officer acted beyond his or her powers in taking it.

[haggis]

I was a bit confused by the statement about

Quote

Scotland Yard had initially denied using the Terrorism Act but later admitted it had been used by some officers involved in policing the Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) conference at the ExCel Centre in London's Docklands.

Searches under s.43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 require the authorisation of a senior officer to use that power. So how then could "some officers" invoke s.43 powers, and others not? You either have authorisation or you don't. Even then, the powers are on suspicion of a person carrying anything that may be used for terrorism.

If they expected violence from demonstrators, then a senior officer could have authorised searches under s.60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.

In both cases, reasonable grounds are not required in order to effect a search of an individual. The onus is on the senior officer to provide reasonable grounds for issuing the authorisation. I imagine the Met had good grounds to suspect that protesters could have had terrorism on their mind given the nature of the exhibition and the date.

It's a bit rich of these "civil rights activists" to criticise the police response on one hand, and condone/commit criminal damage on the other. Liberal tw*ts.

This post has been edited by haggis: 15 September 2003 - 09:58 PM

[Pulpculture]

Bert, your missing the point. The officers may have been following correct proceedures when using the powers from the act but the point is they were miss using the act for the purposes in which it was written and more importantly for which they requested it be used. I'll spell it out in a more basic form:

The Met applied to use the act for a period of 1 month around September 11th incase there were some terrorist attacks to mark the 9/11 anniversary. The Met then used these powers in a completely non terroristy situation. Why? Possibly because officers were bending the rules. Bending the rules in my book means an illegal act.

Cityboy, take your point, but it doesn't wash with me. This is serious and it's only by debating the issue we'll ever get to the bottom of it. If we let it be brushed under the carpet it will be missused on a regular basis. I do not want to be in fear of walking down a street and find I am stopped and searched for absolutely no reason whatsoever - just because and officer wants to search me.

It boils down to another Blunkett rushed piece of legislation.

This post has been edited by Pulpculture: 16 September 2003 - 08:45 AM

[Spartacus]

How can we say they were mis-using the act?

Near the anniversary of 9/11.. at a miliatry arms fair... in the centre of London.. near Docklands financial district... god knows what intelligence they had.


The act wasn't enacted by Blunkett and has been around for years; including the power to stop and search. The renewal of the terrorism act occurs every two years and recieves approval. Lastly, the anti-terrorism act is always in force in London, on a month per month rolling basis. No special application was made.

If it wasn't for the fact we can stop people without grounds, the road blocks and stops which have been in force in London for counter terrorism... would be completely useless and open us up to further tradgedy.

They used the act according to the law... if they felt it was appropriate, then its fair enough by me. Not for us to be judging them.

This post has been edited by Bert: 16 September 2003 - 09:17 AM

[Pulpculture]

The act is the Terrorism Act 2000. So it hasn't been around long. Can I assume were talking about different acts here. The one refered to in the article at the beginning of the thread is the Terrorism Act 2000.

I have copied the relevant chunks regarding stop and search. I have highlighted the bit that demonstrates that officers can serach anyone when the Act powers are enacted......

43. - (1) A constable may stop and search a person whom 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.

(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.

(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.


Power to stop and search

Authorisations.
44. - (1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-

(a) the vehicle;
(B) the driver of the vehicle;
© a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-

(a) the pedestrian;
(B) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.

(4) An authorisation may be given-

(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (B) or ©, by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(B) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
© where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.
(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Exercise of power.
45. - (1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)-

(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and
(B) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

(3) A constable exercising the power conferred by an authorisation may not require a person to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, an outer coat, a jacket or gloves.

(4) Where a constable proposes to search a person or vehicle by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) he may detain the person or vehicle for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out at or near the place where the person or vehicle is stopped.

(5) Where-

(a) a vehicle or pedestrian is stopped by virtue of section 44(1) or (2), and
(B) the driver of the vehicle or the pedestrian applies for a written statement that the vehicle was stopped, or that he was stopped, by virtue of section 44(1) or (2),
the written statement shall be provided.

(6) An application under subsection (5) must be made within the period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the vehicle or pedestrian was stopped.


As you can see it is a very powerful piece of legislation and should not be used lightly.

[Pulpculture]

Bert, on Sep 16 2003, 09:13 AM, said:

How can we say they were mis-using the act?

Near the anniversary of 9/11.. at a miliatry arms fair... in the centre of London.. near Docklands financial district... god knows what intelligence they had.


The act wasn't enacted by Blunkett and has been around for years; including the power to stop and search. The renewal of the terrorism act occurs every two years and recieves approval. Lastly, the anti-terrorism act is always in force in London, on a month per month rolling basis. No special application was made.

If it wasn't for the fact we can stop people without grounds, the road blocks and stops which have been in force in London for counter terrorism... would be completely useless and open us up to further tradgedy.

They used the act according to the law... if they felt it was appropriate, then its fair enough by me. Not for us to be judging them.

All said and done Blunkett is investigating why the police used the Terrorism Act 2000 powers for this event. If he's bothered by them being used then say no more.

[Spartacus]

I'll agree to disagree