UK Stop and Search by Police, Snoops, Teachers and Children in Your Pubs, Schools, Streets, Homes and Virtual Reality

[yeti]

What the hell has happened to the UK? Their slide into a police state has been rapid and truly shocking. It looks like I won't be going there any time soon...

[drummer]

Two children 'searched by police'

An inquiry has been launched after two children were allegedly stopped and searched by police under "terrorism legislation" in south London.

Two officers carried out a stop and search on a man, 43, his daughter, 11, and another child, six, near Woolwich Arsenal station, the man said.

The officers also took his mobile phones, USB stick and a CD, he added.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is investigating the "worrying" allegation.

The man said that during the search the plain clothes officers ordered him to stand in front of a CCTV camera to have his photograph taken.

They did not tell him when or how he could have his items returned, he added.

'Particularly worrying'

The IPCC is investigating the complaint with the Metropolitan Police Service's Directorate of Professional Standards.

IPCC Commissioner Mike Franklin said: "The use of Section 44 stop and search powers is a very sensitive issue and it is right that complaints of this nature are taken very seriously."

He added: "It is particularly worrying that two young children were allegedly searched in this way.

"This investigation will look at whether the use of these powers in this case was lawful, reasonable and correctly carried out."

The allegation comes after nine-year-old Jadan Shepherd was stopped and searched by police in Camberwell, south London, last month.

His mother Sandra Shepherd subsequently lodged a complaint, which is being investigated by the Directorate of Professional Standards.

More than 157,290 stop and searches were carried out in London last year, nearly triple the number carried out in 2007.

Stop and searches led to 1,200 arrests in the year to September 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8248282.stm

[Easy Skanking]

I believe that the correct response would be to demand that the officer explain which laws give him the authority to search them. If he can't give any law then he's S.O.L. and refuse to comply. Simply going along with it is sheeple behavior and it's time for courageous men and women to stand up to the tyrannical police state in the UK and the US.

Rise, Rebel, Resist.

[TriWooOx]

Quote:A black youth worker today criticised the police for damaging race relations after he was handcuffed and detained for watching a stop-and-search.

Ken Hinds is set to receive an apology and £22,000 in compensation from the British Transport Police after being charged and spending four hours in a police cell after witnessing a black teenager being arrested.

The 50-year-old, who regularly liaises with police in his work for a charity tackling gang violence, will receive the payout under an agreement to be finalised this week.

Mr Hinds, from Edmonton, said: "I am disappointed and so angry at the way they treated me. It just shows that 30 years on, relations with the police and the black community have not improved. The black community treats the police with suspicion and incidents like this add fuel to that."

He brought a claim for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution in the High Court after two failed attempts to take his complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Mr Hinds, who sits on the Metropolitan Police's Black Independent Advisory Committee and is chairman of the monitoring group for stop-and-search in Haringey, was arrested when he stopped to observe a group of police officers who were searching a black youth at Seven Sisters train station in May 2004.

He said: "There were seven or eight officers tugging at this teenager. It caught my attention because the youth looked scared and alarmed. I wanted to watch to make sure he had a witness in case he was hurt.

"But an officer spotted me and told me to f*** off. When I told him I knew my rights, he said to his colleague, 'I'm going to nick him'. They then put me in tight handcuffs which was very painful."

A charge of threatening and abusive behaviour was dropped after magistrates decided one of the Pcs was "not a credible witness". In settling, the BTP did not admit liability but agreed to apologise.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...earch-police.do

[---]

IMO It's great they arbitarily arrested him out of all people, if you see what I mean.

But still his words ring true as tragic indictment of the system.

I met an real organised crime gangster once.. in hospital. After a week or so of complete hostility he warmed to me a fair amount and told me all about his pespective of the police and gang crime for about a month. It's a different story but it is interesting and completely true too. He had been shot across the legs .. lol the person who shot him was also shot in the legs some days later and he told me of the night they brought him into the ward and the nursing staff had wheeled their beds next to each other...but they protested for separate wards in hospital...shame..but i digress..I already mentioned it.

If it wasn't the case and such a shame that those police who are just, didn't feel like their side of the story was so under-represented.. for it is true that often their work is very dangerous.. and thus, do NOT HAVE THE COURAGE NOR INTEGRITY NOR PRESENCE OF MIND to stand up and dare to question their own organisation PUBLICALLY.

meh. It's a totally corrupt arm and inception of the establishment and riddled with the nudge nudge wink wink crowd, who can expect much from them..they just seem to be on a trip speaking from my own experiences of seeing them at work.

There is little to no chance it can reform itself.. esp.considering the new generation of power mad steroidal sadomasochists that have been signed up and kitted out with the black killing gear.

Any minority of decent police in the UK seem largely too cowardly to organise. "apparently".

So how did the guns get into the communities?:rolleyes:Tell me it's not thin groomed white guys in the middle of quiet inner city street nights with a gang man to meet and a jag with a boot full of shit.. I saw that much. for sure. They saw me too as I bimbled by across on the other side of the street too. But I was of no consequence in a good way thankfully.

That's me used up on my piece of sharing pie for this week anyway.

JMO

[TriWooOx]

Quote:All telecoms companies and internet service providers will be required by law to keep a record of every customer’s personal communications, showing who they have contacted, when and where, as well as the websites they have visited.

Despite widespread opposition to the increasing amount of surveillance in Britain, 653 public bodies will be given access to the information, including police, local councils, the Financial Services Authority, the ambulance service, fire authorities and even prison governors.

They will not require the permission of a judge or a magistrate to obtain the information, but simply the authorisation of a senior police officer or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority.

Ministers had originally wanted to store the information on a single government-run database, but chose not to because of privacy concerns.

However the Government announced yesterday it was pressing ahead with privately held “Big Brother” databases that opposition leaders said amounted to “state-spying” and a form of “covert surveillance” on the public.

It is doing so despite its own consultation showing that it has little public support.

The Home Office admitted that only one third of respondents to its six-month consultation on the issue supported its proposals, with 50 per cent fearing that the scheme lacked sufficient safeguards to protect the highly personal data from abuse.

The new law will increase the amount of personal data that can be obtained by officials through the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which is supposed to be used for fighting terrorism.

Although most private firms already hold details of every customer’s private calls and emails for their own business purposes, most only do so on an ad hoc basis and only for a period of several months.

The new rules, known as the Intercept Modernisation Programme, will not only force communications companies to keep their records for longer, but to expand the type of data they keep to include details of every website their customers visit, effectively registering every online click.

While public authorities will not be able to view the contents of these emails or phone calls, they can see the internet addresses, dates, times and identify recipients of calls.

Firms involved in storing the data, including Orange, BT and Vodafone, will be reimbursed at a cost to the taxpayer of £2 billion over 10 years.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said he had fears about the abuse of the data. He said: “The big danger in all of this is 'mission creep’. This government keeps on introducing new powers to tackle terrorism and organised crime which end up being used for completely different purposes. We have to stop that from happening”.

David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, added: “Whilst this is no doubt necessary in pursuing terrorist suspects, the proposals are so intrusive that they should be subject to legal approval, and should not be available except in pursuit of the most serious crimes.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office also opposed the moves.

“The Information Commissioner believes that the case has yet to be made for the collection and processing of additional communications data for the population as a whole being relevant and not excessive,” a spokesman said.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, has criticised the amount the scheme will cost for what he said is effectively “state spying”.

He added yesterday: “It is simply not that easy to separate the bare details of a call from its content. What if a leading business person is ringing Alcoholics Anonymous?”

Ministers said that they still have to work with the communications industry to find the correct way of framing the proposal in law — meaning it will not come before Parliament until after the general election. But the Home Office yesterday insisted it would push the legislation through. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, originally released a consultation paper in April.

Only 29 per cent of respondents supported the Government approach. Meanwhile the communications providers themselves questioned the cost of the scheme and whether it was even technically feasible.

John Yates, Britain’s head of anti-terrorism, has argued that the legislation is vital for his investigators.

David Hanson, the Home Office minister, said: “The consultation showed widespread recognition of the importance of communications data in protecting the public .. we will now work with communications service providers and others to develop these proposals, and aim to introduce necessary legislation as soon as possible.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...earch.html

[JFK]

Perhaps the UK is just trying to " keep up with the Jones' ( the US ) "...

Google [ "Mark Klein" "secret room" ]. ( with the quotes, without the brackets )

[TriWooOx]

Quote:Under the Terrorism Act 2000, officers can stop and search anyone in a designated area without having to show reasonable suspicion for doing so.

The policy, which saw more than a quarter of a million stops last year, has led to accusations the police are abusing the power to stop anyone, including protesters or photographers, under the guise of preventing terrorism.

But the tactic may now have to be abandoned after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said it breached the right to privacy.

It was ruling on a case brought by two Britons who were subject to so-called Section 44 stops outside an arms fair in east London in 2003.

Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton were also awarded more than £30,000 compensation, raising the prospect that police could now face further challenges from individuals stopped under the power.

The Home Office last night said it was "disappointed" with the ruling and was looking to appeal. The powers will remain pending that appeal.

In a further blow, a police force yesterday admitted it had unlawfully used more general stop and search powers on some protesters at a power station and could now face damages claims from more than 3,000 other individuals who were stopped at the same event.

Mr Gillan and Miss Quinton were both searched on the same day in the area of the Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition at the Excel Centre in Docklands, where there had already been protests and demonstrations, but nothing incriminating was found on either of them.

Their challenge over the legality of the power was rejected by courts in the UK, including the House of Lords, but the ECHR said the powers were "neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse".

"They are not, therefore, 'in accordance with the law' and it follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect private and family life) of the Convention."

The pair are both white but the court also issued a warning that the scope of the stop and search law could have serious implications for discrimination, especially as statistics show black and Asian people are disproportionately stopped.

Under Section 44 police will designate certain areas for a set period, within which officers can stop and search anyone.

Until last year, the Metropolitan Police had designated the whole of the force area on a rolling renewal programme since the power first came in to effect in 2001.

Its use has proved controversial, including the case of 80-year-old holocaust survivor Walter Wolfgang, who was removed from the Labour Party conference in 2005 after heckling the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

There were 256,000 stops under the terror law in 2008/09 but just 0.6 per cent resulted in an arrest. It was also a huge rise on the 33,177 stops in 2004.

Lord Carlile, the Government's terror laws watchdog, has regularly warned it is being overused and claimed in the summer that police are carrying out unjustified searches of innocent people to "racially balance" their statistics.

In the wake of the verdict, Mr Gillan said: "It's fantastic news after a long struggle. I look to the Government for a strong response."

Miss Quinton added: "There has to be a balance between private life and security. The court has shown that section 44 is an invasion of people's right to liberty and privacy."

Corinna Ferguson, legal officer for campaigning group Liberty, which supported the court action, said: "The public, police and Court of Human Rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law. In the coming weeks, parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess."

But Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said: “Stop and search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in a package of measures in the on-going fight against terrorism.

”I am disappointed with the ECtHR ruling in this case as we won on these challenges in the UK courts, including in the House of Lords. We are considering the judgment and will seek to appeal. Pending the outcome of this appeal, the police will continue to have these powers available to them.”

:: In an unrelated case yesterday, the High Court heard that Kent Police is prepared to admit that the "stop and search" of 11-year-old twins and a veteran environmental campaigner going to a climate camp protest was unlawful.

The twins were stopped while attending a demonstration against the proposed Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in Kent in August 2008, as was David Morris, from north London, a long-standing environmental campaigner.

All three were searched under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which requires officers to have "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is carrying prohibited weapons or articles that could be used for criminal damage.

Two judges heard that the three cases could now be settled following admissions by the police that section 1 powers were wrongly used.

Lawyers for the three said more than 3,000 other people were stopped at the even on the same "unlawful basis".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...rules.html

[TriWooOx]

Quote:Most police forces in England and Wales still unfairly target black and Asian people in their use of stop and search powers, the equality watchdog has said.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said it could not rule out legal action against some forces.

Its research found black people were at least six times more likely and Asian people around twice as likely to be stopped and searched as white people.

The Home Office acknowledged that there were "improvements still needed".

Nonetheless, the commission has written to forces warning that they could potentially be sued for breaching the Race Relations Act.

The report came as EHRC chairman Trevor Phillips was criticised by a parliamentary committee over his leadership.

'Over-represented'

According to the EHRC's review, the evidence suggested that racial stereotyping and discrimination were significant factors behind the higher rates of stops and searches.

The areas with the most disproportionate use of the powers against black people included Dorset, Hampshire and Leicestershire, said the EHRC.

More than 11% of black people across England were stopped and searched in 2007-8, with the figure almost 20% in London, the report suggested.

That compares with 2.2% of people stopped and searched in the population as a whole.

It estimated that black people in London borough of Wandsworth were more than nine times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched. The likelihood was more than six times higher in four other boroughs: Lambeth (7.3); Tower Hamlets (7.2); Hammersmith and Fulham (6.9) and Kensington and Chelsea (6.9).

Researchers also found that black and ethnic minority youths were over-represented in the criminal justice system.

According to the EHRC report, research found police were more likely to give white youths more lenient reprimands or fines, while black youths were more likely to be charged.

The Stop and Think report drew on data from the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and the Office for National Statistics.

It found that across England and Wales there were 22 stops and searches per 1,000 people in 2007-08 - totalling more than 170,000 in all.

But it calculated that there would have been only about 25,000 searches if black people were stopped and searched at the same rate as white people.

'Sledgehammer'

EHRC commissioner Simon Woolley said stop and search was not even an effective way of tackling crime.

He added: "We do know that it is a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach.

"Literally hundreds of thousands of black people are subject to this humiliating experience. Actually, what the evidence does tell us is that when police forces use different tactics, they cut stop and search, crime goes down."

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "The government is committed to delivering a policing service, and a wider criminal justice system, which promotes equality and does not discriminate against anyone because of their race. There will be no let-up in driving forward the improvements still needed.

"The National Policing Improvement Agency's 'Next Steps' programme will enable individual police forces to address these issues in stop and search more effectively."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8567528.stm

[Dunamis]

Gladly things are looking to be changing in this area due to recent developments:


Stop and search under terror laws unlawful, Europe rules
A key police power to stop and search suspects under terrorism laws was in disarray last night after a European court ruled the policy is illegal and breaches human rights.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...rules.html

There are loads of other places to get this story too. I just posted the first one that came up on my search.

[TriWooOx]

Quote:Ministers were accused yesterday of keeping the public in a permanent 'state of emergency' to justify draconian anti-terror laws.

A panel of MPs and peers said they falsely claimed that terrorists were a 'threat to the life of the nation' ever since the 9/11 attacks.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the erosion of civil liberties has gone too far and demanded an overhaul of legislation like control orders, stop and search powers and rules that allow suspects to be detained for up to 28 days.

They also urged ministers finally to axe the Bill that would allow detention without trial for 42 days. It was shelved two years ago.

Labour peer Lord Dubs, a committee member, said: 'The state of emergency going on indefinitely is not the most sensible way.

'The Government has gone a bit far in a number of respects and there should be a sensible balance between the right to protect ourselves from terrorism and the rights of individuals.

'We accept that there is a serious threat but we think they have gone further than is sensible.'

The committee demanded that intelligence chiefs testify in public about the scale of the threat. Lord Dubs said: 'We think the security services should be accountable to Parliament. They are in America. They are in other countries.'

The Government was condemned in 2003 for scaring the public by sending armoured cars to Heathrow - a move seen as unlikely to stop an attack on a jet.

The European Court of Human Rights has also ruled that Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which lets police stop and search anyone, contravenes privacy law.

The committee's report condemned government claims that British spies have not been complicit in the torture of terrorist suspects.

It said the official definition of complicity had 'no legal basis' and the case for a full judicial inquiry into the subject was now 'irresistible'.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'The committee is right to question whether all of the legislation introduced since 2001 is proving effective or necessary.

'But even more important is the need to stop the use of terror laws for other purposes, like council surveillance.'

A government spokesman said: 'We are committed to doing all we can to protect our nation's security while protecting individual liberties.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...broad.html

[TriWooOx]

Quote:Somebody is stopped and searched by the police every 20 seconds in 'Big Brother' Britain, it was revealed last night.

More than nine out of every ten of those interrogated by officers are not even subsequently arrested, let alone charged.

Opposition parties say the revelation is yet more evidence of the Government's disregard for civil liberties and 'state knows best' attitude.

According to figures released by the Home Office yesterday, the use of each of the three main types of police stop and search powers is rocketing.

The statistics follow warnings that police are making unjustified stops to give the figures 'racial balance' and that suspects are being searched even though there is no evidence against them.

The biggest rise was in searches carried out because an officer believed a suspect may be about to commit an act of violence - up 182 per cent in a year, to 150,174.

Use of the controversial Section 44 anti-terrorism power - which allows police to search people without any reasonable grounds they suspect wrongdoing - leapt by 66 per cent, to 210,013 cases.

The police's long-standing stop and search power, which dates back to 1984 and requires an officer to at least suspect a person could be involved in crime, was up ten per cent, to 1,153,572 cases.

In total some 1,513,759 people were interrogated on the streets or in their car by an officer in 2008/09 - an overall increase of 24 per cent.

That is the equivalent of three every minute.

Yet the searches led to only 118,118 arrests. In the remaining cases, an entirely innocent person had been put through the humiliation - often in public - of a lengthy search for no reason.

The most controversial aspect will be the steep rise in the use of the Section 44 anti-terror powers. It led to the arrest of only nine people for terrorism offences - or 0.004 per cent of those who were stopped.

The power has already been ruled unlawful by the European courts.

Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terror laws, has also said he knows of ases where suspects were stopped by officers even though there was no evidence against them.

But, pending a final appeal, the Home Office has decided to allow officers to continue to use the power.

Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'Gordon Brown and Labour have trampled our civil liberties for far too long. Whether they're trying to impose ID cards, or allowing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be stopped and searched under Terrorism powers, they always seem to think the state knows best. We can't go on like this.

'Conservatives will end the abuse of stop and search powers as part of a full review of all Labour's counterterrorism laws.'

Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: 'Stop and search powers are being over-used and abused.

'When trainspotters, photographers and Japanese tourists are all up in arms, it should be clear even to Labour that this law needs to be tightened up.

'Random and indiscriminate use of stop and search is an infringement of liberty and alienates the communities we rely on most for the intelligence and witnesses to fight terrorism.'

He spoke as the campaign group Big Brother Watch called on the three main parties to make the scrapping of Section 44 powers an election promise.

Anti-terrorism chiefs ordered an escalation in the use of the powers after the failed bomb attack against the Tiger Tiger nightclub in London's West End in 2007.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows officers to stop anyone in a specified area without the need for reasonable suspicion. From last year, the powers were limited to specific parts of London, including Westminster.

Photographers and protesters have claimed the powers are used excessively against them.

Critics also say that the alleged unjustified stopping of white people to balance racial profiling figures is 'almost certainly illegal'.

The Home Office said the increase use of the stop and search power in 'anticipation of violence' was a result of the tackling knives action plan.
BBC photographer who was treated as a terror suspect

By Luke Sakeld

Of the hundreds of thousands of innocent members of the public who have been victims of Labour's stop and search legislation, many have been photographers - be they amateurs, professionals or even tourists .

One of them was BBC photographer Jeff Overs who was stopped by police in November on suspicion of being a terrorist as he took pictures outside the Tate Modern gallery in London

The 48-year-old was focusing on a sunset over St Paul's Cathedral when a policewoman, with a community support officer, told him she was 'stopping people who were taking photographs as a counter-terrorism measure' and demanded his name, address and date of birth.

The photographer said it so enraged him he sent the policewoman away with a 'flea in her ear' but not before he had been issued with a stop and search form.

He said: 'I was outraged at such an infringement of my liberty.'

'I pointed out that nearly every other person walking along the South Bank was taking pictures of the view using their mobile phones and we had drawn her attention because we were using cameras.

'Did these officers seriously believe two people with cameras around their necks photographing the sunset were a danger to national security? Foreign tourists must think Britain has become a police state.'

Other cases include trainspotter Stephen White, who was enjoying a family camping holiday in Wales when he was confronted by officers who had 'evidence' of him taking pictures of some railway engines.

Using CCTV images and car registration plates, they tracked Mr White, his sister and her two children to the campsite and demanded he handed over his pictures.

When he refused, police followed their car the next day and stopped him in the road, with blue lights flashing, and repeated their demand.

He said: 'This has totally ruined the holiday, just because I'm a bit of a train geek who took pictures of some engines.'

Last April, two Austrians were stopped at an east London bus station and told to delete their photos of red buses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ested.html

[Shinobi]

really sucks .. why they carry out stupid orders from the puppet masters I do not know ..
theres no such thing as the friendly bobby on the beat. now you can get stopped just for blinking or just looking the other direction
at something as they are trained to accuse you! and thats of anything. very simple things like that and it gets up your nose!
its way too ridiculous.

[FastTadpole]

.. and the quotas are getting higher expect more. The goal is to have everyone forced into poverty and take away real jobs and/or nationalize them work under the more overt direction of the government or their accomplices in MultiCorp Intl. Either that or put you in jail but you'd end up in a labour camp for the government.

I've heard numbers like 20 suppositions and 1 (processed) arrest as daily targets. Often they'll thow a few teens in the clink for roughhousing and let them out the back door to get their credit.

[h3rm35]

I had an invitation to move over there a couple years ago, but the more I looked into it, the more I realized that it was more Orwellian there than it is here - I was in NY then, and I'm in SF now... I feel much better about that than I would about being in Britain. It's gotten so bad now that the person who had invited me is considering coming out here!