back to article Brit cops accused of abusing anti-terror laws to hunt colleague

Cleveland Police in the north east of England allegedly used counter-terrorism powers to hunt down a whistleblower within its ranks. That's according to a complaint filed to the UK's cop watchdog, the IPCC. Worryingly, the Cleveland force used the anti-terror powers to access the phone records of three journalists. The …

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Cleveland Police usng a VoIP system perhaps?

    1. Known Hero

      I wondered why they weren't answering their phones !!

      Part of the job spec I would of thought

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > However, of the two reported incidents following on from the changes in which no judicial approval was sought,...

    Presumably because they knew that the judge would tell them to f*ck off.

    I don't know why anyone is surprised by these incidents. If you give Police free reign to go behind the backs of independent scrutiny, then some, not all, will take advantage. Why wouldn't they?

    1. Hollerith 1

      Yes, plus

      Why would you do to hear 'No' when you don't want to hear 'no'?

      And BTW, it is 'free rein'.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Facepalm

        Re: Yes, plus

        > Why would you do to hear ...

        Erm, what?

        > And BTW, it is 'free rein'.

        <sarcasm>

        Ah, sorry your right. I should of used rein.

        </sarcasm>

        :D

        1. Teiwaz
          Joke

          Re: Yes, plus

          Perhaps he meant free 'reindeer'?

          After all, it's 'nearly' christmas (grinds teeth at thought of shops playing chirpy annoying music for the next month and a bit).

          1. David 132 Silver badge

            Re: Yes, plus

            Perhaps he meant free 'reindeer'

            Ah, the Register - always first with the best technology gnus.

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Yes, plus

          "I should of used rein."

          I saw what you did they're.

        3. Rob Daglish

          Re: Yes, plus

          I've always understood the expression to be "free rein" - as in, let the rein on the horse loose so it can do as it wishes - here is a discussion from Daily Writing Tips about it: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/free-rein-or-free-reign/

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Yes, plus

        I think in the minds of the police it is definitely "free reign" as in "absolute monarch"

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yes, plus

        " free reign"

        Oh dear, and one has been paying taxes since 1992

        - Liz II

    2. JohnMurray

      "Some, not all"

      I think it highly unlikely that only some abuse a "gentlemans agreement".

      It's much more likely that the other 42 forces are busy ignoring the "law".

      After all, they're hardly going to be chasing themselves to court, are they.

    3. LucreLout

      @skelband

      If you give Police free reign to go behind the backs of independent scrutiny, then some, not all, will take advantage. Why wouldn't they?

      My best buddy is a serving police officer. He's always been very clear about his colleagues - they are a cross section of society like everyone else. Some are smart, some are not. Some are kind, some are not. Some are honest, and some are not.

      The main reason he personally didn't want the police in Britain to be routinely armed was that he wouldn't trust some of his colleagues with a firecracker, never mind a firearm.

      At the very least we need air-tight audit trails on the use of these powers such that when things like this come to light, named individuals can be called in to explain themselves, with appropriate sanctions for misuse.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > My best buddy is a serving police officer. He's always been very clear about his colleagues - they are a cross section of society like everyone else. Some are smart, some are not. Some are kind, some are not. Some are honest, and some are not.

        I know what you mean. I have a close relative who is a police officer.

        My comments were really aimed at the "police" as an organisation rather than individual officers.

        Organisational psychology can pervert the morals of the staunchest moralist given half the chance.

        That's why we need the police to know exactly where they stand as to what is right and what is wrong, what they can do, and what they absolutely shouldn't under any circumstances.

        We should also, as a public, stop blaming the police when they don't have psychic skills when detecting crime. As someone else said in another thread: detecting crime is "supposed" to be hard. If it wasn't, we would live in a totalitarian state.

  4. Gray
    Windows

    Entirely too distracted

    Cleveland City police and prosecution authorities remain entirely too distracted while scratching and covering to bury the consequences of gunning down a 12-year-old child (Tamir Rice) in a city park many months ago. They're either relying on the American public news memory (akin to that of fruit flies) to diminish, or they're hoping that the Rice family legal support will go away.

    1. Alister
      FAIL

      Re: Entirely too distracted

      Sorry, wrong Cleveland...

      1. Gray
        Facepalm

        Re: Entirely too distracted

        That's what comes from reading articles before having that first cup of coffee early in the morning. Also, it's refreshing to surmise that Cleveland (UK) cops haven't shot down any kids in the public park. Right?

        1. nsld

          Re: Entirely too distracted

          I do believe it was the same UK police force which took on a band of marauding bovines and shot them for persistently grazing in the wrong field.

          1. djack

            Re: Entirely too distracted

            If memory serves, the cow killers were Northumbria police (a little further north).

            1. Flywheel

              Re: Entirely too distracted

              "There's nothing to see here .. mooov on"

        2. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: Entirely too distracted

          Also, it's refreshing to surmise that Cleveland (UK) cops haven't shot down any kids in the public park. Right?

          Tasered, pepper sprayed, or given a good kicking possibly, but unlikely to have even been carrying a firearm.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Go

        Re: Entirely too distracted

        In the future, any news stories involving Cleveland, Ohio should use the moniker "Mistake by the Lake" to avoid this confusion.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Entirely too distracted (Yes Gray, you are)

      Not to mention that the "12 year old" had a replica gun on a school playground that was indistinguishable from the Glock it was patterned on and he pointed it at Cleveland USA police and refused to drop it when he was ordered to by the police. That same area that was a "no gun zone" where the municipality created additional penalties and requirements that made immediate police response a requirement.

      Now if a similarly sized 12 year old was to wave the same gun at police in France today, they would come to a similar conclusion and shoot him

      1. Gray
        Facepalm

        Re: Entirely too distracted (Yes Gray, you are)

        Ummm ... yeh, Cleveland (Ohio) cop, it's fitting that you sign on as "AC" ... coward.

        Did you not review the surveillance video that aired thousands of time on American television? You spout the official Cleveland P.D. statement, which is shown to be a lie by the video. On a count of "one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand" to mark off three seconds, the action unfolded as: in the first second, the cruiser brakes to a hard stop just in front of the child; in the second second, the cop in the passenger seat has thrown open the vehicle door, pointed his weapon, and fired. In the third second, the cop driving has emerged from the car and moved to the front; the shooting officer has retreated to the rear of the vehicle, and the child has fallen to the ground and is dying.

        Where in that three-second sequence has the child "pointed it at Cleveland USA police and refused to drop it when he was ordered to by the police."

        This is why trust of the police authorities in America is descending to that of a third-world country where police are feared as corrupt and murderous. Until cell phones with video features, and public CCTV cameras came along, we could only take the word of the police. Sadly, even when video evidence is overwhelming contradictory to the police story, they still choose to lie. Some AC will always take their side.

  5. Wommit

    Are we surprised?

    Peter Barron, the Echo's editor, said: "These allegations are a matter of serious concern – that a police force should apparently go to these lengths to identify the source of a story which was clearly in the public interest. This is surely not what the legislation was intended to do and the fact that Cleveland Police will neither confirm nor deny the allegations adds to our concerns."

    That a police force should apparently go to these lengths to identify the source of a story which was clearly not in the police forces interest.

    There, fixed it.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Are we surprised?

      This is exactly what the legislation was intended to do.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    "The Register has attempted to contact Cleveland Police several times, but they were not answering their phones at the time of publication."

    Doesn't that interfere with doing policey sort of things?

    1. VinceH

      They're pretending they're not at home. If you pop into the cop shop, you might spot them hiding behind their chairs, where they're hoping you won't see them, and you'll go away.

      They'll stop doing that when some other news grabs people's attention.

      1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        Was that where Enid Blyton set her dark satires of critical political unrest?

        1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

          Re: Enid Blyton

          Best comment this week!

          (A very readable satire on Blyton's books is the 'Shadow the Sheepdog' chapter in The Well of Lost Plots by Jasper Fforde.)

    2. Teiwaz

      contact Cleveland Police

      Wasn't there something about advising use of Skype in contacting the police a while ago?

      Perhaps that might work...

    3. JohnMurray

      Probably a bad line to the Malaysian call centre. Or maybe the call centre is still trying to make sense of the TalkTalk debacle?

    4. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Not anwering the phone.

      It keeps the crime reporting rate down.

      However, knowing the Register's form on this stuff (they've mailed me asking for official comment in the past), the email or phone calls were sent at 11pm and the story posted 3-4 minutes later.

  7. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "protected proffession" Not with the number of gagging orders in this 299 page bill

    Any question about who is being spied upon itself becomes illegal to ask.

    1. Yugguy
      Headmaster

      Re: "protected proffession" Not with the number of gagging orders in this 299 page bill

      It's 'profession'

  8. David 132 Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    "Give us more powers" they say. "Are you for or against terrorism?" they say.

    And this is (one of) the reasons I'm firmly against the expansion of GCHQ/MI5 police spying powers that the UK government (of whichever colour) keeps proposing.

    Because the bastards have shown, time and again, that if they gain a power for justification <x>, they'll end up using it for <y>.

    Anti terror laws, for example:

    2000 "For catching terrorists and keeping you safe"

    2001 "Well, we can use it against paedophiles. Everyone hates paedophiles, right?"

    2006 "How about tax evaders, too? Boo, hiss. Evil banksters robbing money from the poor."

    2008 "For spying on people who are putting out their bins early or fibbing about which school catchment area they live in"

    2015 "For rooting out journalists who show the authorities in a bad light"

    2016 "For identifying people who sympathise with extremists"

    2017 "For identifying people who harbour thoughts of racism or bigotry"

    2018 "For catching people who might vote SNP/UKIP/Green/Respect/[insert your preferred bogeyman here]"

    2020 "For finally stamping out the scourge of anyone emitting more than their annual CO2 quota"

    And if you think I'm over-dramatising, here's an exercise.

    Whether you're a Labour/SNP voter or more inclined to Conservative/UKIP, read these two "headlines" and for each one ask yourself "What do I think of this?"

    1) "Theresa May Proposes Strict New Internet Monitoring Laws"

    2) "Keith Vaz Proposes Strict New Internet Monitoring Laws"

    If you disapprove of [the party you hate] proposing the law, but approve of [party you support] doing it, you're a hypocrite.

    And if you approve of security laws no matter who's proposing them, then sorry, but I think you're an unquestioning sheep.

    If you disapprove no matter what, then congratulations, you have principles. Don't let them try to tell you you're obviously a terrorist/paedophile/extremist/little-englander sympathizer.

    1. Crumble

      Re: "Give us more powers" they say. "Are you for or against terrorism?" they say.

      It's just a special case of the general principle: if you give someone power they will eventually use it against you.

    2. MJI Silver badge

      Re: "Give us more powers" they say. "Are you for or against terrorism?" they say.

      But you may disagree with Theresa May, but agree with David Davies and they are of the same party.

    3. BenR

      Re: "Give us more powers" they say. "Are you for or against terrorism?" they say.

      Bloody well said!

      It's far far far from the first time. And It'll be far far far from the last time.

      Coppers using stop and search powers on suspicion of being black.

      Using Section 47 to relieve photographers of private property in London.

      Abuse of the PNC DB by officers wanting to check up on ex-partners, or the new partners of their exes.

      The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

      Give people unlimited powers, and eventually they abuse them.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help...."

    themselves mostly.

    Add to David 132s list above Gordon Brown's use of terrorist laws to freeze the UK accounts of dying Icelandic banks at the start of the Financial Crisis. Not that I'm a big fan of badly run banks, but let's not use terrorism laws to extra-judicially hit businesses that have nothing to do with terrorism.

    1. David 132 Silver badge

      Re: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help...."

      Good catch.

      Apologies if my posting came across as a bit frothing-at-the-mouth, but I'm in a ranty shouty mood at the moment.

      I could have added:

      GCHQ interception powers - granted to them "to fight terrorism". Next thing you know they're being used to "fight", as time goes on:

      - paedophiles (that always-handy bogeyman to frighten Middle England)

      - people downloading "extreme" pornography

      - people downloading non-vanilla pornography

      - people downloading anything that frightens the politicians

      - economic threats, such as Johnny Foreigner buying his fighter jets from anyone other than BAE

      ..and so on.

      My point about the Theresa May / Keith Vaz headlines was that there's a high degree of cognitive dissonance going on; if your party proposes legislation, the tendency is to think "they're a decent bunch, they have the interests of the country at heart, and they're right that <x> is a threat". If the other lot propose legislation, the instinctive reaction is "they're a bunch of fascists trying to snoop on every aspect of our lives". And yes, I'm as guilty of that propensity as anyone.

      But we have to remind ourselves that governments change - bad laws endure.

      My own inclination - and I appreciate that here I'm wandering off the topic and indulging in cod civics - is this: our British system of laws has evolved over centuries, shaped and checked and balanced to take account of human nature. It might not be perfect, but it works. Legislature, Lords, the Armed Forces, the judiciary and the monarchy all playing their part. It's arrogant in the extreme for us to assume that we can change one "bad" part of it and do better than our forebears. Tony Blair, I'm looking at you.

      It's like looking at a carefully crafted Swiss watch mechanism, and saying "that cogwheel there is too big, it's ugly, it looks old-fashioned, let's remove it" - and then wondering why the whole thing runs fast, slow, and then bits start flying off and going sproing-pinnnng against the ceiling.

      OK, that analogy could use some work.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help...."

        It will soon be illegal to ask Keith Vaz if he knew anything about Elm Guest House during the time he worked as a Lawyer for the London Borough of Richmond, or to ask what his committee thinks about the allegations made against his friend Greville Janner.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help...."

        "governments change"

        But the civil service does not - and it's from there that these asinine laws issue forth.

        They don't care who the mouthpeice is, as long as they get the laws they want.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Simple fix

    Pass a law that abuses like this will result in mandatory jail time for everyone involved all the way up the chain of the command to the top. They did it because they knew they'd get a slap on the wrist and probably won't even lose their jobs and pensions. In this case the guy was blowing the whistle on something that wasn't going to result in jail time for anyone, but what if it was? This needs to be treated seriously, but like laws passed because terrorism/pedophilia/organized crime are so bad they need special laws, they get abused because the legislating body is stupid enough to trust that cops are honest.

  11. CJatCTi

    We needed an anti-anti-terror law

    None of this is new anti-terror laws are ALWAYS abused, and nobody gets punished but live damaged.

    What we need is a law that says if you as an individual are involved using anti-terror legislation for non-terror activities - 5 years in Prison fixed sentence.

    Policeman / Council worker / Police commissioner - bring them to account

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: We needed an anti-anti-terror law

      "What we need is a law that says if you as an individual are involved using anti-terror legislation for non-terror activities - 5 years in Prison fixed sentence."

      "Policeman / Council ........ "

      To that, add the supervising politicians, and also ban them from public office for life

      1. Just Enough

        Re: We needed an anti-anti-terror law

        But that's the beauty of the words "terror" and "terrorism". They can be extended to include anything you wish to suit your purposes.

        "Yes, your Honour, I did use anti-terrorism measures to snoop on this journalist, because he was upsetting the Chief Inspector. That was distracting him from his job of catching terrorist, so this here journalist was aiding terrorism."

  12. David Roberts
    Unhappy

    Police whistle blower?

    I find this phrase makes me feel especially old as I can remember (before all this new fangled wireless nonsense ) when every Bobby on the beat (sigh, mumble, dribble.....remember them?) had a whistle to blow to summon help in an emergency.

    I still have a genuine police whistle somewhere, a gift from a policeman who was a family friend and amusingly called Dixon (though not of Dock Green, sadly). Kids today.......

    1. David 132 Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Police whistle blower?

      a family friend and amusingly called Dixon (though not of Dock Green, sadly)

      Well duh, everyone knows real policemen live at 999 Letsby Avenue.

      And their favourite food is Irish Stew (in the name of the law).

      1. cantankerous swineherd

        Re: Police whistle blower?

        think the number is 101?

        http://m.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/27/letsby_avenue/

        1. hplasm
          Coat

          Re: Police whistle blower?

          shurely l0l0l0 Letsbe Avenue?

  13. Rich 11

    Weak excuse

    At the time the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Anthony May, stated this was because "naming and shaming [might] have the unintended consequence of undermining the open and co-operative self reporting of errors."

    Or it might have the intended consequence of allowing the public to know what their Police Service is doing. The police could even benefit from being seen to be keeping their own house in order.

  14. ecofeco Silver badge

    No surprsie here

    The only surprise is that he got caught and somebody cared enough to make him an example.

  15. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Added to which

    it's a well known fact that the best person to investigate the fox's management of the hen-house is, of course, the fox.

  16. Graham Marsden
    Big Brother

    Hanlon's Razor:

    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    Were these laws written stupidly or with deliberately *creative* stupidity?

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Police corruption

    It's not a merit badge.

  18. eldakka
    Angel

    The picture associated with Brit police stories...

    would be better server by being a Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) Thin Blue Line image I feel.

  19. werdsmith Silver badge

    So phone activity records are being abused?

    People will just find another way to talk surreptitiously. I'm sure these terrorists etc already avoid the phone, so laws to allow access to phone records are not really helpful for anything serious, if they are going to be any use at all it will be for finding evidence against the feckless and careless.

    Police are welcome to all my phone and email communication anytime, if they just ask nicely they can fill their boots.

  20. MJI Silver badge

    Remember the 42 days law which was shot down.

    Anyone of us could have been arrested wihout charge for 42 days, you me, anyone.

    A good way to get a love rival out of the way, or a person who really knows what is legal and illegal regarding speed cameras, just get them out of the way for 7 weeks.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And Theresa May wonders why...

    We don't want the "Snoopers Charter".

  22. 2460 Something
    Black Helicopters

    Why am I not surprised. Every single time we have it proven that the powers that be cannot be trusted they are in the middle of trying to push through additional methods to invade our privacy.

  23. Sir Alien

    Legal case?

    I am no law expert so please correct me where I slip up but can the journalists now sue the crap out of the phone provider (and the police)? RIPA although it compels, is not a secret request so even though they skipped asking a judge can the provider not challenge this in court thus making a judge aware and having the judge slap the RIPA abusers?

    - S.A

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Legal case?

      " RIPA although it compels, is not a secret request"

      Um, yes it is. It's a crime to make it known you've been compelled.

      1. Sir Alien

        Re: Legal case?

        If this were the case how come we know about it and it's all over El Reg? Does that mean arrests all round?

  24. s. pam Silver badge
    Holmes

    Wow -- who'd have thunk it?

    Police abusing their power?

    Never!

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cleveland Police several times, but they were not answering their phones

    sensibly, "let's weather the shit storm, until the plebs find something new to fume about" :(

  26. Yugguy

    Police investigating themselves

    Always seems like a terrible idea.

    "we've had a complaint about you, please check it out."

    "Nope, nothing, to see here, nope."

  27. conscience

    What's the deterrent here - them having to ignore the telephone for a little while?

    It's nothing short of a disgrace that wrongful use of *any* laws/rules/resources like this does not end in a serious prison sentence for *everyone* involved, after which they should be struck off and banned from their profession for life for proving to be untrustworthy. We can never trust any organisation where this sort of thing is tolerated and goes unpunished.

    It's seems obvious that instead of giving these people more powers, it would be far wiser to outlaw at least half of what the police/security services/government currently get up to and force them to once again work for us and not against us.

  28. Gordon Pryra

    "Brit cops accused of abusing anti-terror laws"

    Stopped reading there, nothing new to see

  29. wolfetone Silver badge

    Liberty

    "We've heard of it, but we don't particularly like it." Cleveland Police & UK Justice System in a joint statement

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What's your point?

    Is someone so naïve as to believe that journalists and whistleblowers are exempt from being crims themselves? Has anyone figured out from recent terror attacks why their is a necessity for international cooperation on defeating terrorism? Has the world learned anything more about terrorism and the need to share intelligence information and to monitor electronic communications? How many more people need to die from preventable terrorism? How many refugees are involved in crimes before and after they leave their homeland? How can any country afford to allow unlimited numbers of refugees to float into their country as illegal squatters? What is the point of having immigration laws if they are going to be ignored? Isn’t the whole point of immigration laws to keep criminals out of a country?

    1. nsld

      Re: What's your point?

      Preventable terrorism? Is that like dehydrated water, simply add water?

      As for the rest of your drivel about immigrants fuck off back to your mud hut and the Daily Mail you inbred cockwomble.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like