New Labour bring old Nuremberg Laws to Britain Police officers could find themselves on the wrong end of a citizen’s arrest if they follow advice issued by Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, after the European Court of Human Rights slapped the UK's stop and search laws. According to government lawyers, however, so long as officials are "only obeying orders", there is little the …
If you ask most of the population what they think of stop and search under section 44, for instance, they reply with the usual "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" response. While it seems like most on El Reg are becoming increasingly worried by this government and their increasingly fascistic laws most of the population aren't worried at all, it would seem.
> Mine's the one tickets off this totalitarian, facsist rock in the pocket
Really? Or, like 99% of the commentators on here, are you just talking big whilst sitting in front of your monitor doing feck all. It's amazing the amount of noise you lot make about fascist states, infringement of civil liberties blah blah talk talk.
There seems to be a major lacking in the trouser department, though.
Who's worse? The opressors? The mindless sheep you all complain so bitterly about, who are so obsessed with the X-Factor they have no idea they're being opressed? Or is it the (allegedly) intelligent, aware minority who sit on their lardy arses all day, whining, moaning, bitching, criticising and doing fuck all?
Ever stood for election? Bothered to create a protest group? Organised a march? Walked further than the fridge and back? Thought not. Useless moaning gits the lot of you.
As I mentioned in my post, people actually don't care -- personally I'm sick of being called a tinfoil hat wearer when trying to raise awareness of this kind of thing. Most of us know what happens to protesters -- and if you were to try and encourage anti-government protests and thinking you'd end up in jail as a terrorist. I think history illustrates the futility of protesting against oppressive regimes without the support of a good many people throughout the system.
To put it another way -- if "the man in the street" cared about this stuff when told then, yes, I'd probably have formed a protest group -- but seeing as nobody cards that's a hard thing to do.
Might I, in turn, ask what you have done? If you've done something then let us know so we can help -- if you've not then kindly fuck off and die because, by your own reasoning, you're complicit in this government's plans.
@Bassey.
You know what? I can watch this debate unfold and I can make comments (mostly preaching to the converted, mind you) but "at the end of the day" I don't give a crap about it. I left that sorry excuse for a country nearly a decade ago and I thought things were pretty poorly then. My new country isn't perfect, but the nonsense taking place in the UK isn't here... yet?
Should everybody leave? That's up to each individual. Just make sure you make your mind up while it is still an option.
Should you stand for election? How _YOU_ tried that? If it was as easy as pie then there would be plenty of people standing for whatever policies they think will change the world.
How _YOU_ created a protest group? If so, that's good, you might as well hand them a list of dissenters.
Have _YOU_ organised a march? Have you even taken part in one? Look, all the friendly dissenters gathered together. How convenient.
The country is going to hell and the mass populace are either too dim to join the dots, or too apathetic to care as long as they get their regular scheduled televisual-drivel.
I left. You can argue that I'm not helping the situation by bailing. That's probably true, but since nobody seems to give a damn, I'm looking after myself first. My life here is much better than my life in the UK. I'm _GLAD_ I left.
What have _YOU_ done?
The underlying problem is that the charter of human rights is a full and finished system. It is not a jumble sale where one can pick-n-mix the rights they like and do not like.
UK has not accepted some of the most fundamental rights in this charter including the right to remain innocent until proven guilty and this has been clearly done _ON_ _PURPOSE_.
Which by the way means that UK is not in a "moral right" position to hassle anyone anywhere about human rights. It should shut until it actually gives them to its own cittizens.
No.No.No.
That may apply occasionally in a social or individual scenario. When Govts decisions like this are being passed daily and consistently it becomes apparent this is not incompetence but forethought and deliberate.
Otherwise all dictators (and leaders of the free world)can claim imcompetence.
"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"
Dear Mr Johnson,
Following my conviction for paedophilia and related offences of child molestation I am disappointed that the court has banned me from having any contact with children. I am considering the judgement and will seek to appeal. Pending the outcome of this appeal, I shall continue to interfere with children as I feel fit.
I trust you will have no objection to this situation and will sanction my action in this respect or it will show you to be a complete and contemptible hypocrite.
This post has been deleted by its author
That's not quite the case. I refer you to section 4.2 of Code of practice B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984):
When a person has been arrested for an indictable offence, a police officer has power under PACE, section 32 to search the premises where the person was arrested or where the person was immediately before being arrested.
An indictable offence is one that is traillable on indictment - i.e. at the crown court. These are major offences like murder, rape, fraud, serious theft, burglary etc.
> "... break the law (as found by the EU) .. "
Except that the ECHR is not part of the EU (or the EC etc).
The UK was a founder and major propoent of the ECHR when it was created, but "forgot" to ratify it into the UK domestic legal systems (until a few years ago).
This meant that UK residents couldn't use the ECHR in courts in the UK, unlike most other ECHR member countries.
Thus the case would got all the way to the Law Lords, and then get relief in the ECHR. Now the case can be tried under the ECHR laws at any court in the UK, as was always the way in other ECHR member countries.
"The UK was a founder and major propoent of the ECHR when it was created, but "forgot" to ratify it into the UK domestic legal systems (until a few years ago)."
Maybe but Council of Europe members (the UK was a founding member) are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are binding on member states. Whilst the court has no direct means to enforce judgements, they could expel member states who do not comply.
This may be irrelevant when the EU ratifies the European Convention on Human Rights, as it will then apply to all EU member states and be applicable in the European Court of Justice.
In the meantime, if you want the Human Rights Act to be repealed, you'll have to vote Conservative.
It's the ECHR, which is the highest court for those who are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights - something that, in more enlightened times, Britain played a major part in drawing up.
The ECHR is not part of the EU, though having the E word in there often confuses Daily Mail types and makes them froth just that little bit more.
I would expect government departments to stop and think (or at least have some expensive advisor who will stop and think) why they are getting such resistance from both UK and EU law.
Has it even crossed their mind that what they are trying to do is against human rights or is it just a matter of getting what they want regardless of implications to the public they're supposed to protect?!
Terrorism is just a PR campaign really, there are 1000-fold more people dying from other (much) more mundane things, e.g. fast moving bikes. So why sacrifice so much in terms of human rights, time and money for something quite insignificant really?
I believe the answer is that there needs to be "a baddie", to keep the war machine well oiled. So we end up paying it every time we go to the airport (at least 1 hr lost each way for "security") , when we get new ID documents (lengthy delays for checks there as well), etc etc.
And as you can see from the Iraq enquiry, they can well get away with it all.
...we missed you!!!!
Seriously so I am asked to breach some poor bods Human Rights and as long as it is proven I was ordered to do so I am not responsible and nor is my boss. Right.....
No fear in this country from jackbooted thugs kicking in your doors because you like your freedom of speech then. New Labour? New Riech more like.
Where's the Gordo/Harman Hitler/Eva Braun icon?
What strikes me as the really sick perversion implicit in the Human Rights Act is that we, the potential victims of such human rights violations, can end up required, by law, to comply with the State's violations of our own human rights!
This aspect of the Human Rights Act is morally disgusting.
It is surely proof that this Labour government is not merely bad, but truly evil. Perverting the very substance of the Human Rights Act to allow the State to lawfully violate our human rights, and to allow the State to require us to comply with such violations, really is absolutely despicable.
It means that if they were to legislate to send some section of society to the gas chambers, even though it would be a clear violation of human rights, the victims themselves could still be legally required to knowingly walk to their own deaths. What kind of Human Rights Act is it that allows the State to compel victims to actively participate in the gross violation of their own rights?
Perhaps some suitable opposition MP (a Lib Dem?) could turn that into a suitable question of principle to ask the government, perhaps during Prime Minister's Questions, or when the Home Secretary Alan Johnson is answering questions.
Given that the people who make the laws for me, themselves pick and choose which laws they agreed to are to be followed.
Given that we are governed by elected citizens (who are legally the same as me i.e. not a king or anything), then i should have the same right to pick and choose which laws i want to follow surely?
AC of course
at the local rail station the copper even said "you may have seen in the metro that these search's have been declared illegal but they arn't and thats why we are doing them" apparently they were stopping every other person with backpacks. given that it was a stop under "articles relating to terrorisim" and that i had my laptop in my bag that i didn't want seized and sent into the forensics queue for two years i let them do it.
just a simple back pack search of the main compartment missing the perscription drugs i had in the front compartment (i have a valid perscription so not illegal for me) as well as the multitool i carry (i was wearing my biking jacket the fscker is prone to rattling things loose :) ) which had a blade in it ! complete waste of time and obviously throwing the weight around but i guess i look good on the statistics as a white male (round hear its normally black/asian that get tugged).
btw british transport police not the local police force either, grenade because i could fit 6 in the pockets and compartments thaat they didn't search lol
You're wrong about many multi-tools sadly, because their blades lock open and an action is required to be able to fold them closed.
It is illegal to carry a Leatherman or Gerber multi-tool in England without a good and valid reason, and people have been successfully convicted for this.
Maybe in 1997 that was true, but the law was changed AGES ago.
It is illegal to carry an "offensive weapon" in public. What is an offensive weapon? Any item which can be used to cause harm or injury to another person. What is the stipulation to this identification? That you may carry "tools of your trade." A wrench being carried in the street by a person out shopping is an offensive weapon. A wrench being carried by a plumber on his way to a job is a "tool of the trade."
The multi-tool is shaky ground; There are plenty of bike-related multi-tools available without blades. A blade is not required for any bicycle repair or maintenance.
Being caught up the the biggest snarl up in the Crawley one way system during rush-hour. 45 minutes later got to the police car at the front of the queue and looked in vain for the acident. Nice police woman asked "were you drinking last night Sir". Told her no, and went on my way. The police themselves were the sole reason for bringing the whole town centre to a shuddering halt.
Thing was, if I had answered yes or she had smelt drink on my breath, there was nowhere to pull over safely to be tested, and no-other Police anywhere near to do the testing.
Conclusion. They were not stopping anyone to actually catch people over the limit, but just to remind people that they could be caught if they happed to drink too much the night before. Security theatre at its very best. Thank you mister policeman for reminding me of that fact. It only caused me to be 45 minutes late for work.
I can just hear the justification of " We are only doing this to keep the streets safe. Its for your own good you know." I might accept it if they were actually trying to catch people over the limit, but this was just a big PR exercise. How do we charge the Police with wasting my time?
This pathetic soon to be ex-government should be forced to stop talking / doing anything. They know they're at the end of their term and seem to think it's fine just to talk complete bollocks until May.
It really doesn't matter what they think the law is, what they say the law is or what they hope the law might be. They can win their legal battles in every single UK court they see fit, if Europe overturns it then that's it. Someone get one of those gagging orders and just apply it to the whole government, please.
Time to go and get arrested for nothing then retire on the court case payout.
"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."
Are figures available on how many people have actually been convicted of terrorism offences following an initial arrest after incriminating material was found on them during a stop-and-search in London under section 44?
When I pointed out elsewhere that the total SUSPECTED terrorist arrests that came about by items discovered during a S44 search where less than 4 in 100,000 searches (no convictions that I am aware of though), a nice police officer pointed out to me that that was because S44 was to deter terrorists or those with terrorist ambitions from entering sensitive areas, then QED, the low detection rates proved the deterrent was working!
The vast majority of arrests resulting from an S43/44 search are under PACE for drugs and (offensive) weapons offences.
This 'ere elephant repellent spray works wonders. I've been using it for years and in that whole time never once been trampled by any angry elephants.
Vote for me, then do what my jackbooted minions tell you to do and I'll give you all the elephant repellent you could ever need, so you will be safe from the elephants. Yes, I know it smells quite bad, but that's the point. Elephants don't like the stink either.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
