Police used anti-terror laws to screen more than 120,000 individuals
Police use of anti-terror stop and search powers trebled last year, prompting fears that the policy is alienating London's Muslim communities.
Officers in England and Wales used Terrorism Act powers to search 124,687 people in 2007/8, up from 41,924 in 2006/7, figures released yesterday showed. But only around 1 per cent of those searches ended in an arrest. There were 1,271 arrests in total but only 73 of those were for terror offences.
Nearly 90 per cent of the searches were carried out by the Metropolitan Police, the country's largest force, which recorded a 266 per cent increase in anti-terror stop and search. The Government said the rise in anti-terror stop and search last year was in part linked to the failed bombings in London's Haymarket district.
But Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne, said the new figures will "only fuel the fear" that anti-terror powers are being misused. He said: "There is a real risk that indiscriminate or excessive use of stop and search may alienate the communities we rely most on for intelligence, which is a far more crucial tool in the fight against terrorism."
Corinna Ferguson, a lawyer for human rights group Liberty, said: "A threefold increase in anti-terror stop and search is the clearest signal that these powers are being misused. Only 6 in 10,000 people stopped were arrested for terrorism, let alone charged or convicted. And the disproportionate impact on ethic minorities is even greater than in previous years."
Chris Grayling, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "People will be highly suspicious about the scale of stop and search under terror laws. This will reinforce the view that anti-terror powers are used for unrelated purposes."
Under terror and non-terror powers, 1,223,860 people and vehicles were stopped and searched by police last year, a 17 per cent increase. Most police searches are carried out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which were up 9 per cent last year to 1,045,923, nearly half of which were for suspected drugs offences. It is the fourth year in a row that the number of stop and searches has increased.
Officers used powers to stop people and demand they account for themselves more than two million times last year, separate figures revealed.
Ministry of Justice statistics showed "stop and account" powers were used on 2,353,918 occasions in 2006/7, up a quarter from 1,601,196 in 2006/7. There were twice as many stops and searches of Asian people per head of population than of white people, a similar rate to the previous year. Black people were almost three-and-a-half times more likely than white people to be stopped on the street and questioned.
Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said it was important that the police have the "right powers available".
"Stop and search is aimed at disrupting crime and responding to intelligence and levels of risk. It is an important tool – helping to tackle knife crime and to fight terrorism."
I guess the police have a tough job, there are lots of crimes, and somehow they have to try and detect them as honestly as possible.
There is a set procedure the police have to follow to do a stop and search, it is called GOWISELY. Anyone who is stopped for a search can quote 'gowisely' if they feel they are being treated unjustly.
Just to clarify for you GOWISELY refers to the stop and search proceedure that is covered by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The act basically is a huge peice of legislation that defines how the police operate.
PACE has a set of guidelines known as Codes which range from A to H. I won't go into detail as it will just confuse you but Code A is the guideline which covers the searching of persons and vehicles.
GOWISELY is the acronym for what the officer searching someone must cover before the search is carried out. It doesn't have to be in that precise order but each bit does have to be covered.
Grounds - what are your reasonable grounds for searching this person?
Object - what's the object of the search (prohibited or stolen articles?)
Warrant Card - if you aren't in uniform then you need to show your warrant card
Identification - you need to explain who you are (PC 1234 Jones)
Station - you need to explain where you are based (Sandford Police Station)
Entitlement to a copy of the search record - pretty self explanitary
Legal power used - As well as codes of practice PACE has lots of legal powers within it and usually you would be searching using Section 1 of PACE.
You are detained for the pupose of a search - this has to be made clear so you can seek the persons co-operation (another requirement of PACE). If they fail to co-operate then you can use reasonable force to carry out the search.
With the best will in the world I really don’t understand these arguments. Do we want to pay for a politically correct police service or an efficient police service? The police service profile offenders, by that I mean that for any offence they have a profile for the typical offender. So for example, each time a child is molested they will target males of a certain age group, living alone etc., etc. Is there someone here suggesting that the police profile for a person likely to leave a bomb on a bus in the next few weeks is wrong or does someone think that they should stop and search an equal number of all groups just to be politically correct or so as not to offend the sensitive?
With the best will in the world I really don’t understand these arguments. Do we want to pay for a politically correct police service or an efficient police service? The police service profile offenders, by that I mean that for any offence they have a profile for the typical offender. So for example, each time a child is molested they will target males of a certain age group, living alone etc., etc. Is there someone here suggesting that the police profile for a person likely to leave a bomb on a bus in the next few weeks is wrong or does someone think that they should stop and search an equal number of all groups just to be politically correct or so as not to offend the sensitive?
Or you could cut the bs entirely and just deport all of us. Because let's face it, you won't be completely satiated until that happens. But since we are civilised, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
BTW: an effective police force is not determined on how many arrests btw, it's how many criminals that are GUILTY and are caught (i.e catching the right person).
In fact, arresting an innocent person is a sign of incompetence - quite the opposite of effective, wouldn't you agree? Plus, I seriously doubt that every muslim arrested was guilty (a lot of them are released due to lack of evidence/MO etc - media obviously doesn't give these stories much/any airtime but google manages to!)
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
I have seen some pretty obscene police searches in airports..
one on a nun
one on an elderly frail male and it was humiliating to watch let alone have it done to him, he was shaking and weak with age related kyphosis, I wanted to punch one of the guys for asking him to take his shoes off
one on with a grandmother having some broad escort her so she can undiaper her granddaughter to see if there is a bomb there.. what do Muslims like to do more than bombing their grandchildren by using their elderly.. anyhow the problem isn't in the effective policing, the problem is with the abuse of power which any person can become a victim to.
There are dirty cops, sure, bad politicians absolutely, indecent doctors, and stupid pharmacist and unscrupulous engineers no doubt.. the problem is how to have as few of them as possible in a position where they can abuse their power, and that should be in the swift handling of cases, so that I'd witness less cases.. if one person witnesses a few cases in a day, then there is a problem.. these things should be scarce and sporadic if at all!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Or you could cut the bs entirely and just deport all of us. Because let's face it, you won't be completely satiated until that happens. But since we are civilised, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
BTW: an effective police force is not determined on how many arrests btw, it's how many criminals that are GUILTY and are caught (i.e catching the right person).
In fact, arresting an innocent person is a sign of incompetence - quite the opposite of effective, wouldn't you agree? Plus, I seriously doubt that every muslim arrested was guilty (a lot of them are released due to lack of evidence/MO etc - media obviously doesn't give these stories much/any airtime but google manages to!)
Implicit in this thread ‘Muslims hit by trebling in stop and search’ and the news article on which it is based is the suggestion that the number of ‘stop and searches’ of people should directly reflect their percentage of the population as opposed to the likelihood of them fitting the profile of a target group. My response was that it is efficient and right that the police should stop more of those fitting the profile rather than just do random searches. Your response to my response appears to be a personal attack on me without saying anything about whether you believe they should search those fitting the profile or just randomly? I would much like to know why you believe that the British police service are wrong to put Muslim on the list of features of the profile of the next suicide bomber?
With regards to your suggestion that the police have arrested innocent people I presume you are not so niaive as to believe that because a person is not charged or convicted automatically means that they are ‘innocent’.
....I would much like to know why you believe that the British police service are wrong to put Muslim on the list of features of the profile of the next suicide bomber?
If the police have actual evidence, then fine I have no problem. What it sounds like to me is anyone with a beard (or ''muslim'' name) is a suspect i.e guilty until proven innocent.
With regards to your suggestion that the police have arrested innocent people I presume you are not so niaive as to believe that because a person is not charged or convicted automatically means that they are ‘innocent’.
Again, as above, if they have actual evidence then pursue the arrest/stop and search. Otherwise you just open the policing system to abuse: look there's one, let's get him - that is not a police force, that is an organised witch-hunt.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Personally, I can understand why Muslims would be more suspect than other members of the population when it comes to anti-terror stop and search. Although the fact is that the vast majority of Muslims would never commit any terrorist attacks, there are a tiny minority who would. In all honesty, if I were in the position of the police, I would probably be more suspicious of a Muslim than I would anyone else. It's not right and it's not something I feel great about, but it's understandable. That's the unfortunate state of affairs, that the reputation of the majority has been tarnished by the actions of a tiny minority.
Last edited by Uthman; 05-06-2009 at 03:06 PM.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
Police to severely curtail use of stop and search powers
Senior officers say powers damage community relations and produce little or no benefit.
Police have bowed to mounting opposition and are to significantly reduce their use of controversial terrorism powers that allow them to stop and search people without reasonable suspicion, the Guardian has learned.
Stop and search is one of the most draconian powers employed by police in the war on terror and a constable's right to use it will be severely curtailed under plans unveiled today. In a document seen by the Guardian, senior officers admit that the hundreds of thousands of stops carried out under the power had damaged community relations and reversed "fundamental" principles of civil rights.
Critics say that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows stops without suspicion, has alienated British Muslims without producing little or no benefit.
Usually an officer requires "reasonable suspicion" of wrongdoing to stop someone, but officers have been able to use the power across London since the July 7 terrorist attacks.
Under the new plans, Scotland Yard will effectively remove an officers' power to stop people without reason, although they will keep the power for special circumstances when authorised by senior officers.
Lord Carlile, independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told the Guardian: "Section 44 is over-used, there is no question of it, and that is causing alienation to some communities."
The changes, which will become public today, are outlined in a document from Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism chief, Assistant Commissioner John Yates, to the force's watchdog, the Metropolitan Police Authority.
In the document, Yates admits the power has damaged community ties and reversed the "fundamental principle" that people should only be stopped when there is reasonable grounds of suspicion.
Yates writes: "The consultation confirmed suggestions that the power is seen as controversial and has the potential to have a negative impact, particularly on minority communities."
Scotland Yard hugely increased the use of the power after the failed attempt to car-bomb the crowded central London bar Tiger Tiger in the summer of 2007.
Yates writes: "Following the events of June 2007 that saw a terrorist-based attempt to cause mass casualties in the Haymarket, London, and the partially successful attack at Glasgow airport, the [Met] took the strategic decision to increase the use of section 44 to deter offenders and prevent further attacks. Since October 2007 the [Met] has conducted 154,293 section 44 stop and searches/accounts."
Government figures released last week showed that black and Asian people were disproportionately targeted following the attempted Haymarket attack.
The number of black people stopped under the powers rose by 322%, compared with a rise of 277% for Asian people and 185% for white people.
In the Met document, Yates writes: "There is no requirement to have any reasonable grounds to conduct the search. This power reverses a fundamental principle in that no suspicion of wrongdoing is required."
The civil rights group Liberty said just six in every 10,000 stops resulted in arrests, and it is not believed that the power has directly led to a conviction for terrorism.
In a forward for a new book for police officers working in counter-terrorism, Lord Carlile chides the police for misusing section 44. He writes: "The limitations of the power to stop and search without suspicion have been overstepped too often. Other stop and search powers exist, and are generally preferable.
"All in authority are required to never to forget that such laws are a step outside the norms of criminal justice legislation: the right to stop and search in the street in a different way, and more extensive than a non-terrorism intervention is a power to be exercised with caution."
Police will in future usually use *section 43 of the Terrorism Act, which says an officer needs reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in terrorist activity before they can be stopped.
The exceptions will be around important landmarks such as parliament, key government buildings and Buckingham Palace, which are thought to be of heightened interest to terrorists because of their "iconic" status. The power may also apply to large train stations and places people gather in large numbers.
The second instance where the power to stop and search without suspicion will be where intelligence suggests there is a specific threat or top officers decide that there is a need to use the power to "prevent and deter" terrorist activity, and this could also apply to state events such as Trooping the Colour and the State opening of parliament.
The radical change was close to being agreed by Scotland Yard's former counter terrorism chief, Bob Quick, before his resignation last month.
Four London boroughs will pilot the new practice. They are Southwark, Brent, Newham and Tower Hamlets. It is expected the change will apply across London by the summer. Other police forces across Britain are also expected to implement the changes.
Abdurahman Jafar, chairman of the Muslim Safety Forum, which tries to improve relations between police and the Muslim communities, said: "Section 44 is a very draconian power which was perceived as being used to target Muslims. Muslims were three times more likely to be stopped than other groups.
"It damaged police and community relations and this change is long overdue and one we welcome."
Liberty said counter-terrorism laws still needed to be reformed. Isabella Sankey, the group's policy director, said: "It is clear that the misuse of these powers against peaceful protesters and their disproportionate use on ethnic minorities has undermined trust and confidence. We welcome any operational restraint in their use but surely parliament must tighten up the law."
With the best will in the world I really don’t understand these arguments. Do we want to pay for a politically correct police service or an efficient police service? The police service profile offenders, by that I mean that for any offence they have a profile for the typical offender. So for example, each time a child is molested they will target males of a certain age group, living alone etc., etc. Is there someone here suggesting that the police profile for a person likely to leave a bomb on a bus in the next few weeks is wrong or does someone think that they should stop and search an equal number of all groups just to be politically correct or so as not to offend the sensitive?
Thing is, any terrorist worth his salt will want to appear as someone who does not fit the profile of the typical offender. The issue is not political correctness as you have oversimplified, it is the capacity for victimisation and harassment of law-abiding citizens, especially when the power in question no longer requires the police officer to have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is planning to commit an offence.
On the other hand, I looked into stop and search powers for a project a few years ago, specifically in the context of its use on ethnic minorites (specifically the African-Caribbean community) and searches of those ethnic minorities tended to be higher in areas where those minorities were actually the majority - so some anomalies could be due simply to demographics of a particular area, as opposed to racism etc.
However, this was a few years ago, based on Home Office reports from the same time. Things may well have changed.
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
With regards to your suggestion that the police have arrested innocent people I presume you are not so niaive as to believe that because a person is not charged or convicted automatically means that they are ‘innocent’.
I presume you are not so naive as to believe each individual police officer is an infallible, incorruptible adherent of the official code of conduct.
Altought some searches can be considered as discrimination, many are justified, recall the attacks on september 9/11.. These searches on suspected indivuals are only mesures of insuring security, as we all know muslims are not all terrorist their is still this question ''what if?' and we can't allow another september 9/11 to happen ANYWHERE in the world for a ''what if?'' Muslims should accept these mesures and see them as a natural response from human kind that will last, not for long, but for a while....
Altought some searches can be considered as discrimination, many are justified,
Any facts and figures to back up this opinion? Anecdotal evidence even? Anything?
recall the attacks on september 9/11..
Those attacks involved aeroplanes. We're not talking about airport security, we're talking about police stopping and searching people on the street.
These searches on suspected indivuals are only mesures of insuring security, as we all know muslims are not all terrorist their is still this question ''what if?' and we can't allow another september 9/11 to happen ANYWHERE in the world for a ''what if?'' Muslims should accept these mesures and see them as a natural response from human kind that will last, not for long, but for a while....
Regards
Before I go any further... do you actually live in the UK?
Because if you don't, you probably have zero frame of reference for the subject of this thread.
''Those attacks involved aeroplanes. We're not talking about airport security, we're talking about police stopping and searching people on the street.''
I was talking about these attacks triggering these kind of searches, and with the ammount of islamist radicals living in the UK better stop people in the streets, and check them twice rather than once!
Well, I don't think Jews and communists are comparable. Not yet at least and hopefully never will be.
Well, Muslims are the new Jews in that extremist groups are calling them vermin and parasites etc.
And Islam generally tends to be painted on a par with the Red Menace.
Oh well. *cracks open a can of Coke*
format_quote Originally Posted by memories
I was talking about these attacks triggering these kind of searches, and with the ammount of islamist radicals living in the UK better stop people in the streets, and check them twice rather than once!
Yes, check an innocent person twice rather than once to give a guilty person double the time to escape detection.
As for 'the amount of islamist radicals living in the UK'. Could you give me a ballpark figure at least, rather than just implying there's a bazillion of them with no real proof?
The state however treats a Muslim as every other citizen, which wasn't the case with reds in the US and Jews in German in Axis Europe.
True.
But before the state treated the reds and the Jews in such ways, both groups received a lot of... bad press, shall we say, from other 'Western'* states.
Anyhow. Don't mean to derail the topic. I was being lighthearted. Thus the chilled caffeinated beverage.
*that's such a weird adjective in geo-politics. I always think of Clint Eastwood.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks