Originally Posted by SDW2001
That's irrelevant. He's part of the same security establishment you despise. How could he not know what "falsehoods" are being put out there?
I would assume that the falsehoods are of several levels: International, National and Local etc.
Perhaps this was a local one, why involve the US - and btw, I can pretty much guarantee that these guys will be let off with no charge and I'll be back on here posting details when it happens.
Again, even if true...irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really. It is supporting evidence that most such arrests are routine and meaningless. Given that, why inform the US?
Stop and search is highly questionable, I agree. Any search without cause is highly questionable. This is the basis of my problem with our airport security. Searching bags, scanning them and walking through a metal detector are one thing. Naked body scans and putting hands in underwear elastic is another. Clear violation of our fourth amendment. Speaking of...what are the laws re: unreasonable search and seizure in UK? I'm not aware.
The relevant law is the Terrorism Act 2004 and it has draconian powers:
The use of these powers has grown fourfold, from 33,177 times in 2004 to more than 117,200 in 2008.
The Metropolitan police have used them most, but 11 other forces in England and Wales also make routine use of them.
A political furore ensued when it was disclosed that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion since 2001.
That last sentence in bold should give one cause for concern regardless of political affiliation.
Actually this act has been judged as illegal by the European Court
but the UK refuses to abide by the ruling.
The European judges said the power to search a person's clothing and belongings in public included an element of humiliation and embarrassment which was a clear interference with the right to privacy.
But they also criticised the way in which the police use of stop and search powers was authorised. There is no requirement that the powers be considered "necessary" only "expedient".
The sole condition was that the search had to look for articles used in connection with terrorism but this covered many things commonly carried by people in the street. Police did not even have to have grounds for suspecting such articles were present.
Which is quite concerning....
Not sure I see the problem. They were arrested and many were released and not charged. Of those who were charged, some were found not guilty. Seems to me that's this thing we have called the "criminal justice system."
It's not a problem on one level as it shows the Courts are working but it is a problem on the level below if the Police are continually bringing these cases before the Courts.
They could, for example, be using the resources thus wasted to stop crime.
Can you support that, please? I've heard of people being charged with "terrorism" when that term really shouldn't apply. I have no idea what the numbers are in this regard, though.
From London Times (hardly Left-wing):
ANIMAL rights activists who glorify militant acts against economic targets and laboratories are to face prosecution under terror laws aimed at al-Qaeda supporters.
The move, confirmed last night by Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, means that extremists convicted under the new legislation could be jailed for seven years and suspects held without charge for up to three months.
This was in 2005 when they brought the law in - and not the use of the word 'glorify'. It does not say 'perpetrate' as that was already included.Link
CONTROVERSIAL new laws to tackle international terrorism could be used to put British National Party members and animal rights activists under house arrest without criminal trial, a government adviser said yesterday.
These are now law.
Why? Because he is our top intelligence official. How can he not know about these major arrests on the day they happened...even if they ARE bogus? Their veracity is not the point. They still happened. It's like not knowing the weatherman is predicting 40 inches of snow. It might not be legit, but he predicted it, causing responsible people to take certain actions to prepare.
You might have a point there.... but would you say this if it was a Bush admin?