Stop and search under section 44 illegal

[Pyroman]

Good news for photographers:

 

BBC News - Stop-and-search powers ruled illegal by European court

[dalsoth]

Good news for everyone. Bad news is they are appealing and will continue to abuse our rights in the meantime.

[webman]

Interesting. In their defence, they'll probably refer to section 2 of article 8 which states:

 

ARTICLE 8

 

• Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
  
• There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

(My emphasis)

 

European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols

 

As far as I'm concerned, there is no privacy in public.

[localzuk]

Interesting. In their defence, they'll probably refer to section 2 of article 8 which states:

 

 

 

(My emphasis)

 

European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols

 

As far as I'm concerned, there is no privacy in public.

 

Searching without 'just cause' is the issue. No-one is saying that people suspected of crime can't be searched - that would be absurd, but just because a law can be made, doesn't mean it meets that 'get out'.

 

And regarding privacy in public? Sure, there isn't privacy walking down the street - but there is privacy as to what you are doing, what you are carrying etc... Do you not think you should be able to walk down the street without the police being able to just stop you because of some all reaching 'terrorism' law?

[webman]

And regarding privacy in public? Sure, there isn't privacy walking down the street - but there is privacy as to what you are doing, what you are carrying etc... Do you not think you should be able to walk down the street without the police being able to just stop you because of some all reaching 'terrorism' law?

 

Yes, I agree with you. But in my opinion, the problem lies with the Section 44 and its improper use - it shouldn't take the human rights act to counter it. Section 44 should either be amended to its use is more strict.

 

Or just use profiling instead.

[localzuk]

Yes, I agree with you. But in my opinion, the problem lies with the Section 44 and its improper use - it shouldn't take the human rights act to counter it. Section 44 should either be amended to its use is more strict.

 

Or just use profiling instead.

 

The only way to get Section 44 adjusted is by taking a case to the European Courts - the law would have to be altered if they declared it against the ECHR. The laws won't get changed voluntarily by the government, especially not the government that implemented them.

 

I can give dozens of examples of supposed 'public order' laws and 'anti-terrorism' laws being abused and misused by the police. The problem is, not many can afford the time and money to go through the process of our court system, and then the European courts. This can take years, and ruin the lives of those undergoing the process.

 

And profiling is an odd one. Surely proper investigation is more suited? The amount of detection/investigation seems to be pretty low - with quick fixes seen as a solution instead. We're spending millions of pounds on CCTV, increased security equipment, screening equipment at airports etc... When those millions would be better served on well trained front-line officers and detectives. A police officer who has a regular beat learns what his area is like. (S)he learns what is the norm there, and what is out of place. That was how community policing used to be, and it worked pretty well!