Weep for your liberties, oh Britain...

[Graham]

"A law the Stasi would have loved

"The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act is the most pernicious piece of legislation yet introduced by this government

[...]

"Under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a balance was struck between police powers and the individual's rights. There was a clear distinction between non-arrestable offences, arrestable offences and serious arrestable offences. Everyone knew where they stood and the public was protected from officious or malevolently motivated police constables.

"From 1 January, there will be no such distinction. Every offence will be arrestable. That means motoring infringements, dropping litter, swearing and behaving loudly in a demonstration will very likely end in arrest.

[...]

"Now comes the sinister part. For all but a truly minor crime, the officer is empowered, using force, if necessary, to take a sample of the suspect's DNA from his mouth, to photograph and fingerprint him and, finally, to take impressions of his footwear. Remember, at this stage, the suspect is just that - a suspect. He has not been found guilty by a court and, under British law, is therefore presumed innocent. And yet he has been forced to submit to a humiliating process as though he were about to enter prison.

[...]

"Most solicitors who deal with the police on a daily basis are convinced that these new powers criminalise the public. Because every offence becomes arrestable, it is unlikely that someone held by the police will be able to make a case for an unlawful arrest. The sentence in the act which allows 'prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the person in question' is a catch-all which means the police officer may say that he was reasonably investigating someone's behaviour. East Germany's Stasi would have been content to operate under such a provision.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...635351,00.html

[quadplay]

Hmm... Setting up my own cable company on a small pacific island is looking ever more appealing!

[Graham]

Originally Posted by jimbo

Hmm... Setting up my own cable company on a small pacific island is looking ever more appealing!

When you do, if you need someone to make interesting items in leather, I could do with a change of scenery...!

[quadplay]

A leather-based STB would have to run better than a Pace...

[Graham]

Originally Posted by jimbo

A leather-based STB would have to run better than a Pace...

If it didn't, just beat it until it did...!

[Stuart C]

Apart from curtailing liberties of potentially innocent people, I don't really see what this will achieve. Surely it won't affect the average terrorist, as these have proved surprisingly effective at fitting into local communities. Surely part of that is to behave, therefore not showing up on the records of the local authorities..

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Apart from curtailing liberties of potentially innocent people, I don't really see what this will achieve. Surely it won't affect the average terrorist, as these have proved surprisingly effective at fitting into local communities. Surely part of that is to behave, therefore not showing up on the records of the local authorities..

Exactly, meanwhile those who want to lawfully protest (eg the ID Card protestors) or even those who heckle at Labour Party conventions(!) can look forward to having the full weight of the law land on them

[ntluser]

It's the first step to 1984, where you have a "Big Brother" state in which the government has all the rights asnd powers and the citizens have none.

It would give the police the right to hold totally innocent people for 90 days without charge and on the slightest whim.

We already know that the shooting of the Brazilian was down to sloppy policework. To pass this act is to extend that sloppiness to ordinary members of the public.

The MPs are right to resist this. If the police can't cope with the powers they have then we need better policemen who can.

One thing's for certain, Tony Blair's appeal for support is a non-starter. He's cried wolf once too often!!

[basa]

Bear in mind also that, even if you are eventually shown to be innocent or not guilty, whilst you may ask for your DNA and other ID evidence to be destroyed, there is no obligation for the police to do so, nor can you prove it has been.

The police are attempting by the back door to collect DNA and photo ID of everyone.

Didn't I read or hear somewhere that police officers were often less intelligent than the criminals !! No sh*t Sherlock !!

[BBKing]

Apart from curtailing liberties of potentially innocent people, I don't really see what this will achieve

The image of New Labour being tough on crime is what it achieves (in fact it's tough on everybody, and if you don't like it that's just tough). It's a Blunkett legacy, and just one reason why right-thinking people everywhere will be cheering his demise. Incidentally, I wonder what his friend Rebekah Wade thought about being DNA tested the other day. What it really achieves is a sense of alienation and mistrust in the authorities, which isn't good when you need the public to co-operate. I'm not going to help a policeman when I know he can arbitrarily arrest me, take my DNA, detain me for up to 90 days, put out a press release saying I'm a terrorist suspect, raid my house, steal my stuff, all without reasonable suspicion (that went five years ago) and then release me in the middle of the night without apology to make my own way home. Don't think just because you're a law abiding citizen it can't happen to you.

ntluser - you're confusing SOCA with the late 2005 version of the Terrorism Bill (not to be confused with the 2000, 2001, 2003 and early 2005 versions), which has the 90 days detention period*. They're *already* talking about extending the powers in that Bill to non-terrorism offences like people trafficking, in the same way that SOCA extends draconian police powers used for, say, murder suspects to people who turn right against a no-right-turn sign. The slippery slope argument is very real. The Bills themselves are evil enough, but it's the combinations (which I'm sure most MPs never figure out) that will be abused by the police and prosecutors. SOCA is already law, having gone through before the election IIRC.

I've just heard Hazel Blears on the radio again. She is the most stupid person I've ever heard speak on behalf of the government - my son is now saying 'Shut Up Blears' and waving his arms impassionately at the radio, having copied me. Apparently we're facing a worse threat to the nation than Napoleon or Hitler ever came up with and the only solution is to let the police do whatever they like and not have any debate about it.

even if you are eventually shown to be innocent or not guilty

Or even if you're not charged. David Mery (arrested on suspicion of terrorism for reading a piece of paper on the Underground while wearing a jacket) hasn't, AFAIK, had his sample destroyed, or for that matter his computer equipment returned. The lines are blurring between innocence and guilt. Still, at least we've got the Human Rights Act for now, eh?

*Which isn't the worst bit of the Bill by any stretch - spyblog predicted about a month ago that the press and Opposition would concentrate on the 90 days, get the climbdown, think they've done a good job and miss the really nasty bits of the bill like noxious substances being defined as any matter in the Universe and the arousal of suspicion in a person's mind making them a criminal (a true thoughtcrime, in fact). So far that theory is holding true

[basa]

You may say the 90 days detention is not the worst bit of the legislation .. but consider what that means ..

....you are dragged off the street or even out of your own home in the middle of the night and thrown in a police cell, a 3m x 3m concrete cube with possibly one window which you can't see out of. You will probably find it cold and too uncomfortable to sleep (even if your mental state would allow sleep), you have NO contact with the outside world, not another soul, except and unless the police should allow it. You may get food (so called) only when the police remember where you are and decide you need sustenance and at their own time. Your whole life is controlled by a police officer who may or may not care for your welfare and only then if he is not too busy to remember you. Don't forget this could go on for upt to 90 days that's c.3 months !! from say tomorrow to early February !!

[BBKing]

It's not the worst bit because it's obviously a breach of Article 5 of the ECHR (part 2, I reckon which says you should be informed *promptly* of the charges against you, and 90 days internment without any charges isn't prompt in my book. Part 3 states that you should be brought before a judge 'promptly' as well.). Hence they probably know it won't get through but having everyone's eyes on it makes it easier to get the other bits through, including the ones unconnected with terrorism.

Originally Posted by Graham

"From 1 January, there will be no such distinction. Every offence will be arrestable. That means motoring infringements, dropping litter, swearing and behaving loudly in a demonstration will very likely end in arrest."

That's possibly a good thing, as it will mean people will have to start taking the law more seriously. It's also likely to make people think twice before getting lippy with the Police.

Originally Posted by Graham

Now comes the sinister part. For all but a truly minor crime, the officer is empowered, using force, if necessary, to take a sample of the suspect's DNA from his mouth, to photograph and fingerprint him and, finally, to take impressions of his footwear.

This is truly scary. Drop the wrapper of your chewing gum and you end up on the Police computer systems.

No doubt the 'nothing to fear' brigade will be quick to point out how this isn't a problem, but if they'll put their hands up, I'll be very happy to witness how they deal with it if/when it happens to them.

[BBKing]

It's also likely to make people think twice before getting lippy with the Police.

There's nothing wrong with getting lippy with the Police if the Police are abusing their power. They're our servants, not our masters, unless that was slipped into some bill or other (which is quite possible).

Tony's rewriting history again, incidentally. Apparently 7/7 was 'the worst terrorist attack this country has ever had'. Of course, the Dear Leader doesn't think anything before 1997 is important, such as the Lockerbie bombing in which a mere 270 people were killed. Or he could be a lying git.

[Angua]

Why is it we can go through years and years of IRA and Loyalist terrorism without such draconian methods, yet as soon as a group of (IMHO cynically) more easily identifiable terrorists appear, these abhorent laws get put in place?
If I wished to live with such laws I would defect to North Korea.