Reid heckler accused under 2006 act

[detective-boy]

That was all a mistake too eh?

No. The s.44 stop and search law was passed in the full knowledge that it would do precisely what it said on the tin - allow an area / time to be defined by a senior officer on the basis of grounds to believe that a "terrorist" (as defined) attack may be be anticipated and, in that area, allow people to be stopped and searched without the normal need to have individual grounds to suspect they are carrying any prohibited article.

It's use does NOT imply that there was ANY suspicion that the indivuduals concerned were suspected of being terrorists in any way. It does show that a single decision by a single officer was based on a belief that a terrorist attack may be anticipated at that time / place.

Your (quite deliberate, because it has been pointed out repeatedly before) use of the emotive (because it implies arrests, and cells and significant periods of time) phrase "detained" rather than the less emotive (because it doesn't) phrase "stopped and searched" is ccnical and, to be frank, makes you look like you have no actual argument.

Which is sad. Because you very much do. Over-egging the pudding just makes you look a cunt.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

No. It's NOT worth mentioning again because it shows that draconian anti-terror laws are likely to be misunderstood (particularly soon after introduction) through the failure of the police service to properly train in advance of legislative change (a well-known phenomenon) and through the idiocy of individual officers ...

If I correctly understood what I was reading last night regarding the House of Lords decision on the arms fair case, section 44 powers have been in a state of continuous rolling renewal in the Met's area of operations at least for some years now.

 

[detective-boy]

If you watch that video of his heckling (and far be it from me to cast judgement) the security (both private and the Police) sort of mills around looking bewildered by it all;

If I remember correctly, the relative sizes of heckler, security guard and police officer was quite amusing ...

 

[detective-boy]

Never-the-less, I'd like to see some evidence that this guy had actually been invited.

I'm sure we'll all know soon enough - I can't see his defence counsel taking a view that it would not be relevant to his trial!

 

[detective-boy]

You should remember though that such information may not have been passed to the Police (during the pre-event briefing) or private security guards, so theres a very good likelyhood they would have had no idea who he was.

Ah, but you forget that Bernie Gunther believes in a world where the police and security services are a seamless, 100% efficient and effective, all-seeing, all-knowing smoothly functioning organisation where all information is instantly passed to all members of every part and is instantly understood and remembered for all time by everyone, even the cleaner ...

Whereas, of course, the truth is ... er ... just slightly different.

If Ian Blair did spend all day sitting on his black leather executive chair, stroking a white cat ... it'd probably piss on his lap!

 

[detective-boy]

Well, I think there is a valid point to be made there about the persistent use of section 44 (legitimately or otherwise) to harass protestors.

You're right. There is a very valid point to be made about the number of times that s.44 authorisations are given, the areas they cover (which, I personally believe, are frequently way too wide) and the time frames they are for (which are, I think, usually for the maximum allowed period). I believe this brings into disrepute a power which has some justification and, just like they have killed other powers by misusing them, the police run the risk of losing this. I also think there are valid questions to be asked about the training (and pre-operation briefing) of officers expected to use these powers.

Stop and search was, in 1984, tightened up to prevent misuse based on thin / irrational / irrelevant grounds. This power effectively allows the safeguards put in for "normal" crime operations to be suspended in relation to terrorism based operations, allowing stop/search with hardly any individual grounds to suspect at all. Officers need to have drilled into them that it should be used with care and whilst the law may not require many individual grounds, their supervisors, as a matter of internal policy and supervision, most certainly will.

It was just so embarassing for them in the media that they made a fuss about apologising for it in his case.

No. It was because it didn't apply. It couldn't be used even if they'd wanted to. And the media were massively misrepresenting the situation and so a correction / apology was issued. Do you not think that they should have done?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well you know, I don't think calling me a "cunt" really makes much difference one way or another to whether my argument is convincing or not.

Just to reiterate, I think the use of section 44 provisions in any way shape or form, with or without appropriate legal grounds, in cases which manifestly have nothing at all to do with terrorism, and which do quite evidently have something to do with dissent that the government finds inconvenient, is a problem.

It is a problem because it's part of what seems to me and many others, to be a general pattern of seeking to restrict dissent by passing draconian laws in the name of 'getting tough on terrorism' which have potential applicability in cases which any reasonable person would not see as terrorism.

The use of section 44 powers against peaceful protestors, is one example of how such powers can have an effect without charges being brough, but the intimidation effect of their potential for much more draconian use of the sort I was talking about in relation to the definition of terrorism in the 2000 act and the 'speech' offenses and proscription powers of the 2006 act is perhaps even more worrying.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Ah, but you forget that Bernie Gunther believes in a world where the police and security services are a seamless, 100% efficient and effective, all-seeing, all-knowing smoothly functioning organisation where all information is instantly passed to all members of every part and is instantly understood and remembered for all time by everyone, even the cleaner ...

Whereas, of course, the truth is ... er ... just slightly different.

If Ian Blair did spend all day sitting on his black leather executive chair, stroking a white cat ... it'd probably piss on his lap!

Again, I don't think resorting to that kind of stuff has much effect on what I'm saying.

If you want to argue with it using facts and logic, please do so.

 

[detective-boy]

Still, if Izzadeen was so dangerous, why was he allowed in the hall to hear The Big Man speak?

Most likely because, despite the oft-quoted "fact" that we live in a police-state, we do not and the vast majority of people are entitled to go wherever and whenever they like, including to political meetings.

Aside from any measures put in place by the owners of private property to check / screen who is entering their premises, the vast majority of police checks at such events consist of searching / screening possessions for weapons, etc. rather than checking identity (which would be a meaningless exercise in the absence of any reiable form of identification).

When you have gone to a court public gallery, you may have been searched but when have you had your identity checked in any effective way?

When you have visited the Houses of Parliament, you may have been searched but when have you had your identity checked in any effective way?

When you have visited the Home Office or any other governement department, you may have been searched but when have you had your identity checked in any effective way?

It simply does not happen.

 

[detective-boy]

If I correctly understood what I was reading last night regarding the House of Lords decision on the arms fair case, section 44 powers have been in a state of continuous rolling renewal in the Met's area of operations at least for some years now.

That is my understanding and that really is worth questioning. I think an awful lot of the MPs who voted for the power would say they did NOT expect it to be applied in such a way. I suspect there may even be some members of the Home Office (politicians as well as civil servants) who would say the same.

If it was intended to be applied in this way, why bother with having the authorisation process? Why not simply pass it as permanent legislation? Or, if it were felt to be only needed as a temporary measure, why not pass it as a "Temporary Provisions" Act renewable annually or something?

(I made post #66 before I read this post of yours, by the way)

 

[detective-boy]

Well you know, I don't think calling me a "cunt" really makes much difference one way or another to whether my argument is convincing or not.

My calling you a cunt doesn't (which, by the way, I didn't - I pointed out that the points you were using in your argument made you "look a cunt" (i.e. you're not, but you make yourself look like one)).

But you using factually incorrect arguments to support your point when there are plenty of factually correct arguments you could use instead does have an effect on whether your argument is convincing or not.

This exchange proves it. You convince me most of the time and I begin to doubt you when you resort to that sort of bollocks. Hence, in my case, it does make a lot of difference to whether your argument is convincing or not. I would suggest that I would not be alone in this (you may think about Fullyplumped's posts ...). I will see past the bollocks (with a sigh and a raise of my eyes to the ceiling) and try to understand the validity of the rest of your case ... but I think you should be aware that not everyone will do that - some (and I would suggest many) will get as far as the bollocks and switch off ...

 

[detective-boy]

If you want to argue with it using facts and logic, please do so.

I will argue using facts and logic. My facts will, to the best of my knowledge and belief, be correct and accurate.

I will comment using sarcasm where you are making false statements which have been corrected before and talking bollocks.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Where exactly did I dispute your factual statements about the Walter Wolfgang case? (I assume that's what you are talking about here)

For my purposes it makes no difference whether the officers were actually authorised to use section 44 or not. I am claiming that the potential applicability of the various draconian anti-terror legislation to stuff that's manifestly not terrorism is the problem. If you prefer an example where police were actually authorised to use such powers to demonstrate that they do get used in cases that are nothing to do with terrorism as far as most reasonable people are concerned, then the arms fair case will do just as well.

 

[nino_savatte]

Most likely because, despite the oft-quoted "fact" that we live in a police-state, we do not and the vast majority of people are entitled to go wherever and whenever they like, including to political meetings.

Aside from any measures put in place by the owners of private property to check / screen who is entering their premises, the vast majority of police checks at such events consist of searching / screening possessions for weapons, etc. rather than checking identity (which would be a meaningless exercise in the absence of any reiable form of identification).

When you have gone to a court public gallery, you may have been searched but when have you had your identity checked in any effective way?

When you have visited the Houses of Parliament, you may have been searched but when have you had your identity checked in any effective way?

When you have visited the Home Office or any other governement department, you may have been searched but when have you had your identity checked in any effective way?

It simply does not happen.

We may not live in a police state but that isn't to say that our movements and our activities aren't under near-constant surveillance.

In the case of Izzadeen, he was already known to the media, the security services and the police. Yet, there he is, in a meeting, where Reid is speaking. Was he invited? I don't know but such meetings aren't normally open to the public-at-lrge and are usually invititation only. Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories but it seems to me that this whole incident served to provide justification for Reid's brand of authoritarianism.

 

[agricola]

We may not live in a police state but that isn't to say that our movements and our activities aren't under near-constant surveillance.

In the case of Izzadeen, he was already known to the media, the security services and the police. Yet, there he is, in a meeting, where Reid is speaking. Was he invited? I don't know but such meetings aren't normally open to the public-at-lrge and are usually invititation only. Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories but it seems to me that this whole incident served to provide justification for Reid's brand of authoritarianism.

As I said above, he may well already have been well known to the media, the security services and the Police but that is irrelevant - what is relevant is the ability of the security at that meeting to recognize and stop him from going in.

With regards to s44, you do know that it pretty much just replaces similar powers under the old Prevention of Terrorism Act, dont you?

 

[nino_savatte]

As I said above, he may well already have been well known to the media, the security services and the Police but that is irrelevant - what is relevant is the ability of the security at that meeting to recognize and stop him from going in.

With regards to s44, you do know that it pretty much just replaces similar powers under the old Prevention of Terrorism Act, dont you?

Aye, I am familiar with the changes in the new (but quite unnecessary) anti-terror legislation.

I think the whole thing was a stunt, a "put up" job" and it served the Home Office and Reid well. If the meeting was invitation only, then it is reasonable to assume that Izzadeen was invited.

 

[TAE]

Anti-terrorism laws were NOT used against Walter Wolfgang for heckling.... they did not actually have those powers

Yes, they were. It just turned out that the police did not have the legal right to use those powers in the cicumstance when they did. That did not stop them from using those powers.

 

[TAE]

I'm sure we'll all know soon enough - I can't see his defence counsel taking a view that it would not be relevant to his trial!

Good point.

 

[Fullyplumped]

In post #2 I said

Wouldn't we want a BNP activist arrested for saying similar things before an audience who came to listen?

Well, wouldn't we?

 

[TAE]

Most likely because, despite the oft-quoted "fact" that we live in a police-state, we do not and the vast majority of people are entitled to go wherever and whenever they like, including to political meetings.

How many political meetings where a member of the cabinet is speaking does the general public have uninvited access to?

 

[agricola]

Yes, they were. It just turned out that the police did not have the legal right to use those powers in the cicumstance when they did. That did not stop them from using those powers.

Did you read Fullyplumped's post? (top of page 2)

 

[TAE]

Yes, I did. At the time, the cops told him that they were using anti-terror laws. It later turned out that they had no right to do so.

 

[agricola]

Yes, I did. At the time, the cops told him that they were using anti-terror laws. It later turned out that they had no right to do so.

It didnt "later turn out", they said so to him and apologised.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It still serves, if anything, as an illustration of the potential for abuse of those powers, rather than acting as any sort of argument against there being such a potential.

Meanwhile there is ample evidence of those powers being used against peaceful protestors on occasions where the police were so authorised. Hence, quite frankly, the argument about it being a mistake in that particular case seems to me like a bit of a quibble, in relation to the advisability of legislating into existence anti-terrorism powers that have the potential to be applied peaceful dissent.

 

[agricola]

It still serves, if anything, as an illustration of the potential for abuse of those powers, rather than acting as any sort of argument against there being such a potential.

Meanwhile there is ample evidence of those powers being used against peaceful protestors on occasions where they were so authorised, so frankly the argument about it being a mistake in that case seems like a bit of a quibble to me in relation to the advisability of having anti-terrorism powers that can be applied peaceful dissent.

And yet thats the incident you and TAE have cited....

 

[detective-boy]

Where exactly did I dispute your factual statements about the Walter Wolfgang case? (I assume that's what you are talking about here)

It is very sad that you seem to have such an attachment to this "fact" that you persist in wittering on about it rather than acknowledge the fact that I am agreeing with the broad thrust of your argument and am only challenging your inaccurate use of this as part of your reasoning.

Are you an obsessive?

 

[TAE]

It didnt "later turn out", they said so to him and apologised.

At what point in time did they say so and apologised? After they had done it, surely. So they did do it.

Meanwhile there is ample evidence of those powers being used against peaceful protestors on occasions where the police were so authorised. Hence, quite frankly, the argument about it being a mistake in that particular case seems to me like a bit of a quibble, in relation to the advisability of legislating into existence anti-terrorism powers that have the potential to be applied peaceful dissent.

I agree, but it winds me up. The police, at the very least, ATTEMPTED to use anti-terror legislation against this person.

 

[detective-boy]

We may not live in a police state but that isn't to say that our movements and our activities aren't under near-constant surveillance.

No. We're not.

There may well be lots of things we do which are caught by various computer systems, CCTV cameras, ANPR recorders, etc.

But those things are run by a huge range of different authorities, agencies and private organisations and there is no routine analysis of the information in the way you imply.

Do you really believe that just because this gobshite was known to one branch of government every other member of every other branch was spending all day and every day finding out about them? That every CCTV operator was sitting with his picture next to them zooming in on every face and going "Is that him?" "Is that him? "Is that him?" ... That he was on some sort of alert list with every public and private body? That every time he used a cashpoint a bell rang? ... (continues ad nauseum)

It MAY have been orchestrated ... but the fact that it happened absolutely does not PROVE it was orchestrated, it could quite easily have happened anyway (and, in my opinion, probably did).

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I've also cited the arms fair cases, which were authorised and will now also mention the Fairford cases which as far as I know were also authorised (although on that occasion the legality of the use of public order legislation at the same time to actually detain the protestors was subsequently disputed by the Lords)

It's also worth bearing in mind if you honestly aren't simply quibbling, that the reason for me mentioning this in the first place was to show that at least some of this anti-terror legistlation had already been applied to peaceful protestors. I think that I have shown that and I don't think anyone has argued that this is not so. You may have argued in the Wolfgang case that it shouldn't have been, but I am not disputing that am I? All I need to show is that it is being applied to peaceful protest, which I have done by citing the other cases where the authorisation aspect is not an issue.

What I'm more concerned about is the potential for similar abuse of the much more draconian powers available under the 2000 and 2006 acts to restrict dissent that the government finds inconvenient.

That is why I'm talking about this stuff in relation to the case that this thread is about. That's also why I mentioned that John Reid has already found this nutter highly serviceable for PR purposes on a previous occasion.

 

[detective-boy]

If the meeting was invitation only, then it is reasonable to assume that Izzadeen was invited.

That is fair ... but in the absence of meaningful identity checks there would be little to stop him making out he was someone else who had been invited. Police officers and Security Guards gave up carrying their "Observers Book of Dangerous Lunatics" many years ago ...