Two arrested for terrorism at Notts Uni
- Thread starter peacepete
- Start date
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
Loving the lazy, knee-jerk, cliche there ...
I would have thought your coppering days would have taught you that sometimes instincts can be trusted. Like when I hear about someone getting locked up without charge solely because of what they were looking at on the internet my instinct tells me; "this is a crock of shit. It doesn't matter what it is, it cannot possibly be a crime to read it". Oh and lets not forget; "people should have the right to defend themselves against any accusation and must therefore be told what the accusations actually are", that's quite a good instinct as well.
Sometimes that knee-jerk response is there because someone somewhere needs a kick in the balls.
There would have been research done in advance of the arrests - there always is if there is sufficient time for a variety of reasons. But only someone who had absolutely no idea of how an investigation works would claim that any such investigation in advance (which, by definition, would have to be covert as any overt activity would spook the suspects if they were plotting something) could ever actually resolve the situation and obviate the need for arrest.
As for suing, there's more than enough pro bono lawyers around only too happy to sue the old bill if there is a case to be made ...
The offence she committed was protesting in the banned zone - an act, not a thought.
I quite agree that (a) the law banning it was excessive and (b) the police involved could have dealt with the matter in another way, even if she had refused to stop and had had to be arrested for that reason.
Don't know which video you're referring to, but if any police officer did say that then they are a prick.
(ETA: Just seen the one in the subsequent link - he is! (And I'm with the protester who said he was being arrogant too.)
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
So, on nothing other than the basis of a 'denunciation' from a (quite possibly unreliable) member of the public, pretty much anybody is almost definitely gonna be arrested and detained - have their details taken from them (including DNA, etcetera etcetera)?
Is this right? Especially when in the case in question, the reason given for 'suspicion' was nothing more than that the suspect was reading a perfectly legal document in the library?
Could I report anyone I see reading Che's guide to guerilla activity (published by penguin) for suspected terrorism, and have them arrested on that basis?
No. Of course not. Anyone arrested on that basis would have a case for unlawful arrest. There will have been more to it than that. We may not know what it is, but there will have been. Dozens, probably hundreds of people will read / download all sorts of stuff which is publicly available every day ... and they don't get arrested.
from my relatively intimate knowledge of this case I don't think there was 'more to it'. i suspect that if a fair and balanced civil case was fought that the arrestees would win, however i have found in my own experience that there are many barriers to suing the police for unlawful arrest, regardless of the benefits of the case.
your arrogance has just motivated me to get my arse in gear and draft a letter to a solicitor (on an unrelated matter) which I've been meaning to for the last few months.
oh for a world where justice is in the hands of all rather than a bunch of bigots.
Good. If more people were motivated to actually engage with policing and criminal justice issues (through the myriad routes available) then justice would be in the hands of all and not just a few.
Just don't go into the process expecting to always instantly get your own way ... there will be a lot of people with different views to persuade or outnumber.
Fine. If you know more than I do, then you may well reach that conclusion.
I have never said that it cannot be a mistake / abuse of power, just that the chances are that there is a lot more to it than any of us know from what is in the public domain. The only people who can enforce the propriety of police action are those immediately affected by it as only they will be privy to the actual facts and will be able to make a proper judgment on whether police action has been lawful and justified.
I have no problem whatsoever with improving access to legal advice for people for all issues ... but there must be some reality check on cost in just the same way as any other publicly funded service is of necessity limited. Where the actions of the State are in question (police or otherwise) I would like to see an early route by which the Courts can certify a matter of public interest and an arguable case, opening the door to more funding for an action then when two private parties are involved.
However, an important point to remember (and one which is almost universally ignored by U75's resident "experts" on the police ...) is that just because someone is innocent does not, of itself, mean that any police action (stop/search, arrest, charge even) has been unjustified and illegal. In a wrold where we are not all psychic there must be power to intervene on reasonable grounds to suspect unless we make a decision that someone being victimised is a better outcome (because we would have to wait for a crime to be committed before we could act) than an innocent person being temporarily troubled by an investigation. Society (and mainly the media) is not good with this concept, subscribing instead to the "no smoke without fire" approach. That needs to be challenged. And, as I have posted here previously, where initial suspicions are allayed, there should be a public apology for the trouble caused, immediate compensation for any actual damages and an ex gratia payment to acknowldge the hassle caused.
Rogue Element
Is an asshole
This is pretty worrying. I studied terrorism myself, at St Andrews as part of my International Relations degree. I spent a lot of time looking over material not that different to this, so I have a natural concern when it comes to being busted for such things.
I know a fair few academic researchers have mentioned there is a level of hostility among many of the more experienced security officials towards field researchers in particular. That doesn't seem to be a problem here, but there is a certain level of antipathy towards academics researching terrorism among some members of MI5, Scotland Yard etc. There are also turf wars between those two for antiterrorism funding, so they're rather eager to show who should get the money by acting first and asking questions later. Its entirely possible they decided to act first "just in case" while reinforcing their dim view of researchers on their younger and more open cohorts.
That's pretty much how I read the situation. But all I have to go on is the Guardian article, what I have heard and conjecture, so I wouldn't take it as gospel or anything.
I know a fair few academic researchers have mentioned there is a level of hostility among many of the more experienced security officials towards field researchers in particular. That doesn't seem to be a problem here, but there is a certain level of antipathy towards academics researching terrorism among some members of MI5, Scotland Yard etc. There are also turf wars between those two for antiterrorism funding, so they're rather eager to show who should get the money by acting first and asking questions later. Its entirely possible they decided to act first "just in case" while reinforcing their dim view of researchers on their younger and more open cohorts.
That's pretty much how I read the situation. But all I have to go on is the Guardian article, what I have heard and conjecture, so I wouldn't take it as gospel or anything.
An impressively balanced response.
As I say in relation to the terror arrests I'm fairly sure there was literally bugger all that justified them. By now the facts are pretty well known and the six days in detention, 20 computers seized, multiple houses raided etc. were offensively out of proportion. It should have taken any sensible individual approximately 6 minutes to work out what happened here without any need to call in the police at all. The university and the police have shown themselves up both as dangerously out of touch.
I still think you're deluded though DB, but perhaps only to the extent that one would need to be to carry on with your job. You talk about compensation, but if the police were to 'put right' their mistake they would have to provide fairly significant compensation to a large number of people. those directly involved will be lucky to get their freedom, let alone any dosh. I lost at least a week of work through this debacle and I'm a relative outsider. Many others have suffered much worse.
We do not have a police force or justice system that protects the people who live in this country. Anyone that believes that we do is seriously deluded. Take as an example the BNP member who was discovered with all those explosives and a list of targets. Terrorist? why of course. Yet was he dealt with under 'terrorist' legislation? No, he was dealt with under 19th century explosives legislation and iirc avoided prison.
Was he a threat to people? yes
Was he a threat to the establishment? quite the opposite probably
sorry to burst your bubble DB, but I think your career is a heap of shit
And if they had done that and they had been a real terrorist organisation ...?
Your point relies on hindisght, on knowing that they actually were not. Any police action has to be taken on the basis of inevitably imperfect information and it has to err on the side of caution to protect everyone concerned.
If someone rings up and say's their neighbour has a gun and is threatening to kill them, that may or may not be true. If it turns out it is not true - maybe it's a kid's toy being played about with - then it's easy to turn round with hindsight and say "Well, PC Dixon could have just pedaled up on his bike, knocked at the door and asked nicely ...". But the response, as those making it do not / cannot know in advance, has to be by an armed response because if (no matter how small the risk) it IS a real gun and the neighbour HAS lost it, all that the PC Dixon response would result in would be a dead copper and a far more dangerous situation for everyone else.
A huge number of criticims of police responses start from the totally wrong position of hindsight. As a result the police are able to deflect any genuine criticim (which is often valid, in terms of the proportionality of the response, or of it's extent, or of communication/apology afterwards) on the basis "But the criticism is bollocks...".
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
For all you know we all could be terrorists. It's that kind of twisted, perverse logic which leads the police (and otherwise 'law enforcement' orientated minds) to advocate universal DNA samples from birth, retina scans and ID cards.
No-one rang up the police claiming this guy was wandering into town carrying a backpack of explosives - they rang up in a frantic panic because he was reading a perfectly legal document on the web. We're rapidly losing a sense that people are innocent until proven guilty - the British public are now being treated as though we're guilty until proven innocent. This is a frightening scenario for anyone who's concerned about the encroachment of the powers of the State into the everyday lives of people.
No-one rang up the police claiming this guy was wandering into town carrying a backpack of explosives - they rang up in a frantic panic because he was reading a perfectly legal document on the web. We're rapidly losing a sense that people are innocent until proven guilty - the British public are now being treated as though we're guilty until proven innocent. This is a frightening scenario for anyone who's concerned about the encroachment of the powers of the State into the everyday lives of people.
Similar threads
