Monday 28 May 2007

The No Suspicion Law

Back in the bad old days, Britain had stop-and-search law that permitted a police officer to act on suspicion, or 'sus', alone.
The law caused much discontent among certain sections of the population and was abolished in 1980 following riots in Bristol, London and Liverpool because the law was widely believed to have been abused by Police to harass the black population.
Subsequent evidence that non-whites were six times more likely to be stopped than whites bore this out.
Unbelievably, the British Government now want to revisit the same laws only with a new
twist, there does not have to be any suspicion this time. Anyone is fair game for whatever reason the police deem fit.
Under the proposals, officers would have the right to stop, search, inquire about identities and movements with failure to comply leading to criminal charges or a hefty fine.
After a damning 2003 report on racism in the UK Police Force, the police commissioners grudgingly admitted that they were institutionally racist and promised to review their recruitment practices.
With the law being bought in under the catch-all umbrella of "anti-terrorism", we are seeing yet more of our civil liberties chipped away and further powers handed to a police service that, in light of recent events, very few have much faith in to do the right thing.
The question being asked is are we literally sleep walking into a Police State?

13 comments:

Deadman said...

Oh, so you're no fan of the police, eh, Lucy? I guess you won't be calling them for help if you happen to get mugged, eh?

Falling on a bruise said...

I'm not black or asian so i would be fine.

Deadman said...

Well if criticizing the more out-of-control members of a particular group means you dislike the group as a whole, as you reasoned over my way, I would think you would be opposed to all of them by extension. So remember, you're on your own, babe.

Stephen K said...

I did happen to be mugged, a number of years ago, and am definitely glad that the police are around. I still think that the people should be protected against the abuse of police power.

Courtney Hamilton said...

"So remember, you're on your own, babe."

Think again Mark - I'm with you on this issue Lucy.

What I find remarkable is Labour (what the party was called at the time) where opposed to the Sus Laws first time round. I heard the MP Diana Abbott on radio 4 today saying she was on the first demonstration against what she rightfully saw at the time as a gross infringment of civil liberties - which it was.

There's nothing wrong in calling the police if you get mugged - but the police should have no right to stop and search anyone going about their lawful business - it's as simple as that. If they want those extra-powers, then they should stop saying we live in a Free society, and call our society what it really is - petty authoritarian.

I don't know about you Mark, but I want to live in a society that respects individual rights and liberties - don't get me wrong, Britain is not a police state as some people would like to suggest - but Lucy is right, all a new law like this does is chip away at our rights and liberties.

When it comes to our rights, it looks as if we are the ones who are being 'mugged' by the State.

Cheezy said...

"Oh, so you're no fan of the police, eh, Lucy? I guess you won't be calling them for help if you happen to get mugged, eh?"

More preposterous extremism. So according to Mark, apparently you can either criticise the police when you identify a fault with them, or you can call on them for help when you're a victim of a crime. You can't do both, so it seems. Even if they do something that warrants criticism. And your taxes pay their wages.

Nope, you can't do that in 'Extreme-o-land!'. You're either for us or against us. Head 'em off at the pass! Yeehaw!

The Little Cheese said...

What happens if you are late for work and look 'suspicious'? If you say 's'cuse me officer, I need to be somewhere' will you get your collar felt? Or worse perhaps, if you live in SE London like me...?

Joking aside, I am up for more powers for police to do their job (as opposed to gangs of CSOs) but I have to agree with you Lucy, it makes me nervous that it is the thin edge of the wedge.

Deadman said...

hy·per·bo·le (hī-pûr'bə-lē)

Don't get your knickers in a knot, people.

;o)>

Cheezy said...

Aha! Hy-per-bo-le. I geddit now! That must be what happened in Iraq too, yeah? We weren't supposed to take all that loony WMD stuff at face value - it was all just hyperbole! Darn that hyperbole!

Anyway, I guess your panic is over, Lucy. Looks like you're not "on your own" after all now, erm, 'babe'.

(:-p)

Deadman said...

Maybe this would be a good time and place for me to mention Israel.

Cheezy said...

Hang on... aren't you the one who's been complaining about people who bring up Israel at the drop of a hat? Wasn't that you, Mark? Or was that hy-per-bo-le too? ;-)

Falling on a bruise said...

I am so grateful i am not on my own, for a moment there it looked like it was just me and Peter Hain.
Dangerous job this blogging, i really should wait and make sure i say the same as everyone else before i chip in with my opinion.

Deadman said...

"aren't you the one who's been complaining about people who bring up Israel at the drop of a hat? Wasn't that you, Mark?"

Not that I'm aware of, Cheezy. Certain other people seem to have a problem hearing about Israel. Why would I complain about that?

"Dangerous job this blogging"

Only when the bullshit gets to deep.