Say Anything Blog

From The Telegraph

More from The Beeb
With the new proposed legislation, British Police would be able to stop anyone at anytime and demand to know their movements and intentions, with the threat of a £5000 ($10000) fine for obstruction if the ‘suspect’ was unwilling to cooperate. Of course, previous bills have removed our right to silence (silence implies guilt), our right to congregate freely, limited our right to bear arms (doesn’t stop the criminals though) and have reclassified many protest groups (including those that participate in Non-Violent Direct Action [NVDA]) as terrorists.

Remember that Tony Blair’s government is essentially a (democratic) socialist one and so therefore very keen on state control of public life.

The new anti-terror powers, now under consideration by the Home Office, emerged as Mr Blair warned that the civil liberties of the suspect had wrongly been placed before the safety of the public.
Within hours of the plans being leaked, Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary, warned that it could bring about the “domestic equivalent of Guantanamo Bay”.
He in turn was criticised by a rival for Labour’s deputy leadership, Hazel Blears, who claimed that his Northern Ireland department was effectively behind the proposal.
The sense of confusion at the heart of Government was reinforced when Gordon Brown, the prime minister elect, stayed silent on the row.
The core proposal is to allow police to stop people and ask their names, address and movements, as a means to assessing potential terrorist activity.
This power, it is suggested, would be backed by the creation of an offence of “obstruction” in failing to answer police questions, which could attract a fine of up to £5,000.
A similar police power, backed by a penalty, is used across Ulster (Northern Ireland). If police fear violence in an area they can stop and question people, even if they do not have specific suspicion.
The Terrorism Act 2000 (Tact) in mainland Britain allows police to stop and search pedestrians and drivers and their passengers, with or without specific suspicion, in areas designated by a chief constable as facing a terrorist threat.
The designation must be for a set time and officers do not have powers spelled out in Tact to demand answers and threaten a fine. If someone generates a real suspicion of terror activity, they can be arrested under Tact.
Home Office sources said it wanted consultations on whether a new “stop and question” power should be created, or Tact should be amended, and what level of suspicion, if any, would be required to stop someone. Views will also be sought on whether powers should be “nationwide” and not just in designated areas.
With barely a month to go before he leaves office, Mr Blair chose yesterday to signal a new drive for tough anti-terrorism legislation.
The Prime Minister said in The Sunday Times: “We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first. I happen to believe this is misguided and wrong.”
In a nod to grassroots Labour opinion, Mr Hain reminded colleagues that the controversial US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay had “acted as a recruiting sergeant for dissidents and alienated Muslims and many other people across the world”.
But within hours, Hazel Blears, the Labour chairman and one of five other contenders for the job of deputy Labour leader, claimed that the proposed new “stop and question” regime had been proposed by Mr Hain’s Northern Ireland department.
“What I understand,” she said, “is that the request has come from the Northern Ireland Office because they have the powers, they want to be able to carry on using them, they find them useful.”
Mr Brown declined to comment about the terrorism plans. A source close to the Chancellor said: “We’ll discuss the proposal when it’s put to the Cabinet.”
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the plan smacked of a “police state”.
David Davis the shadow home secretary, said: “The driving imperative of these draconian announcements appears to be more of a wish to project the reputation of John Reid and Mr Blair in their last weeks in office, than a need to protect the British public.”