Posted on 12/12/2006 2:05:27 AM PST by Mrs Ivan
Controversial stop and search powers introduced by Labour were facing the axe last night after being dismissed as virtually worthless by Britain's leading anti-terror policeman.
Andy Hayman said the searches caused 'so much pain' to the community - but delivered hardly any arrests.
It leaves Home Secretary John Reid under enormous pressure to scrap or limit use of the searches, which were introduced in the Terrorism Act 2000.
They were used to detain peace protester Walter Wolfgang, then aged 82, after he was ejected from last year's Labour Party conference for shouting 'nonsense' at then foreign secretary Jack Straw.
They are also hugely unpopular with Muslims, who claim they are unfairly targeted.
Mr Hayman, the Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner in charge of counter-terrorism nationally, said: 'It's a power which is well intended, it's there to try to prevent, deter and disrupt terrorist activity. But we have to question the way we use a power that causes so much pain to the community we serve but results in so few arrests or charges.
'Is it worth it? It is very unlikely that a terrorist is going to be carrying bomb-making equipment around with them in the street.
'So I am not sure what purpose it serves, especially as it upsets so many people, with some sections of our community feeling unfairly targeted. It seems a big price to pay.'
The power allows officers to stop and search anybody - even if they are not acting suspiciously - if they are within an area police have declared a potential terrorist target.
Critics are confident Mr Hay-man's remarks could signal the end of anti-terror stop and search. He was not referring to separate powers police have, under other laws, to search anybody they have reasonable grounds to suspect may be involved in, or planning a crime.
I don't give a flying f damn if they are unpopular with Muslims - that seems like an ideal reason to keep them.
'Is it worth it? It is very unlikely that a terrorist is going to be carrying bomb-making equipment around with them in the street...
------
How about the train bombers who carried their explosives onto the trains in backbacks?
Well then, we can't have any pain, can we? Except, of course, the excruciating pain that comes from bombs loaded with rat poisoned nails.
Oh, so the non-written Constitution has a suicide clause, too?
"How about the train bombers who carried their explosives onto the trains in backbacks?"
That wasn't 'bomb-making equipment', that was actual bombs. Someone with a bomb in a backpack is hardly likely to agree to a search.
Someone with a bomb in a backpack is hardly likely to agree to a search.
-----
OK, so I'm a terrorist bomber, carrying a bomb in a backback. Nice to know that if I don't agree to a search I can carry on my way, unmolested.
"Nice to know that if I don't agree to a search I can carry on my way, unmolested."
No you can't carry on the way unmolested. But that's rather academic as the method of 'not agreeing' would tend to be rather, erm, explosive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.