Quote:
Are reporter's family, or anyone else, exempt from anti-terror laws? No. Nor should they be.
People who are not suspected terrorists should be.
Quote:
First, the law does not require someone to be, nor does it require grounds to suspect that.
Bear in mind, Schedule 7 ONLY applies at border areas, that is, essentially, ports and airports, for people getting on of off planes, boats, etc, or intending to do so.
It is INTENDED to be broad-ranging, not least because it has to be because the alternative may well be to let a terrorist get on a plane, and blow it out of the sky, while the police are still worrying about whether they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect someone is a terrorist.
Remember not just what this law permits police to do, but what it's introduction was a reaction to. It is an extreme measure, designed for an extreme situation.
I'm familiar with those points of the law, that is the reason I object to them. I'm not saying this wasn't lawful I'm saying it was immoral. Extreme situation; Britain being bombed? Hardly. Frankly that's a mundane situation. There hasn't been a time for about 100 years wasn't actively being bomber or under threat of it and the current crop are the most ineffectual yet. Not to mention things more likely to kill you than a terrorist in this country include trousers, bathtubs, pets and doctors.
Quote:
Well, perhaps indeed it's best not to mention that, because according to the Met Police, not only was he not denied council but a solicitor was present.
That's not what he said. He said the Met offered to provide one but he refused requesting his own. Also, a solicitor =/= his solicitor. To be denied his chosen counsel is to be denied counsel.
Quote:
And all property must be returned within 7 days unless there is an on-going prosecution.
I fail to see how that makes it acceptable. It's still seizing the property of someone who has not been arrested and is not accused of any crime.
Quote:
Police have 9 hours to arrest and charge, or release, and this for people who are likely to immediately board a plane and leave the country.
So, absent that provision, all that is going to happen with an actual terrorist is 9 hours of no comment, followed by departure.
You have the right to remain silent*
*Terms and conditions may apply. That really doesn't bother you?
That kind of government coercion is not acceptable.
Quote:
And personally, I'd rather see occasional cases of abuse of these laws, and someone suffering a few hours of questioning and inconvenience, than removing the laws altogether and seeing hundreds of people killed in a plane bomb. Again.
Not sure what this has to do with bombs on planes. in fact it wasn't needed in the wake of the Lockerbie bombing the only bombed plane in Britain that springs to mind. The only relevant bombing was of buses and trains, it killed 52 people and was not stopped by this law which had been in place 5 years at that time.
You're arguing this law is effective, which is at very best debatable and more importantly not relevant. The Stasi were effective, that doesn't make them moral, acceptable or compatible with the principles of democracy, human rights and justice.