The London Metropolitan Police have been found guilty of breaking Health & Safety laws and endangering the public in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes. De Menzes was the innocent Brazilian mistaken by police for a suicide bomber in the wake of the attempted 21/7/2005 terrorist attacks. Anti-terrorist officers chased the unarmed man into a tube station and shot him dead.

Health and Safety may seem to be strange grounds on which to bring a case such as this but it was the only legal avenue available to the de Menezes family.

I for one have no doubt that all those involved in this case acted with the highest motives. The individual police officers believed that they were facing a would-be suicide bomber. They believed they were risking their own lives to protect the public.

They were wrong.

The police had the best of intentions yet got things wrong and killed an innocent man. De Menzes had nothing to hide yet, tragically, everything to fear.

At the end of the day the police are human. No matter how much intelligence and technology they have available, they make mistakes like the rest of us.

The tragic case of de Menzes is a reminder of why we must resist calls for more and greater police and state powers - powers such as extended detention without charge and compulsory ID Cards. Such powers may not have fatal consequences but could still ruin lives.

Extreme power leads to extreme abuse, even if that abuse is accidental rather than corrupt. Excessive police and state power is something for all innocent people to fear.

Labels: civil liberties, ID Cards, London, police, uk politics

The death of a police officer in the line of duty is a dreadful thing and a great tragedy for all concerned. Anger is an understandable reaction and this anger is frequently "expressed" as a call to arm all British police.

Would that be a good idea? Well, here's a quick set of thought experiments. For each question answer "a", "b" or "c":

1: You're a criminal planning a serious crime. How would knowing that the police would be armed affect the likelihood of you also carrying a gun?

a) Make you more likely to carry a gun
b) Make no difference
c) Make you less likely to carry a gun


2: You are an armed robber. The police appear in the middle of the job. How would knowing that they are armed affect the likelihood of you firing at them?

a) Make you more likely to fire
b) Make no difference
c) Make you less likely to fire


3: You are an innocent civilian. In the unlikely event that the police wrongly mistake you for a dangerous criminal, would you feel safer with them armed or not?

a) Safer with them unarmed
b) No preference
c) Safer with them armed.


If you answered mostly "a":
You realise that arming all British police would be to pander to the ravings of the tabloids and would probably make life more dangerous for both the police and innocent citizens.

If you answered mostly "b":
You realise that there is no justification for arming all British police and we shouldn't make knee-jerk reactions just to keep the tabloid newspapers happy

If you answered mostly "c":
You're seriously deluding yourself and/or you edit a tabloid newspaper.

guns police UK politics ukpolitics

Labels: guns, police

Britain, 2008. You're out on the street doing nothing wrong. Maybe you're looking in a few shop windows. Maybe you're waiting to meet someone. Maybe you're just strolling along. For no apparent reason the police stop you and demand to know who you are, where you're going, who you're planning to meet. If you refuse to answer their questions you could end up with a criminal record.

That's apparently a scenario the government wants to see in the UK. The BBC reports that the Home Office is considering giving police in mainland Britain an unlimited "stop and question" power. Anyone refusing to "co-operate" could be charged with obstructing the police and fined £5,000.

Of course the police can already stop and question people today. The difference is that today they need reasonable suspicion that you're up to no good. That's a subtle yet important restriction on their power. Officers know that they might have to justify their actions in a court of law. Under the new proposals police could stop and interrogate anyone, anywhere at any time - with or without a reasonable cause.

This proposal would be another nail in the coffin of the presumption of innocence in the UK. It would remove what little privacy we have left. It would shatter any remaining illusion that this is a free country where we can walk the streets without interference from the state.

If this goes ahead then the police will be able to stop and interrogate you without having to justify their actions - but you'd better be able to justify yours.

Update 28/5/2007: The BBC report has been updated and now says "Police are still likely to need a 'reasonable suspicion' a crime may be committed." It seems that the Home Office is back-pedalling following the massive condemnation of this proposal. That's welcome, however the fact that they even considered introducing this remains scary. And "likely to" isn't good enough.

civil liberties police privacy UK politics ukpolitics

Labels: civil liberties, police, privacy