Wish i could have helped a little more :(

[SteveRuss]

Although current rights are admittedly somewhat different to the Ways and Means Acts used of old, is is not strictly true that an individual can only be searched if they present immediate suspicion to a specific police officer.

Sec60 for example is a stop and search power that allows indiscriminate searches and can be invoked by a senior officer if there is belief that a certain area is susceptible to violent acts. Nearby to a football stadium for example.

Sec44 is another indiscriminate search power which comes under the terrorism act and can be invoked, as you would expect, to any area susceptible to terrorism. Your search at a London tube station maybe? I would suggest that you did the right thing to acquiesce at the time...

Of note (depending on when your tube search was) is that when Sec44 was first introduced a blanket footprint of the entire Greater London area was authorised for 10 years so being near stations/high areas of violence didn't even come into it. Although the ability to invoke such a broad area was repealed in 2012, the act is still live but now generally applies to designated, smaller areas.

I guess my point is that a Sec44 or 60 could be authorised in any area at any time and it is entirely likely that a member of the public will not have a clue it is in place. Just something to be aware of if you are adamant that you are carrying your locking blade because it provides you with something 'handy' which a folding one won't.

I fully appreciate your view regarding being sensitive about your rights, but I for one am extremely glad that both the above policies exist.

Section 44 was pretty much abolished some years ago. I think it was originally a terrorist stop and search act that was systematically abused by the boys and girls in blue. After nearly ten years it had reportedly caught a memorable number of terrorists. Zero.

It had however been considered a human rights abuse by the European court and was deemed to be be illegal. The Uk government had no choice but to repeal the law although I seem to remember Theresa May trying to take some credit for getting rid of it.

60 is different though as like you suggested it has to be within an area that is designated by a senior office. I am not under the impression the senior officer could just say "London" and that would be the area.

Apparently the chances of stop and search under both acts if you were black or asian was seven fold. Section 60 is apparently little used these days due to the abuse of the act by the boys and girls in blue.

 

[Planemo]

I *think* you are pretty much agreeing with me..

Searches without suspicion under the terrorism act do exist though. It may have morphed from the 44 into 47a, with the main difference being size of area authorised, but they still very much exist.

You say that Sec60 is 'little used'. I would suggest you may want to do some research on that. In addition, the main danger of a 60 (in the context of this thread) is that unlike terrorism searches, 60's can and do get invoked in locations that you might not expect. Furthermore, any 60 (by default) would be directly targeting offensive weapons/dangerous instruments so good luck in trying to justify (at the roadside) carrying a locking blade under a Sec60 environment. I have no doubt whatsoever that most officers would simply make an arrest and at the very least hold you in custody until the relevant justification (if any) could be ascertained rather than listen to waffle and see sweat running down temples at the roadside. And thats before we start talking about getting charged (will the CPS accept your justification?) and gripping the rail in court. Personally I could do without it.

I won't go into further detail as you appear to have an aversion to indiscriminate searches/police. I simply wanted to clarify an earlier incorrect assumption that police could not search without suspicion.

I think that one thing we can all agree on is 'you pays yer money...'

 

[SteveRuss]

I *think* you are pretty much agreeing with me..

Searches without suspicion under the terrorism act do exist though. It may have morphed from the 44 into 47a, with the main difference being size of area authorised, but they still very much exist.

You say that Sec60 is 'little used'. I would suggest you may want to do some research on that. In addition, the main danger of a 60 (in the context of this thread) is that unlike terrorism searches, 60's can and do get invoked in locations that you might not expect. Furthermore, any 60 (by default) would be directly targeting offensive weapons/dangerous instruments so good luck in trying to justify (at the roadside) carrying a locking blade under a Sec60 environment. I have no doubt whatsoever that most officers would simply make an arrest and at the very least hold you in custody until the relevant justification (if any) could be ascertained rather than listen to waffle and see sweat running down temples at the roadside. And thats before we start talking about getting charged (will the CPS accept your justification?) and gripping the rail in court. Personally I could do without it.

I won't go into further detail as you appear to have an aversion to indiscriminate searches/police. I simply wanted to clarify an earlier incorrect assumption that police could not search without suspicion.

I think that one thing we can all agree on is 'you pays yer money...'

I worked at the Olympics for months of my life in 2012. You had to go through a lengthy entry system that used a system as strict as any airport i've been through. I took my Gerber through every day and it was accepted as a tool of the trade.

I do have an aversion to indiscriminate police searches as they are illegal, if it's for absolutely no reason whatsoever. and anyone who doesn't is a fool in my mind. America is much more the police state than here 'at the moment' but the more we unquestioningly accept whatever a policeman says goes the more we will watch out liberty fizzle away.

The idea of a section 60 still requires that an officer has reasonable suspicion that an act of violence is about to occur rather than it just being another stick they could prod people with for whatever reason they fancied. If I was stopped for no reason and searched I would want to know exactly what signs of terrorism or threat of impending violence I was exhibiting.

Cheers. Steve

 

[RobF]

If I was stopped for no reason and searched I would want to know exactly what signs of terrorism or threat of impending violence I was exhibiting.

So would I, but there are practical difficulties in questioning a copper in this way.

A skilled one will goad you into a public order offence, or reasonable suspicion of one.

A raised voice, narky attitude, or inappropriate gesture will do it, particularly after the officer embellishes his account of your behaviour.

I speak to coppers for work quite a bit, but very rarely find myself being questioned by one.

If I do, my policy is to end the conversation as soon as possible with little or no personal consequences.

Achieving that is a matter of personal judgment, but considerations of human rights are unlikely to come into it at the time.

 

[Planemo]

The idea of a section 60 still requires that an officer has reasonable suspicion

No it doesn't.

If that was the case, the anytime, anywhere power of a regular Sec1 stop/search would suffice and Sec60 wouldn't exist.

 

[SteveRuss]

No it doesn't.

If that was the case, the anytime, anywhere power of a regular Sec1 stop/search would suffice and Sec60 wouldn't exist.

The senior officer must have reasonable suspicion to associate an area with 60. As I said I'd hate to think they could just say "Brixton". They've made that mistake before. .

This is from liberty's website.

QUOTE

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows a police officer to stop and search a person without suspicion. Section 60 stops and searches can take place in an area which has been authorised by a senior police officer on the basis of their reasonable belief that violence has or is about to occur, and where it is expedient to prevent it or search people for a weapon if one was involved in the incident.

Section 60 is a broadly framed and indiscriminate policing tool. Following the finding that section 44 of the Terrorism Act was unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights (see below), it was suspended, and the use of section 60 dramatically increased. Unfortunately it was soon uncovered that the power was being deployed in a similarly discriminatory way. Statistics clearly showed you were far more likely to be stopped and searched under section 60 if you were Black or Asian END QUOTE

Tthe police are not allowed to stop you without first having reason to believe you are just about the commit a crime or have committed a crime. You are not obliged to volunteer your name or personal details unless the police officer satisfies the above requirements and explains them to you.

You may be ahead of me here but I thought section one was to do with arrest for carrying an illegal weapon without reasonable excuse. I don't believe this allows indiscriminate stop and search on a whim (they don't like the look of you or you"re black or Asian).

I am not a hater of the police at all. In fact I'd say I appreciate their support and efforts generally. I do hope that we can maintain the force we enjoy without allowing politicians to **** away our rights by implementing laws that allow indiscriminate stop and search without any suspicion whatsoever. Paranoia is no excuse

 

[Planemo]

Steve, I think we are splitting hairs.

I agree, a senior officer invokes a Sec60 for an 'area' as I said before, but an individual constable within that area then needs NO suspicion. This was the point I was trying to make. Indeed, you directly quote this yourself when you used the Liberty statement:

"Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows a police officer to stop and search a person without suspicion".

You may be ahead of me here but I thought section one was to do with arrest for carrying an illegal weapon without reasonable excuse.

Sec1 is a stop/search power. It has nothing to do with arrest powers, nor is it exclusive to weapons, illegal (I assume you mean prohibited) or otherwise. How about stolen items for example. Or items used for fraud/going equipped. Fireworks even.

Despite my best efforts, I am not sure I am making myself clear so I will give it one more go:

Sec1 = individual constable needs suspicion on an individual.

Sec60= senior officer needs suspicion that something may happen within an area, but constable in that area needs no suspicion.

And as I previously said, 60's are invoked in places which can be far from obvious. I could name a certain High Street in a fairly sleepy rural Essex location which had a 60 authorised. One would never assume that you would get turned over on a quiet evening walk along it, and at times like that, one would hope that they remembered to leave the 'handy' folder at home. Damn those policies! Call the brief!

 

[EddiePJ]

Lidl's sometimes have a cheap and cheerful tool kit/saddle bag combo for about a fiver.
The bag isn't bad, but requires a key ring to prevent the zip from working it's way open. The tools are just about functional, but are definately better than nothing, and can just be added to, or changed over time.