My answer came quickly, as minutes later I was flagged down by another Policeman who indicated to me to stop my car, which, being a law abiding citizen, I duly did. I did wonder what was going on. There was nothing defective with my car, no offence I had committed.
The Police Officer, incredibly courteous, explained that he had stopped me under Section 44 of the 2000 Prevention of Terrorism Act. This meant that anyone, at any time, even if no offence was being committed could be stopped by the Police. The Act states:
"Under Section 44 officers may search any pedestrian or vehicle for evidence related to terrorism. They do not need to show reasonable cause to stop and search you".
I wondered what evidence they had?
I was asked to get outside the car - although to be fair, they then allowed me to stay in it - whilst my car was thoroughly searched by officers with rubber gloves and licence details checked. I also had to give them a form of identification. Finding nothing of concern , I and my car were cleared of any wrong-doing, I was sent on my way with a friendly cheerio.
Despite the politeness of the Police concerned, I have to say that I felt my liberties as a free citizen were unfairly infringed upon - a sense (albeit a small one) of grievance against the 'authorities'.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (2000) gives the State huge power against ordinary citizens going about their business, and there is very little redress. I had committed no offence, yet my privacy and my personal property (my car), were seen as public properties of the Government.
The logical extension of this is enormous. Can you imagine what will happen, if Labour gets it way and we are all forced to have ID cards. Our personal freedom as private citizens will be hugely diminished as the State will be able to stop us at will, asking us "for our papers".
Of course, there will be those who say that all this is necessary to fight terrorism. I don't doubt that tough measures are needed. But I would like to know how far random stopping of motorists has really diminished the terrorist threat to the UK. Surely there must be better modes of surveillance?
If we believe in liberal democracy, we have to hold out strongly for its values too. We weaken these values at great cost. Of course there is a balance between liberty and security and state intervention. But are we tipping this balance too far in one direction?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
