Comments:European court in Strasbourg rules UK's Terrorism Act in breach of human rights law

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

It would be much better if there was some sort of limit on the search - what can be searched, and how long the search can take (unless suspicious materials are discovered, which should escalate the situation); as well as some kind of logging that can be used to hold officers accountable for making a quick and efficient search. The way this article described it though, it sounds like UK police have free reign to delay people as long as they want, and if they want to do that they should go through the trouble of identifying a solid suspicion or a legitimate violation. -- (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They should have 'reasonable suspicion,' you say? That would be exactly what we had before, then. (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Furthermore, the British set of laws lacks a bill of rights, and the touted 'freedoms" are rapidily deningrated under pressure. Furthermore, dont blank the comments page,its Impolite. (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Who blanked the comments page? And yes, exactly - every other piece of stop & search legislation requires that the police have 'reasonable suspicion,' which they must articulate before a search is carried out. Just because we don't have an A to Z of 'rights' in a nice easy-to-read pop-up book of fun doesn't mean we don't have protections. (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Much of the reasoning behind the court judgement is because under this Act the police do not need any reason whatsoever. If they wanna search you, they can. That is why it was ruled illegal. Having some test for reasonable suspicion and a method of judicial appeal would be the way forward; at least, that is what the court implied. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)