This is how anti-terror laws are used in practice
As I often observe on this site, Nanny (aided and abetted by a very compliant and semi hysterical media) have managed to convince a vast swathe of the population that all children in Britain are under direct threat from paedophiles, attackers, and child traffickers etc. Such is the level of hysteria that now prevails even members of the police force, who should know better, have become infected by it. Julie Maynard, of Ware Hertfordshire, who was taking a day trip to Calais through the Channel Tunnel found this to her cost in February. A detective constable accused Ms Maynard and her husband Leslie Coombs of trafficking her son Joshua, who is 12. The family were stopped by the plain clothes officer from the Channel Tunnel Policing Unit on 20 February. Ms Maynard, who happens to be a legal advocate (how unfortunate for Nanny!), said that the officer, who failed to identify who she was, asked for the family's passports then asked "who's the boy?". Joshua is mixed race, and Nanny immediately (because of course Nanny only sees people by their skin colour) assumed that Joshua was being trafficked. The officer said: "I believe you are child trafficking." Ms Maynard then asked the woman officer if she would be asked the same question if her son was white, the officer replied: "Are you accusing me of being a racist?" You can see where this is going can't you? Yes, that's right, for reasons that only Nanny can come up with the family were then detained under the Terrorism Act and surrounded by "at least 10 police officers" who ordered them to get out of their car. Now please tell me why, if Nanny really believed that this was child trafficking, was the Terrorism Act used? Could it be that Nanny knew that she had no grounds for an accusation of trafficking, and therefore used the Terrorism Act as a catch all to impose her jackboot on an innocent citizen? This is where we have got to. The promises made by our "leaders" that the act will only be used for terrorists have been exposed as lies. The act is being used as a catch all device to allow Nanny and her followers to conduct personal vendettas. Once people lose respect for the law, the law becomes unworkable and the criminal justice system will collapse. Ms Maynard was separated from her husband and son, who is autistic and has cerebral palsy, and taken to a detention room for questioning, leaving Joshua distressed. Ms Maynard said the woman officer told her: "It's obvious he has nothing to do with you".
Again, why the Terrorism Act?
Officers told the family they had powers to hold them for up to nine hours under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, but they were released after more than two hours.
Julie Maynard said:
"More and more people are being stopped under the Terrorism Act - there's absolutely nothing in the act to stop individual officers abusing their powers.
They have a difficult job to do in a difficult climate but their approach needs to be reasonable and not presumptive that every person is somehow guilty of a possible terrorism or criminal offence."
Kent Police have paid a "substantial sum" of money to the welfare fund at Joshua's school, reimbursed the family's ferry fare and offered Joshua a visit to the Kent police marine launch.
Insp Helen Shaw, from Kent Police's Frontier Operations, apologised to the family in a letter.
In another letter she wrote:
"Your complaint and my subsequent enquiries allowed me to identify that her (the officer's) manner had been insensitive, lacking in tact and that her conduct overall lacked the professionalism I expect.
I wish to reassure you that your highly unsatisfactory experience was a very isolated incident."
The officer has been transferred.
All well and good. However, how many other incidents like this are happening across the country where the Terrorism Act is used?
What would have happened if Ms Maynard had not had legal experience?
This sucks, big time!
http://tinyurl.com/5oousr
As I often observe on this site, Nanny (aided and abetted by a very compliant and semi hysterical media) have managed to convince a vast swathe of the population that all children in Britain are under direct threat from paedophiles, attackers, and child traffickers etc. Such is the level of hysteria that now prevails even members of the police force, who should know better, have become infected by it. Julie Maynard, of Ware Hertfordshire, who was taking a day trip to Calais through the Channel Tunnel found this to her cost in February. A detective constable accused Ms Maynard and her husband Leslie Coombs of trafficking her son Joshua, who is 12. The family were stopped by the plain clothes officer from the Channel Tunnel Policing Unit on 20 February. Ms Maynard, who happens to be a legal advocate (how unfortunate for Nanny!), said that the officer, who failed to identify who she was, asked for the family's passports then asked "who's the boy?". Joshua is mixed race, and Nanny immediately (because of course Nanny only sees people by their skin colour) assumed that Joshua was being trafficked. The officer said: "I believe you are child trafficking." Ms Maynard then asked the woman officer if she would be asked the same question if her son was white, the officer replied: "Are you accusing me of being a racist?" You can see where this is going can't you? Yes, that's right, for reasons that only Nanny can come up with the family were then detained under the Terrorism Act and surrounded by "at least 10 police officers" who ordered them to get out of their car. Now please tell me why, if Nanny really believed that this was child trafficking, was the Terrorism Act used? Could it be that Nanny knew that she had no grounds for an accusation of trafficking, and therefore used the Terrorism Act as a catch all to impose her jackboot on an innocent citizen? This is where we have got to. The promises made by our "leaders" that the act will only be used for terrorists have been exposed as lies. The act is being used as a catch all device to allow Nanny and her followers to conduct personal vendettas. Once people lose respect for the law, the law becomes unworkable and the criminal justice system will collapse. Ms Maynard was separated from her husband and son, who is autistic and has cerebral palsy, and taken to a detention room for questioning, leaving Joshua distressed. Ms Maynard said the woman officer told her: "It's obvious he