The misuse of Britain’s hastily conceived anti-terrorism/counter-terrorism laws and security regimes is now affecting society as a whole… a climate of suspicion permeates, with an impact on individual and collective behaviour.
PREVENT and infringement of liberties, reported in the Guardian, 20 January 2017, ‘One of the UK’s most prestigious universities has warned students and staff that their emails may be retained and monitored as part of the government’s Prevent programme to stop radicalisation on campuses. Campaigners have raised concern after King’s College London (KCL) introduced a warning on its email login page stating that by using the system students and staff were consenting to their emails being “monitored and recorded”. A spokesperson for KCL’s students’ union said it was a violation of trust, adding: “Students who have not committed any crimes are being treated as suspects.” The introduction of the Prevent duty within universities remains, with both academic staff and students arguing that it risks creating a culture of mistrust and shutting down vital debate . . . The National Union of Students said it condemned any systematic monitoring of emails. “This is yet another example of how the Prevent agenda turns our educational institutions against their own students, perpetuates a culture of fear, restricts academic freedoms and normalise s Islamophobia,” said the NUS president. ‘ click here.
Anushka Asthana in the Guardian, 25 December 2016, ‘Councils were given permission to carry out more than 55,000 days of covert surveillance over five years, including spying on people walking dogs, feeding pigeons and fly-tipping, the Guardian can reveal. A mass freedom of information request has found 186 local authorities – two-thirds of the 283 that responded – used the government’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to gather evidence via secret listening devices, cameras and private detectives. Among the detailed examples provided were Midlothian council using the powers to monitor dog barking and Allerdale borough council gathering evidence about who was guilty of feeding pigeons. Wolverhampton used covert surveillance to check on the sale of dangerous toys and car clocking; Slough to aid an investigation into an illegal puppy farm; and Westminster to crack down on the selling of fireworks to children . . . ‘ click here.
Mark Townsend and Ian Cobain in the Guardian, 10 December 2016, ‘. . . City of York council included anti-fracking activists in its Prevent programme, the controversial centrepiece of the government’s strategy to tackle extremism and thwart terrorism. In response, the Home Office on Saturday issued a statement saying “support for anti-fracking is not an indicator of vulnerability” to extremism. The council had placed anti-fracking protesters on a list of “key risks to York”, along with Islamic terrorists and far-right extremists. And an East Yorkshire secondary, Driffield school, was condemned for including anti-fracking campaigners in its counter-terrorism advice for parents.’ click here
Report in thecanary.co, November 2016, ‘An extraordinary decision by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has equated anti-fracking protesters with extremism and terrorism. And that decision should worry us all. It shows the government’s attitude towards campaigners, and the measures they will take to stop them . . . Fracking protesters have been included in Prevent training about extremism, and campaigners questioned under anti-terrorism legislation at airports.’ click here.
Rob Evans and Vikram Dodd in the Guardian, 28th April 2016, ‘A secretive police unit tasked with spying on alleged extremists intent on committing serious crimes has been monitoring leading members of the Green party, the Guardian has learned. Newly released documents show that the intelligence unit has been tracking the political activities of the MP Caroline Lucas and Sian Berry, the party’s candidate for London mayor.’ click here.
Glen Greewald in theintercept.com, 28th April 2016, ‘A newly published study from Oxford’s Jon Penney provides empirical evidence for a key argument long made by privacy advocates: that the mere existence of a surveillance state breeds fear and conformity and stifles free expression. Reporting on the study, the Washington Post this morning described this phenomenon: “If we think that authorities are watching our online actions, we might stop visiting certain websites or not say certain things just to avoid seeming suspicious . . . As the Post explains, several other studies have also demonstrated how mass surveillance crushes free expression and free thought . . . There is a reason governments, corporations, and multiple other entities of authority crave surveillance. It’s precisely because the possibility of being monitored radically changes individual and collective behavior. Specifically, that possibility breeds fear and fosters collective conformity. That’s always been intuitively clear. Now, there is mounting empirical evidence proving it”.’ click here.
Haroon Siddique in the Guardian, 3rd March 2016, ‘A British man was removed from a plane by armed police at Luton airport after a fellow passenger read a message on his mobile phone about “prayer” and reported him as a security threat . . .The Nigerian-born Christian believes the passenger next to him assumed he was a Muslim and jumped to the conclusion that he may be a terrorist.’ click here.
Owen Bowcott in the Guardian, 16th January 2016, ‘A key clause in the Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, the master of the rolls, John Dyson, has said as part of a court of appeal judgment. The decision came in the case of David Miranda, who was detained at Heathrow airport in 2013 for carrying files related to information obtained by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden. The court of appeal’s judgment on Tuesday will force government ministers to re-examine the act … “The stop power, if used in respect of journalistic information or material, is incompatible with article 10 [freedom of expression] of the [European convention on human rights] because it is not ‘prescribed by law’,” said Dyson, the most senior civil judge in England and Wales. click here.
Paul Peachey in the Independent, 3rd January 2016, ‘Britain’s most scandal-hit police force faces a slew of legal claims after being accused of using controversial anti-terrorism powers to snoop on officers blowing the whistle on racism. Cleveland constabulary faces claims that it secretly obtained details from confidential emails between Asian officers and their representatives and solicitors to defend against employment cases brought against the force. It is the latest scandal involving alleged police misuse of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa). Last month, Scotland Yard was ruled to have illegally accessed the phone records of a Sun journalist while using Ripa to find the source of a leak during the “Plebgate” scandal.’ click here.
Jon Stone in the Independent, 6th November 2015, ‘ British volunteers on a humanitarian aid run to refugees in Calais were detained by police under legislation meant to be used against suspected terrorists, an aid group has told theIndependent. Two people working with the London2Calais group said they were stopped and held for three hours under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 while returning to the UK at Calais. One of the pair, who were travelling in the same vehicle, said Kent Police counter-terror officers carried out the detention on the Calais side of the channel.’ click here.
Ian Burrell in the Independent, 29th October 2015, ‘… Police have used powers under the Terrorism Act to seize the laptop of a young Newsnight journalist in a case that has shocked BBC colleagues and alarmed freedom of speech campaigners, The Independent can disclose.Officers obtained an order from a judge that was served on the BBC and Secunder Kermani, who joined the flagship BBC2 news show early last year and has produced a series of reports on British-born jihadis.The development has caused alarm among BBC journalists. The editor of Newsnight, Ian Katz said: “While we would not seek to obstruct any police investigation we are concerned that the use of the Terrorism Act to obtain communication between journalists and sources will make it very difficult for reporters to cover this issue of critical public interest.’ click here.
Joshua Rozenburg in the Guardian, 20th October 2015, ‘… As David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism law, asked before the strategy paper was published: “Why it is deemed necessary to resort to civil orders rather than the creation of additional criminal offences, thereby removing the protections inherent in jury trial from those accused of extremist activity?” … It is not just Muslim leaders who have concerns about the government’s plans. Groups such as Index on Censorship have expressed concern about the chilling effect they would have on free speech. Campaigners say the proposals would make it harder for people of all faiths and ideologies to express their opinions and beliefs.In the end, there is the risk of damaging what we all seek to protect. Speaking against democracy is itself a democratic right.’ click here.
Rev. Jones & other churchmen, letter to the editor, Daily Telegraph, 7th October 2015, ‘… Many people will fall foul of EDOs and, as the former head of MI5 has said, “harmless evangelicals” could be among them. Evangelicals like William Wilberforce, Lord Shaftesbury and Josephine Butler, though revered now, faced many malicious accusations during their lifetimes. Today Christians can be labelled “extremists” by those who disagree with Christianity. For some such people, EDOs will be a gift. For the Church, they will be a disaster. Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph, 28th September 2015, “True, the proposed definition of extremist views is intended to stop radical Islamist preachers influencing a new generation of potential terrorists, but it [Counter-Terrorism & Security Bill] is so widely drawn that it will inevitably ensnare the wrong people. How long, for instance, before someone who expresses opposition to same-sex marriage is arraigned under the law? After all, what was until recently an orthodox, mainstream view founded on religious belief is now considered hateful and potentially criminal.” click here.
Shaheed Fatima writes in justsecurity.org, ‘‘On August 28, 2015 the British Library publicly stated that it would not acquire or give access to the digital archive of materials collected by the Taliban Sources Project (TSP). This decision, coming from “one of the world’s greatest research libraries” and “a place of knowledge and inspiration, encouragement and engagement” has been criticized by academics/researchers as “madness” and “completely, completely ridiculous.” But, from a legal perspective, the British Library’s self-censorship is a predictable consequence of the UK’s broad terrorism laws and so if that self-censorship is to be criticized then it is important not to lose sight of the root cause of such decisions — the underlying law. It is only then that progress is likely: the effectiveness of the law can be practically assessed, its content re-appraised and, who knows, lessons may even be learned and applied to future counter-terrorism proposals engaging academic freedom’. click here, 14 September 2015.
Adi Bloom in the Times Educational Supplement, 4th September 2015: Police have told teachers that they should consider environmental activists and anti-fracking protesters as potential extremists under the government’s Prevent counter-terrorism strategy, TEShas learned.More than 100 teachers from several schools were given the advice during a Prevent training session in West Yorkshire, where they were also warned by a police officer about extreme anti-capitalist groups.One teacher said the officer went on to refer to the behaviour of Green Party MP Caroline Lucas – who was arrested for her part in blocking a road at an anti-fracking demonstration in 2013 – as an example of extremism.click here.
Joshua Rozenberg in the Guardian, 5th February 2015: Police will be forced to seek the permission of a judge if they want to retrieve the phone and email records of journalists. The ruling comes after the prime minister’s snooping watchdog found 29 police forces made more than 600 applications to uncover confidential sources in the past three years. The request to use anti-terrorism legislation to access journalists’ communication records were made in 34 police investigations into suspected leaks by public officials…
James Ball in the Guardian, 19th January 2015: …Senior editors and lawyers in the UK have called for the urgent introduction of a freedom of expression law amid growing concern over safeguards proposed by ministers to meet concerns over the police use of surveillance powers linked to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa)….GCHQ information security assessments, meanwhile, routinely list journalists between “terrorism” and “hackers” as “influencing threat sources”, with one matrix scoring journalists as having a “capability” score of two out of five, and a “priority” of three out of five, scoring an overall “low” information security risk. Terrorists, listed immediately above investigative journalists on the document, were given a much higher “capability” score of four out of five, but a lower “priority” of two. The matrix concluded terrorists were therefore a “moderate” information security risk. click here.
Baroness Kennedy in the Lords, 14th January 2015: … we should be deeply aware of the risks associated with erosions of civil liberties because once we create paradigm shifts inside the law, the reality is that they are very hard to reverse. We have seen this over laws that were introduced at the time of the Irish troubles in the 1970s when I started doing work in terrorism cases. You actually find that the changes that are introduced inevitably leach into the system as a whole. We see that more recently with the secret courts, which were introduced as an isolated and extreme measure. We have now seen institutional creep and that “exceptional” process is moving into other parts of the system. Our commitment to open justice is thereby being eroded. We must be clear that emergency legislation can never be vacuum-packed. It permeates attitudes and standards—and, I am afraid, rarely to the good. click here
Henry Porter in the Guardian: ‘Liberals are above all vigilant democrats who believe that checks and balances are vital to a free society. They do not trust governments implicitly because they are aware that powers are always abused, and governments will often do anything to avoid proper scrutiny. For example, surveillance powers, upgraded in the wake of previous terror attacks, enabled the Metropolitan police to put under close surveillance six journalists who were loosely thought to be investigating government and corporate abuse. About 2,000 legitimate, mainstream journalists are said to be on the police database…To give further wide-ranging powers to the state now is first of all inappropriate in the context of what we know about the Kouachi brothers and, second, would militate against the very freedoms that were under attack last week. 12th January 2015
Owen Bowcott in the Guardian: ‘The “secret, massive and indiscriminate” surveillance conducted by intelligence services and disclosed by the former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden cannot be justified by the fight against terrorism, the most senior human rights official in Europe has warned.’ 8th December 2014
Vikram Dodd in the Guardian: ‘ The battle against extremism could lead to a “drift towards a police state” in which officers are turned into “thought police”, one of Britain’s most senior chief constables has warned.Sir Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester, said police were being left to decide what is acceptable free speech as the efforts against radicalisation and a severe threat of terrorist attack intensify…The Conservative-led coalition’s counter-terrorism policy, Contest, was unveiled in 2011 and tried to link non-violent extremist idea to terrorist violence’. 5 December click here.
Carly Nyst in the Telegraph: “Destroying online freedom in the name of counter-terrorism will make the world a more dangerous place..Just as the trade off for a truly democratic society is that dissent, insecurity and even hatred cannot be stamped out before they materialise, so too a truly open, democratised internet cannot be sanitised against terror without undermining the very qualities that make it so important to our lives. This is exactly what mass surveillance of the internet is aimed at, and as a result it debases the rights to privacy and free expression that we need for flourishing democracies.” 6 November 2014. Click here.
“BBC Uses Anti-Terror Spy Powers to Track Down People Who Haven’t Paid Their License Fee“. Scriptonite Daily website, 22nd October 2014.
The Sun has made an official complaint about the Metropolitan police’s use of anti-terror laws to snoop on its political editor’s phone calls. It has written to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to seek a public review of the Met’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain Tom Newton Dunn’s phone records. The Met ordered Vodafone to hand them over as part of its investigation into the Plebgate saga centring on former Tory whip Andrew Mitchell’s altercation with police at Downing Street. Lisa O’Carroll in the Guardian, 6th October 2014.
The current British definition of terrorism is so broadly drawn that it could even catch political journalists and bloggers who publish material that the authorities consider dangerous to public safety, said the official counter-terrorism watchdog [David Anderson QC]…The watchdog said: “This means political journalists and bloggers are subject to the full range of anti-terrorism powers if they threaten to publish, prepare to publish something that the authorities think may be dangerous to life, public health or public safety.” He warned that they could be branded as terrorists even if they had no intention to spread fear or intimidate, and those who employed or supported them would also qualify as terrorists. The definition was so broad it would even catch a campaigner who voiced religious objections to a vaccination campaign on the grounds that they were a danger to public health. Alan Travis in The Guardian, 22 July 2014
[…] When travelling from Kings Cross on 14 October 2010 for work, he [Taher Gulamhussein] was asked to provide a valid train ticket after being questioned by ticket inspectors. When Mr Gulamhussein disputed the suggestion that his ticket was not valid – Mr Gulamhussein was later proven to be correct – his attempts to make a complaint and take a picture of the incident ended in him being detained and handcuffed by police officers. Mr Gulamhusein was immediately released without charge on arrival at the station. However, a professional standards report found the legal volunteer was detained on suspicion of terrorist offences without sufficient grounds and that officers acted “incorrectly and unlawfully”. Channel 4, 11 July 2014
Simon Jenkins in the Guardian: “This week in the court of appeal a group of newspapers pleaded to be allowed to report the fact that a criminal trial was to be held in secret for the first time in Britain. A judge, Mr Justice Nicol, had earlier ordered that the press be gagged for reasons of national security. This was nonsense. There can be no way reporting the existence of a wholly anonymous secret trial threatens the integrity of the state. It threatens only its dignity…From drone warfare to Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass surveillance by security agencies, from internment and control orders to the affair of the chief whip’s bicycle, the impression is of terrorism being exploited as the fertiliser of untrammelled power. The worst facets of an authoritarian state are being given free rein, and with no countervailing balance.” The Guardian, 6th June 2014
Rajeev Sayal reports in the Guardian: “MPs have criticised Britain’s leading tax official after HM Revenue & Customs used powers meant to catch terrorists to hunt down an employee who exposed a secret multimillion-pound ‘sweetheart’ deal with Goldman Sachs…Margaret Hodge, the chair of the committee, said that HMRC’s use of the powers, ostensibly to track down whether Mba had been talking to the Guardian’s then investigations editor, David Leigh, had ‘shocked her to her bones’. The MP told Homer she was particularly surprised ‘that you made a request under Ripa, which is there to deal with terrorism’. She asked for assurances that HMRC would ‘never again use these powers on a whistleblower’. 24 March 2014
Hugh Muir interviews human rights solicitor Imran Khan in the Guardian: “Khan said there was growing anger that a government that opposes the Assad regime in Syria should prosecute young Muslims who travel there to fight it. Ministers have also become over zealous in the so called war on terror, says Khan. ‘It has gone too far from protecting society to curtailing civil liberties. Look at the three students in Bradford jailed for having ideological material on their computers. they were jailed for up to three years for material that was ideological; that wasn’t extremist. That was state power at its most draconian’.” 25 March 2014
“Parliamentary joint committee says Theresa May’s late addition to immigration bill risks breach of UK’s international obligations…A report by parliament’s joint committee on human rights says there is a ‘very great risk of breaching the UK’s international obligations’ if the new power is used to prevent a naturalised British citizen returning to the UK from overseas…The new power to strip a person of their UK passport will only apply to people born abroad who have become British citizens. It is most likely to be used against terror suspects as a way of making it harder for them to return to Britain if they travel abroad.
Dame Helena Kennedy: “Schedule 7 suffers the same glaring flaws as the old section 44 counter-terrorism power that also allowed stop and search without suspicion. Such laws leave themselves wide open to discriminatory misuse: section 44 never once led to a terrorism conviction but was used to stop people like journalist Pennie Quinton. In a significant victory, Liberty took her case to the European court of human rights and the power was declared unlawful….Our riled security services’ transparent intimidation and interference with Miranda is shocking. But it’s also important that we use his case to shed light on the murky everyday reality of schedule 7. The power is consistently used to target minorities – you’re 42 times more likely to be stopped if you’re Asian than if you are white – and there’s a sense within these communities that such stops are now an expected part of travel. The people I represent have appalling stories of their delays and invasive questioning about their religious beliefs and attendance at mosques. Imagine having to schedule that into your airport experience as a matter of course.” The Guardian, 19 Feb 2014
Dossier started 6 December 2008 (updated regularly)
When I think of terrorists, newspaper editors aren’t the first people who spring to mind. Yet yesterday the editor of the Guardian was hauled before the Commons home affairs select committee – of which I am a member – and accused of breaching terrorist law.” Julian Huppert MP writing in The Guardian, 4 December 2013
… Yet it is plainly the direction of travel revealed by Snowden of the wilder shores of the NSA and GCHQ. What made his revelations particularly important was the spectacle of two contrasting forces in ghastly collusion. On the one hand was the move to digital transparency, the erosion of personal privacy through electronic surveillance, drone photography, face recognition and type-sorting. On the other was the hijacking of such power by a secret agency of the state under cover of “the war on terror”. Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, 20 November 2013
The National Union of Journalists has joined a coalition of media and free speech organisations in a High Court challenge to the use of counter-terrorism powers to detain David Miranda, partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist reporting on the mass surveillance programmes by the United States National Security Agency, at Heathrow airport in August. At the time of the detention the union said: “The treatment meted out to David Miranda is wholly unacceptable and it is time the use, or rather misuse, of terrorism legislation as a way of targeting individuals was properly and independently reviewed….” From the NUJ website, 6 November 2013
Nick Hopkins and Matthew Taylor in The Guardian, 5 November 2013 “He (former Home Secretary David Blunkett) was also responsible for reviewing the early use of a key piece of anti-terror legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), which has provided the legal underpinning for some of GCHQ’s mass-surveillance programmes revealed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian has revealed that GCHQ relies on Ripa to provide the legal cover for programmes such as Tempora, which taps undersea cables that carry internet traffic in and out of the country.”
16th October 2013
… Charles Farr, the Home Office’s head of the office of security and counter-terrorism…confirmed that among the 552,000 requests for communications data each year were requests from local authorities for personal data to use in investigations into benefit fraud, trading standards offences and antisocial behaviour. That undermined May’s claim in the Sun that the powers in the bill would only be used to track suspected terrorists, paedophiles and serious criminals. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-peers-may-snoopers-charter
22nd August 2013
It is the height of naivety to believe that police will not routinely abuse any powers granted to them for special purposes. After all, photographing a police minibus parked in a disabled parking spot while the officers ate sandwiches has brought a threat of prosecution under the Terrorism Act unless the photos were deleted; and the demand that demonstrators remove head coverings, regardless of suspicion of involvement in any of the actions supposedly required to justify such a demand, is now routine. (Letter to the Editor of the Guardian, from Jon Fanning, 22 August 2013)
19th August 2013
Labour has called for an urgent investigation into the use of anti-terror powers to detain David Miranda, the partner of a Guardian journalist who interviewed US National Security Agency whistle blower Edward Snowden. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said ministers must find out whether anti-terror laws had been “misused”, after Miranda was held for nine hours by authorities at Heathrow airport under the Terrorism Act.
29th April 2013
Police misuse of counter-terrorism powers to restrict photography
2nd November 2012
Ellie Mae O’Hagan “Despite the peaceful nature of their actions, the simple act of protesting means that activists’ lives sometimes resemble that of Tony Soprano. Surveillance, police intimidation and undercover officers are routine hazards they must negotiate. As one environmental campaigner who has come into contact with undercover officers puts it: ‘You don’t have to be self-important to suspect you’re the victim of state surveillance. If you’re politically active, it’s simply a fact of life’….Last April the foreign secretary, William Hague, called for Syria to ‘respect basic and universal human rights to freedoms of expression and assembly’. What does the intrusive surveillance of activists mean for a society that champions freedom of expression to the world? ”
4th April 2012
“Too often in the recent past, anti-terror laws have been used for purposes for which they were not designed. For instance, of the 1,000 odd public bodies entitled to monitor electronic communications under existing surveillance laws, two-thirds are local authorities”.
Financial Times Editorial, 4th April 2012
19th March 2012
An Italian student [Simona Bonomo] has won an out-of-court settlement with police after she was stopped under anti-terrorist legislation while filming buildings in London, and later arrested, held in a cell for five hours and then fined…”I am pleased with the settlement but money alone does not erase what happened and I am left with consternation that the systems in place to protect citizens from police brutality do not work,” Bonomo said.
1st October 2010
A secret police operation to place thousands of Muslims living in Birmingham under permanent surveillance was implemented with virtually no consultation, oversight or regard for the law, a report found today.
Project Champion was abandoned in June after an investigation by the Guardian revealed police had misled residents into believing that hundreds of counter-terrorism cameras installed in streets around Sparkbrook and Washwood Heath were to be used to combat vehicle crime and antisocial behaviour.
In fact, the £3m project was being run from the West Midlands police counter-terrorism unit with the consent of security officials at the Home Office and MI5.
15th August 2010
A Liberal Democrat adviser to Nick Clegg has called on Scotland Yard to explain why it held his details as well as Clegg’s name on a secret police database. Fiyaz Mughal, who advises the deputy prime minister on combating violent extremism, wrote to Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police commissioner, last week demanding to know why surveillance officers logged his identity on the database after he spoke at a peaceful rally in Trafalgar Square…to protest against the BBC’s refusa to broadcast a charity appeal for Gaza. A team of surveillance officers from the forward intelligence team of the Met’s public order unit were watching the demonstration to gather information about various protesters linked to groups including Stop the War and the Socialist Workers party…”
Source: Sunday Times, 15th August 2010, report by David Leppard
20th July 2010
“Education secretary Michael Gove faced heavy criticism yesterday by both Labour and a senior Tory MP for using Parliamentary procedures normally reserved for emergency counter-terror laws to rush through legislation to create more academy schools….”
17th June 2010
“A project to place two Muslim areas in Birmingham under surveillance has been dramatically halted after an investigation by the Guardian revealed it was a counter terrorism initiative….Under the initiative, Project Champion, the suburbs were to be monitored by a network of 169 automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras three times more than in the entire city centre. The cameras, which include covert cameras secretly installed in the street, form “rings of steel” meaning residents cannot enter or leave the areas without their cars being tracked. Data was to be stored for two years.
There was no formal consultation over the scheme, which includes an additional 49 CCTV cameras…”
11th June 2010
“Senior police officers are fighting hard to retain the use of section 44 stop and search powers after the Home Office admitted 14 forces had unlawfully used them in 40 operations dating back to 2001…. a series of blunders meant the operations under the Terrorism Act 2000 had not been legally authorised, either because they exceeded the maximum legal 28-day limit in duration or had not been properly signed off by ministers within 48 hours….The 14 forces are trying to contact tens of thousands who were unlawfully searched on the streets in operations going back to 2001, when the powers were introduced.
1st June 2010
“A couple who kept their curtains closed were also flagged up to the Channel Project, an anti-terror warning programme designed to stop vulnerable people becoming radicalised…[the] teenage schoolboy was one of 53 people reported in East Lancashire alone after regularly drawing bombs and guns. …Inspector Paul Goodall, the Prevent and Channel coordinator for East Lancashire, said: ‘We are looking at people who would not normally come on to our radar’.”
11th May 2010
“Grant Smith, a renowned architectural photographer, was taking photographs at One Aldermanbury Square, near London Wall, when he was stopped by officers from City of London police. He said they prevented him from using his camera to film the stop and search, and held his arms behind his back as they searched through his possessions.
It is the second time in six months that Smith has been stopped by City police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows officers to stop and search anyone without need for suspicion in designated areas. In December, the police stopped him from photographing the spire of Sir Christopher Wren’s Christ Church.”
4th April 2010
“Police are secretly photographing up to 14 million motorists a day and storing their details for years, it has emerged.
Images of drivers and their front seat passengers captured by a network of cameras are being held on a police database without motorists knowledge, a police document has revealed. Now police chiefs are facing a legal challenge from privacy campaigners …Police say it is an invaluable tool against serious criminals and terrorists.”
7th March 2010
“A Sunday Express investigation asked 300 councils if they had used the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to spy on staff and 33 answered ‘yes’.
Caroline Spelman, Shadow Local Government Secretary, said:’Under Labour’s surveillance state, laws passed in the name of fighting terror have been misused….’
The list includes Gedling Council in Nottinghamshire which used surveillance to catch people stealing lights from a Christmas tree.
Burnley Council in Lancashire watched a council gym to see if staff were using the showers in work time, Medway Council in Kent used CCTV to keep tabs on parking attendants thought to be knocking off early and Tamworth Council in Staffordshire watched a market official suspected of fiddling time sheets. Lancaster City Council staff had emails examined in an inquiry into working practices and Hackney Council in London spied on staff thought to be misusing disabled parking badges.
22nd Feb 2010
“Police questioned an amateur photographer under anti-terrorist legislation and later arrested him, claiming pictures he was taking in a Lancashire town were ‘suspicious’ and constituted ‘antisocial behaviour’.
Footage recorded on a video camera by Bob Patefield, a former paramedic, shows how police approached him and a fellow photography enthusiast in Accrington town centre. They were told they were being questioned under the Terrorism Act.
…He turned on his video camera the moment he was approached by a police community support officer (PCSO). In the footage, she said: ‘Because of the Terrorism Act and everything in the country, we need to get everyone’s details who is taking pictures of the town’.”
26th Jan 2010
“Children’s TV hosts Anna Williamson and Jamie Rickers said today they were quizzed by police under anti-terrorism powers – while carrying glittery hairdryers. The pair, who front ITV1’s hit show Toonattik, were filming on the South Bank wearing combat gear and armed with children’s walkie talkies and hairdryers. Their fake fatigues aroused the suspicions of police, who stopped them and took their details.”
Source: Kiran Randhawa in the Evening Standard, 26th Jan 2010
16th December 2009
“An Italian student has described how she was stopped by police under anti-terrorist legislation while filming buildings, and later arrested, held in a police cell for five hours and given a fixed penalty notice. Simona Bonomo, 32, an art student at London Metropolitan University at London Metropolitan University, filmed the moment on 19 November when she was approached by two police community support officers (PCSOs) in Paddington, west London.
When Bonomo was challenged by one PCSO, she said she was filming ‘just for fun’. He replied: ‘You like looking at those buildings do you? You’re basically filming for fun? I don’t believe you.’ Bonomo then declined his request to see what she had filmed. ‘I can have a look if I want to, if I think it may be linked to terrorism. This is an iconic site,’ he replied. Bonomo then said she was an artist. ‘You’re an artist? Have you got any proof or any identification?” he said. After accusing Bonomo of being *censored*y, the PCSO said she had been cycling the wrong way down a one-way street and threatened to fine her. After she apologised, the PCSOs departed, but returned moments later with about six police officers, she said.
She was searched and, after an altercation with one officer, was accused of being aggressive, bundled to the ground and arrested. The PCSOs were not involved in the arrest. After five hours in a police cell, Bonomo said she was told to sign an £80 fixed penalty fine for a public order offence. She plans to contest the penalty, which stipulated she caused ‘harassment, alarm and distress’ in public.
Bonomo returned the next day to interview builders who had witnessed her arrest. Footage of the interviews appears to corroborate her account. ‘I was disgusted,’ one said. ‘They were terribly out of order. There was one officer who was spiteful to you.’
The Met confirmed that a woman was stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. Any complaint made to police would be fully investigated.
8th December 2009
“One of the country’s leading architectural photographers was apprehended by City of London police under terrorism laws today while photographing the 300-year old spire of Sir Christopher Wren’s Christ Church for a personal project. Grant Smith, who has 25 years experience documenting buildings by Richard Rogers and Norman Foster, was stopped by a squad of seven officers who pulled up in three cars and a riot van and searched his belongings under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police to stop and search anyone without need for suspicion in a designated area.
‘Three of them descended on me and said they were here because of reports of an aggressive male,’ Smith said. ‘One of them even admired my badge which said ‘I am a photographer not a terrorist’. But they searched my bag for terrorist-related paraphernalia and demanded to know who I was and what I was doing. I refused. saying that I didn’t have to tell them, but they said if I didn’t they would take me off and physically search me’.”
10th August 2009
“Fears have been raised about the scale of the UK’s “surveillance state” after it was revealed 1,500 requests to snoop on the public were made every day last year.
Councils, police and the intelligence services asked more than 500,000 times for approval to access private email and phone data, according to official figures.
Each request allows public authorities access to communications data – which includes records of phone, email and text messages – but not their content.
The Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the figures ‘beggared belief’, and questioned whether so many operations were necessary.
24th May 2009
“…Burnley borough council invoked laws set up to safeguard national security to mount a covert operation against one of its own officials because it suspected he was using a gym during office hours. Internal council papers, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that the council decided to mount a ‘direct surveillance’ operation against the official. Its purpose was ‘to see if [the] council employee is using gym/showers whilst clocked in’.”
…The operation required authorisation from senior council officials under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).
The act, introduced in 2000, was said by government ministers to be necessary to combat terrorism. Critics warned that its wide powers could easily be abused.”
30th April 2009
Officers were last night accused of abusing their powers after it emerged just one per cent of around 124,000 ‘suspects’ targeted in 2007/08 were arrested – and only a fraction of those were for terrorism related offences….
The level of stop and searches for other suspected offences also increased to more than a million last year – the highest for a decade. There was also a sharp rise in the number of times the public had to justify their activities to police in so-called ‘stop and account’ incidents. Members of the public were stopped and questioned by officers more than 2.3 million times last year after a rise of 26 per cent. ..
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: “People will be highly suspicious about the scale of stop and search under terror laws. ‘This will only serve to reinforce the view that many anti-terror powers are being used for unrelated purposes.’
17th April 2009
“The government tried yesterday to quell rising concern over the abuse of powers designed to fight terrorism and serious crime, which some councils were using to target people who put their bins out on the wrong day. Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, announced a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), which the government says is designed to stop the powers being used for ‘trivial’ purposes.
… a procession of stories of abuse has raised concern. A family in Poole, Dorset, were tracked covertly for nearly three weeks because the council wrongly doubted their claim that they lived in a school’s catchment area.
Four councils, Derby, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool, have admitted using the surveillance powers granted under Ripa to investigate dog fouling. ..Last month it emerged the surveillance powers had been used by 182 district and unitary councils 10,288 times since 2004, but fewer than one in 10 inquiries led to a successful prosecution, caution, or fixed penalty notice.
…The Liberal Democrats, who obtained the details under freedom of information legislation, said Ripa was becoming a ‘snooper’s charter’.”
16th April 2009
“On the eve of the G20 summit in London five young people were arrested in the Plymouth area under the Terrorism Act. Their arrest took place after one young man was caught spraying anti-capitalist graffiti, a tiny act of dissent which resulted in police raids on several premises. Despite large servings of media sensationalism, not even the police claimed that those arrested posed a credible threat to the leaders of the G20. They were accused of possession of ‘material relating to political ideology’. The state now finds the ownership of anti-capitalist books suspicious.
6th March 2009
“Police are targeting thousands of political campaigners in surveillance operations and storing their details on a database for at least seven years, an investigation by the Guardian can reveal.
….The ?Metropolitan police, which has ?pioneered surveillance at demonstrations and advises other forces on the tactic, stores details of protesters on Crimint, the general database used daily by all police staff to catalogue criminal intelligence. It lists campaigners by name, allowing police to search which demonstrations or political meetings individuals have attended….Names, political associations and photographs of protesters from across the political spectrum ñ from campaigners against the third runway at Heathrow to anti-war activists ñ are catalogued..”
28th Feb 2009
“Controversial surveillance powers employed to fight terrorism and combat crime have been misused by civil servants in undercover ‘spying’ operations that breach official guidelines, the Guardian has learned….organisations which have used surveillance powers include Ofsted, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Driving Standards Agency and Food Standards Agency, the Financial Services Authority, the BBC (for TV licensing detection) and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.”
19th Feb 2009
“Yes, fighting terrorism requires some restrictions. Yes, you can make a crime reduction case for some CCTV. But we have more CCTV, a larger DNA database and a more ambitious (and unworkable) National Identity Register scheme, as well as more police powers and more email snooping than any comparable liberal democracy. On top of which we have a bureaucracy so centralised and incompetent in managing this mass of data that it lost two computer discs containing the child benefit details of 25 million people.
What’s more, the certain loss of liberty will often not result in the alleged gain in security or efficiency. So, for example, Gordon Brown and his ministers went on pressing for 42 days’ detention without trial, despite the fact that two former heads of the country’s security service, the director of public prosecutions, the former lord chancellor, attorney general and lord chief justice – in short, almost everyone in a position to know – said it was wrong, unnecessary and counterproductive. How can a government of intelligent and often liberal-minded persons behave so illiberally, arrogantly and stupidly? ”
Timothy Garton-Ash http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/19/civil-liberties-terrorism
7th Feb 2009
“…Poole borough council is using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) – a law brought in to combat terrorism and cyber crime – to scrutinise people gathering shellfish.
Last month the council [Poole] admitted spying on a family to check they were living in the correct school catchment area. Jenny Paton, 39, Tim Joyce, 37, and their three daughters had their movements scrutinised and timed by an undercover official.
A detailed log of the family’s activities was kept with statements including ‘curtains open and all lights on in premises’, but no action was taken against them.
…Poole and other councils have argued that the act is not simply intended to target very serious criminals and terrorists.
According to the Home Office, the act ‘legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism’.
6th January 2009
“Reuben Powell is an unlikely terrorist. A white, middle-aged, middle-class artist, he has been photographing and drawing life around the capital’s Elephant & Castle for 25 years.
With a studio near the 1960s shopping centre at the heart of this area in south London, he is a familiar figure and is regularly seen snapping and sketching the people and buildings around his home ñ currently the site of Europe’s largest regeneration project. But to the police officers who arrested him last week his photographing of the old HMSO print works close to the local police station posed an unacceptable security risk.
“The car skidded to a halt like something out of Starsky & Hutch and this officer jumped out very dramatically and said ‘what are you doing?’ I told him I was photographing the building and he said he was going to search me under the Anti-Terrorism Act,” he recalled.
…The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has also taken up the cause, highlighting the case last month of the photographer Jess Hurd, whose camera was taken from her when she was detained for 45 minutes under Section 44 while documenting a traveller wedding in London’s Docklands. Last week police were filmed obstructing photographers covering a protest at the Greek embassy in London. Scotland Yard promised to investigate.
5th January 2009
“Police have been given the power to hack into personal computers without a court warrant. The Home Office is facing anger and the threat of a legal challenge after granting permission. Ministers are also drawing up plans to allow police across the EU to collect information from computers in Britain….A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said police carried out 194 hacking operations in 2007-08 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, including 133 in private homes, 37 in offices and 24 in hotel rooms.
…The spokesman said such surveillance was regulated under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.”
March against Arms Fair, in Brighton – account of a University of Sussex student arrested in October 2008 under section 60AA, brought in as part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of November 2001.
“I headed over towards Lewes Road, and filmed protesters being surrounded by riot police, just by the bottom of Elm Grove. At this point I was grabbed from behind and a policeman started pushing/marching me towards the other side of the road. He was quite rough with me and nearly pushed me into a police car and then managed to knock me into a riot policeman….I informed the police officers that I was not part of the protest, and that my scarf was to keep me warm. He then insisted again and again that I remove my scarf, I said no, and why should I? At this point he pulled my scarf off the lower part of my face, he couldn’t pull it off as when I wear a scarf I tie it up at the back so it stays put when I’m out and about. By this point both police officers had hold of me, one on each arm….
I haven’t been able to put into words how the police made me feel that day. The whole experience has scared me so much.”
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) was passed in 2000 to regulate the way that public bodies such as the police and the security services carry out surveillance. Originally only a handful of authorities were able to use RIPA but its scope has been expanded enormously and now there are at least 792 organisations using it, including hundreds of local councils.
This has generated dozens of complaints about anti-terrorism legislation being used to spy on, for example, a nursery suspected of selling pot plants unlawfully, a family suspected of lying about living in a school catchment area, and paperboys suspected of not having the right paperwork.
Cambridgeshire County Council, December 2008
Cambridgeshire County Council sent undercover officers to monitor whether eight children delivering papers in Melbourn, Cambs, were doing their rounds without the correct paperwork.
Campaigners accused the council of acting like a “jumped up version of the A-Team” by using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to target the former postmistress Rashmi Solanki and her husband Dips, who run the local shop.
The couple received a six-month conditional discharge at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court for employing delivery boys without a valid permit after what they claimed was a “mix-up” over paperwork.
It is the latest in a series of incidents where local authorities have used surveillance powers to investigate minor matters from dog fouling to underage smoking.
The Daily Telegraph disclosed recently that councils carried out almost 10,000 spying missions last year under the act which was introduced to help the police fight terrorism and crime in 2000.
One council used the powers to investigate a family it wrongly suspected of breaking rules on school catchment areas and to monitor whether fishermen were gathering shellfish illegally. Another recently carried out surveillance to check whether a nursery was selling pot plants unlawfully.
Damian Green MP, December 2008
Mr Green, a shadow Home Office minister, was arrested and his property searched last Thursday in an operation involving 20 police officers after he received leaked Whitehall documents. The MP’s mobile phone, computer and sensitive documents have all been seized by anti-terrorist police. He has been bailed under suspicion of conspiring to break the archaic law of “misconduct in public office”.
Climate Change protesters, August 2007
Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to “deal robustly” with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.
Nosy journalists, August 2006
Anti-terrorist police yesterday arrested three men, including the News of the World’s royal correspondent, for allegedly intercepting phone calls at Clarence House, the official residence of the Prince of Wales.
Walter Wolfgang, September 2005
The Foreign Secretary was telling the conference that Britain was in Iraq “for one reason only” – to help the elected Iraqi government – when Walter Wolfgang shouted: “That’s a lie and you know it.”
Mr Wolfgang, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a Labour Party member since 1948, was immediately surrounded by security staff in full view of the television cameras and ejected from the hall in Brighton as officials revoked his pass.
When he tried to re-enter the secure zone, he was stopped by a police officer citing the Terrorism Act.
ExCel Arms Fair protesters, September 2003
Several people demonstrating outside Europe’s largest arms exhibition in Docklands were detained under new powers to crack down on suspected terrorists introduced after the 11 September attacks.
Fairford anti-war protesters, July 2003
A group of peace protesters has launched legal proceedings against Gloucestershire police, claiming they used anti-terrorism laws to prevent demonstrations against the war in Iraq.
The complaints centre on RAF Fairford, where American B-52 bombers were based during the conflict.