Bizzaro Terror Act arrests...

[laptop]

Apology call over terror arrests Saturday 1/4

A key government adviser on terrorism has called on Staffordshire's most senior police officer to apologise to four men arrested at a county hospital.

Police detained the men under the Terrorism Act at Stafford General Hospital but found no evidence of any crime before releasing them.

Lord Carlile said the chief constable of Staffordshire should apologise and an independent inquiry should be held.

Officers arrested the men, aged 24 to 30, on Wednesday after hospital staff became concerned about the illness of a fifth man.

Searches follow hospital arrests Friday 31/3

Four men were arrested when police were called to Stafford General Hospital on Wednesday by staff concerned about the illness of a fifth man aged 28.

Doctors do not know the cause of the man's illness and he remains "very poorly", said Staffordshire Police.

Terrorism Act arrests at hospital Thursday 30/3

Police were called to Stafford General Hospital by staff concerned about the illness of a 28-year-old man and the behaviour of four men with him.

So... hard to discuss without runnung up against patient confidentiality... but... eh?

I thought about anthrax and importers of illegal sheepskin - but that'd mean the statement about the doctors "not knowing the cause" would be a lie.

Or some bizarro drug reaction that looked like nerve gas?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Or some bizarro drug reaction that looked like nerve gas?

OP and (IIRC) pyridostigmine exposure give very similar symptoms to nerve gas, probably because they're part of the same family.

IIRC some industrial-type pest control aerosols (the stuff operatives spray from misters) also do similar.

 

[laptop]

OP and (IIRC) pyridostigmine exposure give very similar symptoms to nerve gas, probably because they're part of the same family.

D'oh!

So... we're looking at an illegal sheep-dip ring in Staffs, explaining why his mates aren't letting on what happened?

 

[detective-boy]

I think this is somethinge will be seeing more of. We know some things:

1. There is sufficient ill-will against the UK (largely as a result of activity in Iraq) to cause both UK and foreign based people to want to commit acts of terrorism.

2. There is nothing to stop a motivated individual, or small group, to cause large scale mayhem with virtually no prior knowledge, no outside support, very little money and no need to draw attention to themselves.

3. The public don't want anything else to go bang.

4. The public (at least through their formal representative structure - Government, local and national - and the media) pressure the police and security services to "do something". If they don't and something happens then there are allegations of incompetence, calls for public enquiries into "what went wrong", etc.

5. There are issues between some communities and the police / authorities which mean that information flows are not as good as they could be. Unfortunately this includes perhaps the most relevant community in relation to the current threat - the Muslim community. Experience shows that such issues cannot be rapidly overcome - it takes years and years.


So the police and security services try to "do something". Unfortunately they do not know what "the enemy" looks like. There is no structure to them, no organisation to infiltrate, no main players to focus attention upon. It is like looking for a needle in a (giant) haystack with the slight disadvantage that you have never seen a needle before and so you don't really know what it looks like ...

Hence action "on suspicion" is about all you have. The public are encouraged to ring in with anything "suspicious" but there is no way of telling them what is and what is not (what would have been visible about the 7 July four???). What we do know is that there is a reluctance to call the police by most people unless they are genuinely worried about what they have seen / heard. The downside of not acting is so large that the inconvenience of a few for a relatively short time is justifiable in balancing pluses and minuses and so it is inevitable that police will react seriously to all calls, making sure they investigate as fully as the law allows before deciding there is nothing to it.

Over the years I arrested many innocent people "on suspicion" (not of terrorism but of very serious offences). Sometimes I was not willing to share all the information I had initially (so that in interview they had no opportunity to invent a story to fit the facts if they were guilty). But at some stage, sometimes after a very short time, sometimes after a few days or sometimes after weeks, it became apparent that the initial suspicions were unfounded. I found that, almost without exception, that an explanation of what I had done and why, and of the basis for my action, prevented any long term ill will.

It appears from the links that Staffordshire Police have succeeded to some extent with providing explanations and apologies to these men. It is, in my opinion, they who should decide whether or not they are content, not some politician with an axe to grind or some pressure group.

What I WOULD like to see is a system whereby we (the public) authorise (require?) the police to make an ex gratia payment in recognition of the hassle that innocent people have suffered on behalf of us all. Whilst this would not prevent people taking civil action for unlawful imprisonment if they saw fit it would ensure that those who did not were compensated in some way for their sacrifice to the life of our society.

 

[cybertect]

We can only be grateful that this one was cleared up so quickly.

Exactly the scenarios you were describing, D-B, are the reasons why extension of the powers of detention under the Terrorism Act to 90 days were, IMO, ill-conceived.

Since these men have been arrested, albeit erroneously, should we expect their DNA and fingerprint records to be retained permanently?

 

[cemertyone]

The public are encouraged to ring in with anything "suspicious" but there is no way of telling them what is and what is not (what would have been visible about the 7 July four???). . .

The little fact that MI6...had two of them under investigation for months leading upto the bombings might have some thing to do with it.....And in there usual manner attempted first to tell all and sundre they didi not and then when forced to admit that they indeed had then moved the argument to the fact that the four where only involved in Credit card fraud....

 

[detective-boy]

Since these men have been arrested, albeit erroneously, should we expect their DNA and fingerprint records to be retained permanently?

My guess would be "Yes". There is a power to keep samples from persons arrested for offences b Chief Officers DO have a discretion as to whether or not they do so in particular cases. Sadly there does not appear to have been much exercise of the discretion not to!

This, as those who have read previous posts on other threads will know, is something I believe should be reviewed a.s.a.p. At present it is simply illogical. Either we have a national database for everyone or we have one for those convicted. There is an argument to be made for either situation (though why we need one for DNA all of a sudden when there has not been a call / need for a fingerprints one in the ten years since computerisation made that do-able escapes me).

At present it is pretty much random whether or not someone without a conviction is on the database (e.g. you are arrested on suspicion of something on the basis of description - it is entirely random whether or not you were (a) in the area; (b) fitted the description of the suspect (I am assuming you are innocent here!) and (c) you happened to be noticed by a patrolling officer or person who called police attention to you). That makes no sense to me at all and I think it could well fall if someone challenged it as a disproportionate response to the threat of crime, balanced against the Art.8 Right to Privacy (My line would be: if it's proportionate, introduce a database for all. If you cannot justify that, do not randomly keep the DNA of innocent people).

I am well aware of how nice it would be to have a rapist or murderers DNA on file. I dealt with a case where we had DNA samples from victims of a serial rape / murderer. We identified a good suspect (but insufficient grounds to arrest), who had served many years for rap but had been convicted pre-DNA and hence had no sample on file. I would now be very tempted to try and find ANYTHING I could arrest him on suspicion of so that I could get and use his DNA. But that is the case in a tiny number of instances and it is not, in my opinion, sufficient basis for the current situation.

 

[detective-boy]

The little fact that MI6...had two of them under investigation for months leading upto the bombings might have some thing to do with it.....And in there usual manner attempted first to tell all and sundre they didi not and then when forced to admit that they indeed had then moved the argument to the fact that the four where only involved in Credit card fraud....

My point is that they would have had dozens, if not hundreds under surveillance at this level (and probably still do) but there was nothing about what was being seen which identified these as the ones that were going to do something. It probably will happen again - if there is another round of bombings do not be surprised if some of them turn out to have been of note to some extent at some time.

You can't have it both ways. Either you say "Lock people up on the slightest suspicion" or you say "Well, we can only act on what we know / see, working within the rules and, sadly, that means that sometimes people we have had a look at will turn out to be the bombers." We have the second situation at present. It seems that the majority of people want MORE not LESS civil liberties so it sounds like they want that to remain the case.

 

[cybertect]

My personal view is that, unless there's a compelling case for changing the rules that we had in place since the 1970s to counter regular bombing campaigns by the IRA, I see little need for further infringements on our traditional liberties.

It may be a somewhat unpopular view in some circles, but frankly I believe them to be of profound importance in a free society and they should not be surrendered lightly in the name of security.

Both my parents survived WWII when the general population was exposed to risks that were many orders of magnitude greater than those we face from the threat of terrorism and, while there were some restrictions placed on the population, they were quite clearly for the limited duration of the war.

While I'm not advocating that we should carry on as if the explosions last summer did not happen or attempting to diminish the impact on those directly involved, I'm increasingly disquieted by the risk-averse society we are creating for ourselves on many fronts, not just in policing and justice.

A population (and indeed law enforcement) that are hyped up on 24-hour instant media reports of every possible incident or suspicion is a breeding ground for both poorly-founded accusations and (perhaps justifiable) grievance by those individuals and groups accused.

Where there is no clear end game in sight, as is the case with The War on Terror, we face a greater risk of undermining the very foundations of our civil society.

 

[MatthewCuffe]

Cybertect, you are speaking absolute 100% sanity. Thanks.

The war on the terror in our own hearts is progressing nicely. So far the number of casualties has been nil, which is a bonus.

http://www.saveparliament.org.uk/

 

[Azrael23]

Its the mark of a free country to be presumed guilty until proven innocent....In a "post 7/7 environment" we have to simply accept that we might be arrested and tossed in prison for nothing, its for the best. Afterall we can`t let the terrorists destroy our freedom!!
[________________________________________________________________________________________________]
Bucket to catch the drips of sarcasm

 

[cemertyone]

My point is that they would have had dozens, if not hundreds under surveillance at this level (and probably still do) but there was nothing about what was being seen which identified these as the ones that were going to do something. It probably will happen again - if there is another round of bombings do not be surprised if some of them turn out to have been of note to some extent at some time.

You can't have it both ways. Either you say "Lock people up on the slightest suspicion" or you say "Well, we can only act on what we know / see, working within the rules and, sadly, that means that sometimes people we have had a look at will turn out to be the bombers." We have the second situation at present. It seems that the majority of people want MORE not LESS civil liberties so it sounds like they want that to remain the case.

I agree with most of what you say ( above) and i think there will be more acts of violence to come. Logic would determine that the next time it might take place in regional towns and cities as this would strech the security services and other agencies.
But however well resourced the security establishment is it simply can`t be every where all the time and as the hunt for the second wave of would be bombers in london showed that level of security simply can`t be resourced and maintained on a permanant basis.

 

[detective-boy]

My personal view is that, unless there's a compelling case for changing the rules that we had in place since the 1970s to counter regular bombing campaigns by the IRA, I see little need for further infringements on our traditional liberties.

The methods used by those who would attack us change. Society changes. We would be foolish if we did not consider those changes and adapt ourselves to the new and different threats. We do it all the time in relation to everything else.

But I have no problem with bearing in mind that freedoms are something which should not be given up lightly. And I certainly agree that we need to inject some realism about risk and probability into the population in general (and some of the media in particular). If it is better that ten guilty men go free rather than one innocent man go to prison (and I believe that it is, though at some point - 50, 100, 1000, 10000 ... - the answer probably changes) then we are, by implication saying that someone MAY well be victimised / killed as a result. We need to acknowledge that fact.

 

[detective-boy]

Logic would determine that the next time it might take place in regional towns and cities as this would strech the security services and other agencies.

Fortunately that may well turn out to be one of the plus points of the loose knit entity that is Al Quaeda. Whilst an organisation (such as the IRA or the UVF) may have meetings and logically decide on new / different strategies, I suspect that undirected, one-off gangs will usually (if not always) go for the spectacular, high-profile target. If you were going to blow yourself up would you choose to do it in (e.g.) Skelmersdale or the City of London?

 

[laptop]

If you were going to blow yourself up would you choose to do it in (e.g.) Skelmersdale or the City of London?

* Checks pocket for loose change *

* Puts in a bid to buy Skelmersdale *

* Offers it to Chase Manhattan & HSBC *