





Permalink for comment 570123
Member since:

Yeah, the "for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b)" seems to be the exact impetus for (or equivalent of) the guidance.

Regardless of legal details, a bill NAMED the Terrorism Bill is understood to pertain to terrorism, otherwise is simply misleading, and applying it outside that scope is abusing the trust of reasonable people who believe a law to be what it says it is (which would probably include the MPs who passed the law).

I'm certainly not trying to apologize for the bill itself and present this event as some 'regrettable incident' with the law itself being reasonable, I hope the whole thing is scrapped or otherwise returned to judicial norms, and hopefully this guy can sue the police for abusing him and stealing his equipment (and presumably, sending off copies of the data to the US).

Hopefully something about this happens on the ECHR level as well, allowing the UK security regime to do whatever they prefer to sweep it under the rug, ignoring the fundamental issues can't be allowed to happen. People in other countries of the EU should take this just as seriously as the neo-Nazi Austrian party that was briefly in power. All the more so because most of the other EU governments are in bed with this whole system.

Edited 2013-08-20 01:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2