Picture this. You’re walking down the street and a policeman approaches you. He wants to know your name, what you’ve been up to that morning, where you’re going that afternoon. You politely ask why. He replies he doesn’t have a specific reason, he just wants to know. You say that you’d really rather not divulge your itinerary for the day - you’ve not done anything wrong, you’ve not been accused of doing anything wrong – what justifies this invasion of privacy? The policeman looks back blankly. He says that he doesn’t need a reason. Either tell him or you’re liable for a £5000 pound fine for “obstruction of justice”.

None of that is possible as the law stands today. At the moment, the police are under the intolerable burden of having to demonstrate ‘reasonable suspicion’ of illegal activity before they question someone. What a nightmare that must be. To have to provide some shred of evidence before they start asking questions – they must really be fighting crime with one hand tied behind their back.

We should all thank heavens for the Home Office though. In its wisdom it has seen what a foolish practice this is. Just as it realised that legal representation and the right to trial could, in certain circumstances, be really quite unnecessary. And our Prime Minister as well, supporting it all against a society that’s just “misguided and wrong”, obsessed with civil liberties instead of fighting terror. Thank goodness they know best.

Honestly, all this talk of evidence. How could we possibly wish to restrain the forces of the law merely for the sake of evidence? How stupid we must all be.

Filed under: Uncategorized on May 27th, 2007