The call for duty of care under police powers

The stop-and-search powers for the Metropolitan Police is called again into question. To some, the question of its absolute application is no surprise. Before, the police were entitled to stop whoever they wish and question them as well as search them. Now, the police must have a reasonable suspicion to stop and search you. The determination of reasonable suspicion is open but were you to wander from one's garden with a bag that could be considered from its size and bulging contents to be potentially implements to aid committing a burglary and one moves off at a faster than usual walking pace, maybe that is reasonable suspicion. Particularly to a police officer.

Today one of the senior officiers of the Metropolitan Police force, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, the highest ranking Asian officer, has spoken out at a National Black Police Association conference in Manchester in regard to the potential 'extremism' such powers could encourage to protude from members of the public in the direction of Muslims. Amongst his speech, Mr Ghaffur said:

[stop-and-search powers are] "to be based on physical appearance than being intelligence-led"

"The impact of this will be that, just at the time we need confidence and trust of these communities, they may retreat inside themselves."

This is partly the element amongst the black population today, that the racism from police officers or the bad feelings of everyday pressure directed at black people by police officers has the exact effect of many black people turning away from the law authorities. Amongst the black population, particularly the younger generation, it is a struggle to encourage them the police force is there to combat the crimes of today in the good name of righteousness and justice. Because of the updated legislation that now imprints the treatment of police officers on members of the public in the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the number of stop-and-search on minorities has reduced. That is not to say police officers should not used such powers often, only that they use them with discretion and good intelligence, something which Asst Comm Ghaffur mentioned in his speech today.

The UK law authorities and counter-terrorism agencies have discovered that there are members of the Muslim population in the UK who hold extremist values in favour of the terrorist supporting groups situated globally. Such views has called for the commitment of bombings that resulted in the 7/7 attacks last year, the first of its kind connected to Muslim extremism. Police intelligence appears to have led to a number of raids and arrests up and down the country, one of which has been a major debate recently, that of Forest Gate.

Because of such 'intelligence' (because it is questionable how good the intelligence is), the authorities found no sign or evidence of terrorism-linked activities at the Forest Gate address, while one occupant was shot. Our surveillance people are not stupid, they have methods of conducting intelligence without people knowing, so why had the raid not found any evidence? At the same time, calls are immediately made that the authorities are out to get members of the Muslim community, perhaps at random. I feel it is strong to suggest the authorities choose at random as that is simply a heavily time-consuming exercise but also they must ensure they are right before they conduct a raid.

Additionally, the tragic Stockwell tube station shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes reminds us that intelligence gathering can have its flaw with dire consequences, and such flaws could continue to result in more innocent deaths. The shot occupant in the Forest Gate raid could have been another, though I suspect the pofficer in question had struggled with the occupant before the firearm discharged. The de Menezes incident was different in that officers aimed with intent to kill. A side note, SOMEONE should have been found accountable for that innocent man's death but perhaps because he was a Brazilian national, it made little for such accountability. I know if one of my family members had been shot innocently, I would endeavour to find out the truth because someone somewhere would be responsible, and that someone would have to be found. Regardless.

The UK government is right to debate and pass laws to tighten up the resources, the intelligence gathering, accountability and security measures in order to prepare to combat the threat of further terrorism attacks particularly in homeland. That could call for stringent measures that effects us all but if that's the cost of keeping vigilant, I am OK for that. But I am not OK for an officer to simply pick me out in public because I am black or a Muslim person. Consider this incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4840814.stm

Also consider how police officers had harassed Duwayne Brooks, the friend who accompanied Stephen Lawrence during that fateful night of Stephen's death. Officers had been accused of harassment of Brooks, allegations from robbery to attempted rape were unfounded and nonetheless do not amount to the right to harass. Mr Brooks successfully sued the Metropolitan Police under the Race Relations Act for not granting him the same rights as they would have to a white person. The Met Police still claimed no admission of liability, astoundingly enough. When an accused is convicted, he or she can plead to the cows go baa but he or she is considered to have been liable. But when the Met Police are found to be wrong in court, they still say they are not liable. This is the kind of mixed message that gives a poor impression on the police. They have the powers to execute their duty under law, why do so to the degree of extremity?