• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
Long time lurking

Terror offence

Recommended Posts

When this happened in 2005 you just knew that the police would keep using terrorism legislation to silence political opposition.
 

Quote

 

Terrorism Laws Used to Stifle Political Speech

Walter Wolfgang, an 82-year-old political veteran, was forcefully removed from the UK Labour party conference for calling a speaker, Jack Straw, a liar. (Opinions on whether Jack Straw is or is not a liar are irrelevant here.) He was later denied access to the conference on basis of anti-terror laws. Keep in mind that as recently as the 1980s, Labour Party conferences were heated affairs compared with today's media shows.

A police spokeswoman said that Mr Wolfgang had not been arrested but detained because his security accreditation had been cancelled by Labour officials when he was ejected. She said: "The delegate asked the police officer what powers he was using. The police officer responded that he was using his powers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act to confirm the delegate's details."

More than 600 people were detained under the Terrorism Act during the Labour party conference, it was reported yesterday.

Anti-Iraq war protesters, anti-Blairite OAPs and conference delegates were all detained by police under legislation that was designed to combat violent fanatics and bombers - even though none of them was suspected of terrorist links. None of those detained under Section 44 stop-and-search rules in the 2000 Terrorism Act was arrested and no-one was charged under the terrorism laws.

Walter Wolfgang, an 82-year-old Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, was thrown out of the conference hall by Labour heavies after heckling the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw.

When he tried to get back in, he was detained under Section 44 and questioned by police.

 

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/10/terrorism_laws.html

600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ad_ceng said:

Totally immoral law and he should not have to unlock the devices. If I were on the jury I would never vote to convict 

Why would someone want to look inside his phone? Sounds bogus to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate deliberately misworded legislation.

This legislation was clearly named to encourage dim-witted political back benchers to vote it through without even reading it.

I think police should be forced to reveal what specific "terrorist concerns" they have when trying to abuse this type of legislation.  They should also have a better reason than "we want to know who his friends are". Britain first may have slightly extreme views,  but they are not involved in any terrorism that I'm aware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrPin said:

Why would someone want to look inside his phone? Sounds bogus to me.

He`s due in court for refusing 

Quote

He refused to give the pin codes for a number of his electronic devices.

He is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court next Thursday.

Mr Golding, 38, is charged with refusing to comply with a duty under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act.

On a side note IIRC  a US visa requires you to agree to this as a condition of entry 

Edited by Long time lurking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

He`s due in court for refusing 

On a side note IIRC  a US visa requires you to agree to this as a condition of entry 

It sounds sensible to have a second PAYG phone for travel purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It sounds sensible to have a second PAYG phone for travel purposes.

Don't have a phone at all. Buy one when you get there. Then there is nothing to search. Likewise laptops. Don't travel with one. Any documents you need can be emailed in encrypted form, with the decryption key on a separate USB stick, which can be mailed, or hidden somewhere, or collected from someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MrPin said:

Don't have a phone at all. Buy one when you get there. Then there is nothing to search. Likewise laptops. Don't travel with one. Any documents you need can be emailed in encrypted form, with the decryption key on a separate USB stick, which can be mailed, or hidden somewhere, or collected from someone else.

You are James Bond AICMFP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

You are James Bond AICMFP!

Travelling on business, that's all. Because it's now seen as "OK" to rifle through passengers' laptops, no confidential info should be on it. It should be of no interest to airport staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ad_ceng said:

Totally immoral law and he should not have to unlock the devices. If I were on the jury I would never vote to convict 

Don't think he's likely to face a jury for it; story states he's due before a magistrate, and it's a summary offence as far as I can see:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

Max 3 months prison (so max 6 weeks actually served), or a £2500 fine, or both.

Personally I'd probably take that rather than let the filth grub through my phone for dodgy whatsapp videos or similar. I agree that it's a total pisstake, for the avoidance of doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rave said:

Don't think he's likely to face a jury for it; story states he's due before a magistrate, and it's a summary offence as far as I can see:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

Max 3 months prison (so max 6 weeks actually served), or a £2500 fine, or both.

Personally I'd probably take that rather than let the filth grub through my phone for dodgy whatsapp videos or similar. I agree that it's a total pisstake, for the avoidance of doubt.

Me too, but then I would a total criminal they had made and they would not like that as I would target MP's and Leading police officers etc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why anyone, particularly someone with controversial political views, would ever attempt to cross a border carrying a device with anything they didn't want the government of wherever they were travelling to to have immediate access to is beyond me. It's trivially easy to wipe your device before you travel and then restore from the cloud when you get there for the most part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheBlueCat said:

It's trivially easy to wipe your device before you travel and then restore from the cloud when you get there for the most part. 

People have forgotten this, as they are used to blabbing their whole life into the cloud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.