Here's ex-minister David Mellor writing in the D**ly M**l on 6th August this year ...
Years ago, if someone had said Britain was becoming a police state, with all manner of officials intruding on our privacy, interfering with our lives and making unwarranted demands upon us, all with Parliament's full approval, I'd have thought it a grotesque exaggeration.
Now I'm not so sure. Last week my partner and I were travelling to France through London's City Airport. Having cleared security, two uniformed men from the Border Agency blocked our way. 'Where are you travelling?' one of them asked.
'Nice,' I replied.
'For how long?' they asked.
'Two or three days.'
'What is the purpose of your visit?'
'Business and pleasure.' My good mood was rapidly evaporating. 'What's this all about?' I asked.
'Are you carrying more than £1,000 in cash?' he inquired.
'As it happens, I'm not,' I replied, 'But what if I was? Is that now a crime?'
'Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 we have the power to ask you to prove where that money came from,' he solemnly intoned.
Now, of course, when some people read this, they will think: 'So what?' Well, I don't. This is wrong on all counts.
First of all this kind of approach is a needle-in-a-haystack operation, unlikely to uncover serious offences. The Mr Bigs of money laundering will be laughing if this is the best resistance our authorities can offer against their illegal activity. The only thing this crude Border Agency initiative will achieve is inconvenience to a lot of innocent travellers.
Right now, many thousands of holidaymakers are embarking on their annual summer break in droves. Many of them are leaving the country with currency worth at least £1,000 on them. And why shouldn't they? To confuse them with money launderers is insulting and no substitute for the careful police intelligence that might bring serious criminals to book.
Even if the principle of checking random tourists was valid - which it isn't - £1,000 sets the bar way too low. This is just a work creation scheme for uniformed jobsworths. But then pointing the finger of suspicion at ordinary, decent people and giving officials another opportunity to interfere in our lives, is becoming commonplace in today's Britain.
My brush with the Border Agency may seem trivial. But in the context of the ever-increasing abuse of the laws which are meant to prevent crime and terrorism, it provides a disturbing insight into so much that is wrong in Britain's criminal justice system today. Too many laws are being subverted by the police and other bodies just so that they can throw their weight around. Indeed, there are hardly any areas of our lives which are now free from the prying of the state machine. Legions of town hall bureaucrats have been spying on people to see what they put in their dustbins and whether they put them out at the right time.
More than half our town halls admitted to spying on families suspected of 'dustbin crimes' in 2008. The authorities installed secret CCTV cameras sometimes concealed in tin cans, on lamp posts or in compliant neighbours' homes. Such abuses of power are now endemic: last week, the Borough of Poole Council was condemned by the courts for spying on a middle-class family 21 times to check if they actually lived in the right catchment area for their children's school.
The police, needless to say, are the worst offenders, routinely abusing powers under the Terrorism Act to bring back the old 'sus' laws. This is the informal name for the laws which gave the police the right to stop and search whoever they liked, whenever they liked - without any valid reason - just because of suspicion. The Archbishop of York revealed this week that he has been stopped and searched by police eight times under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Is it because the uniformed officers really suspect John Sentamu is Al Qaeda's Yorkshire boss? Or is it because he's black? I know what I think. The new home Secretary, Theresa May, has announced the suspension of stop and search powers because of the tidal wave of criticism about their abuse. And she is right, not least because of the damage that arbitrary stop and search powers do to good community relations.
Thirty years ago, there were race riots in Brixton and elsewhere and one of the root causes was the black community's resentment of oppressive policing - particularly the huge numbers of black people stopped and searched without cause.
I'm proud that one of my first acts as an MP was to sit on the committee that abolished the 'sus' laws and then, as home Office Minister, to replace them, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, by establishing the power to stop and search only if there was reasonable cause.
Labour's Terrorism Act of ten years ago has proved yet again that police can't be trusted with such powers, and Theresa May should take them away permanently.
Not that being white is any guarantee of freedom from harassment. Countless law-abiding citizens have been stopped by police for taking pictures and had their cameras confiscated, for nothing more than photographing prominent buildings and tourist attractions. Yet again, a law passed by our Parliament of poodles to stop terrorists scouting potential targets has been abused in the most absurd way.
I have had my boat boarded on the Thames by a police officer who chose to ask a number of questions about where it was registered and other mundane details. Initially I was perfectly willing to answer the officer's questions, but as he droned on and on I told him I'd had more than enough. He then flourished a form saying that actually I was being stopped under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I asked him if he had any idea how insulting it was to a former Home Office minister for the police to so blatantly abuse their powers.
He looked puzzled. Such a thought had plainly never occurred to him.
My old mate Alan West, a former First Sea Lord, dines out on the story of having his car stopped and searched to prevent terrorism when at the time he was actually the serving Security Minister. It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
At least I know where I stand with the law: what about people not versed in the law who are genuinely cowed by the police when they are taking a picture of Nelson's Column or minding their own business on a river?
I am old enough to have been the Foreign Office Minister responsible for Eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin Wall. I travelled there and I saw for myself the routine prying in people's lives and liberties that propped up Communist states.
Now is the time for us to protest, if we do not want to find ourselves living under that same crushing yoke. A new government - and belatedly, the courts - is at last waking up to the threat to our liberties posed by a myriad of laws and regulations which are being wilfully misused by the authorities to destroy our rights and freedoms. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. History shows that those who won't fight for freedom lose it.
So if you are stopped at the airport by some Border Agency jobsworth and asked about your euros, tell him you think it is a disgrace he should be doing this.
Because, actually, it is.
Yes, it is.
Unfortunately the usual jobsworth reply is “I'm just doing my job”, or “I'm just following orders”. And the obvious and natural retort is to point out that this defence wasn't good enough for the guards in Nazi concentration camps, and that if they find themselves doing an immoral and unpalatable job they should either refuse or quit.
This is a logical and entirely sensible response. Sadly, these days it'll get you arrested for racial intolerance.
A few D**ly M**l readers had sensible comments to make. We've weeded out all those that used expressions like “if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear” (and yes, there really are people whose tiny little brains cling desperately to the only thought they've ever managed to form), and those who think that anyone who has ever been in politics isn't allowed to express an opinion. We do have just a little sympathy with that viewpoint, actually, but we'd like to see it extended to include a few D**ly M**l readers as well ...
Bob from Marsais in France suggested “if you are ever stopped, first ask for the warrant card or identification of the officer. Don't just let them flash it at you, take it and examine it thoroughly, then ask to whom you can phone to authenticate the card. Make sure you make a note of the officer's name and number, tell him that once you have confirmed his identity and right to have stopped you, you are then going to use your mobile phone to take his photo for identification purposes and also to record everything that is said; that if you are not guilty of any offence you will sue the officer for unlawful detention; and that if he touches you in any way you will also sue him for common assault. Always speak loudly so that you attract a crowd.”
Nicholas Lee from Windsor told how “standing up to jobsworths in uniform is not an altogether risk-free action. I had an experience when my wife and I had taken our 10-year-old grand-daughter to France for a couple of days. On returning to Dover, I received a hostile response from a uniformed gentleman from Border Control who demanded to see written permission from her mother (my daughter) for our custody of her. When I said that the thought of such a thing had never even occurred to me, things started to get nasty. I was given a harangue about my irresponsibility, and was half expecting to hear 'Right. Out of the car!' However, he eventually decided that as my grand-daughter was not showing any signs of distress, we could move on. I drove away wondering whatever had happened to the country of my birth. I no longer recognise it.”
David, who describes himself as “from York, but right a bit”, said “Fantastic article. I cannot tell you how pleased I am to hear an establishment figure express these views. Now, will the new government let go the reins and allow both men and women the freedoms to make the best of their own lives?”
And ex-policeman Redcap from Eastleigh was able to put his finger on the heart of the problem ... “... I was constantly reminded that we 'police by consent' of the general public and police powers (arrest) were curtailed to serious indictable crimes. The balance of police powers against civil liberties must always be maintained. However today's police have sweeping powers to arrest you for anything, no matter how trivial. Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 gives the police this awesome power. ACPO insisted on its inclusion, and in my view for no other reason than to boost the national DNA database. Remove Section 110 and remove it now, as it's an affront to democracy.”
The GOS says: Amen to that. Am I being naïve when I say that if anti-terrorist measures curtail the liberties our forefathers earned and we have a right to enjoy, then the terrorists (whose purpose in life is to curtail our liberties) have ... er ... well, sort of ... WON, haven't they?
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2010 The GOS