Another “terrorist” stopped by PCSOs

Snapper quizzed under anti terror laws for taking too many pictures of Christmas Lights

If you bump into me in King Street, South Shields over the weekend stood behind a tripod with my camera mounted on it, seemingly taking an age over taking my pictures, it could be because of a number of reasons:

• I want to take bracketed shots in batches of three to make HDR images of the Christmas lights.
• I want to wait until the wind dies down because with longish exposures I don’t want the bulbs to move about and look blurred in the final image.
• I want to make sure that I get at least six “keepers”, so working on the principle that only 10% of most shots are good ones, I will take at least sixty.
• Busy shoppers always get in the frame when you least expect them too.
• Some seeker of fame from South Shields will believe that they’ll get themselves in the Gazette if they stand in the way, (funny how they think that a tripod is the sign of professional activity).
• I want to test the effectiveness of South Shields’ best Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in defending us against an evil terrorist plot to blow up the Christmas Tree “down at the lights” it is after all in far better nick than that scrappy little bush down the road in Sacriston.

Seriously, just when is someone going to give these Blunkett Bobbies some effective training and let them know that real terrorists are hardly going to spend their time doing everything possible to stand out like a sore thumb, and that a real terrorist is more likely to use the camera on a pay as you go throw away phone rather than a huge “look at me” digital SLR. However with only 13% of real police spending time on the streets some parts of the country are left with little choice other than to deal with the poorly trained PCSO.

Cue Alan Johnson, your time to stand up and be counted and try to do something about this nonsense before you return to the anonymity of opposition!

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Terror “U” turn

It could only happen in Britain

The case of “U” clearly illustrates the legal morasse and confused state of British law when it is affected by so called human rights issues surrounding legal deportations, and on another level indicates that our government has no real backbone to deal firmly with those deemed to be a danger to the British National interest and public safety. This is not a case of civil liberties being abused, it is a case of weakness on the part of the Home Office.

From what we know “U” entered Britain illegally in 1999 and two years later was found at Heathrow attempting to fly to Saudi Arabia using false documents and passport, and our security services allege that he has close links to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist networks. Since then he has been held at Long Lartin prison for seven years without facing any charge, other than an application for deportation to Algeria. Our silly legal processes have allowed him the comfort of appeal after appeal against the Special Immigration Appeals Commission resulting in his extended stay at her Majesty’s pleasure at our great expense. We now have to keep him under virtual house arrest at even further expense whilst lawyers make greater profits attempting to prevent his deportation or even extradition to the USA.

In most other countries he would have been found on arrival and returned on the first available flight with the operator who carried him facing a massive fine for allowing him to travel on counterfeited documents, and probably within hours! This highlights the need for a much toughened and strengthened border police, which I have been calling for for years!

The case also leads to further questions about the government’s handling of illegal immigration, crime, and terror suspects, and his seven year incarceration without charge clearly indicates that we have the means and ability to hold people for long periods without the need for an additional law (42 days) to facilitate this, again something I have previously argued. However, it seems to me that we worry too much about the consequences of deportation when someone alleges that they will face unfair treatment in the country of their origin, we didn’t invite them to this country in the first place, and if they choose to come here illegally they should face the consequences.

South Tyneside councillor David Potts, the Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Edinburgh South West agrees, although he blames the judiciary rather than the government:

Two weeks after Abu Qatada, a man described as Bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe, was freed on Bail we now find that an unnamed suspect, known only as ‘U’, described as having links to the world’s most wanted terrorist, has also been released on Bail from the high security Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire.

It begs the question of just how seriously the judiciary is taking the massive terrorist threat that the UK faces. It is an utter disgrace and these judges should hang their heads in shame.

Deportation in such cases ought to be a cul de sac on a one way street, not subjected to “U” turns! (There should be no escape routes down darkened side streets).

It could only happen in Britain.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::