Non-footy: Sorry being a numpty here but this here 'schedule 7' and Miranda....

... Is my understanding of the English language different from the Home Office's?

They state:

"According to the Home Office's code of practice on using schedule 7 powers, although its use "is not based on an examining officer having any suspicion" against any individual, "the powers should not be used arbitrarily".

So if they don't have to have any evidence or suspicion against an individual to stop them how can it be anything BUT arbitrary if they do?

Any lawyers here care to explain that 'cos it makes no sense to me.

At 59 years of age my perception of the UK is that it seems to be more and more a 'Police State' the more I read especially when viewed from Italy where I now spend most of my time. Everything flies in the face of logic...e.g. 'Kettling' i.e. holding people caught up in demonstrations (e.g. going home from work) going about their everyday business being held against their will for several hours without access to water, food, toileting facilities. How can that be legal when we have such laws to protect people from being forcibly being held against their will? how can a 'Police/Home Office' policy override existing laws and the rule of law (innocent until proven guilty)?

 

You think it's bad here try America, their Homeland security is shocking. It is a Police State there , they have the arms to prove it, here you'll just get tasered in defence of your rights.

Freedom shouldn't be a concept or a debate but a fact of life. We all make compromises to our 'freedom' to live in an ordered society, but the walls are closing in. No one asked us if we wanted millions of CCTV and no one asked if we wanted more punitive restrictions on where we go and what we do. They certainly never told us our private stuff was fair game for GCHQ. Since we found out, they even had the gall to justify it.

In America the concept of freedom is greater than here, they fought a war of independence to win it and they swear allegiance to the flag and the constitution. Not to the Government or President and not to the Crown. To protect their constitutional rights many Americans believe they need the right to own a weapon. I think they may be right.