Cory Doctorow at 10:16 PM March 11, 2010

The Olympics are coming to London, so our civil liberties are going out the window: because nothing epitomises the spirit of global competition and cooperation like corporate bullying and unfettered truncheon-waving.

Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events.

"I think there will be lots of people doing things completely innocently who are going to be caught by this, and some people will be prosecuted, while others will be so angry about it that they will start complaining about civil liberties issues," Chadwick said.

"I think what it will potentially do is to prompt a debate about the commercial nature of the Games. Do big sponsors have too much influence over the Games?"

Eyes turn to "value for money" London 2012 (Thanks, Bobby!)

(Image: More Riot Police a Creative Commons Attribution photo from Kashklick's photostream)

Adam Fresco and Fiona Hamilton

Police are planning to use an anti-terror law deemed unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights across the country during the London Olympics, The Times has learnt.

Senior officers are considering using Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at every Underground and railway station nationwide.

Privacy campaigners criticised the proposal yesterday. The powers would enable police to stop and search members of the public without any suspicion that they were involved in terrorism.

The Times understands that this would be the first time that the powers would have been used across such a wide area. Police said that Section 44, which must be granted by the Home Secretary for a designated area, would be used only in the event of an escalated terror threat. Officers are being trained to use behavioural profiling to spot suspicious characters during stop- and-search operations.

Privacy experts said that the plan could heighten tensions between the public and police. Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International, said: “The history of stop and search in this country is abhorrent. I wouldn’t trust the police to make the right judgment.

“It is well known that stop-and- search powers have created extraordinary tensions among a range of ethnic groups,” he said. “There’s no doubt that extension of the use of those powers would exacerbate those tensions.”

Last month the use of the terror law was criticised by the European Court of Human Rights. It found that Section 44 violated individual freedoms guaranteeing the right to private life.

The court said that the power to search an individual’s clothing and belongings in public involved an element of humiliation that was a clear interference with the right to privacy. Judges also attacked the arbitrary nature of the power as well as the way in which its use was authorised.

Despite this, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said that police would continue to use Section 44. The Home Office is appealing against the European Court ruling.

The Metropolitan Police agreed last year to limit its use of the powers after critics claimed that it was discriminating against minority groups. However, Assistant Chief Constable Steve Thomas, of the British Transport Police, told The Times that the powers would be considered for 2012.

Mr Thomas, the Olympic National Transport Security Co-ordinator for the Home Office, said: “If there is a severe level of threat we will be looking to use Section 44 at every Underground and railway station. We are planning on the assumption that there will be a severe threat to the UK during the Games, on the basis that we can then scale down rather than quickly scale up.” He said that if Section 44 was put in place across the country it would not mean that every station would be flooded with officers, but individual stations would be targeted as part of an operation.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, the campaigning organisation that brought the European Court case, said that while there was an obvious need for heightened precautions during the 2012 Games, Britain’s antiterrorism laws need to be “tightened up”. She said: “It would be incredibly dangerous to build Olympic security on such a legally flawed foundation.”

A San Diego school vice-principal saw an 11-year-old's home science project (a motion detector made out of an empty Gatorade bottle and some electronics), decided it was a bomb, wet himself, put the school on lockdown, had the bomb-squad come out to destroy X-ray the student's invention and search his parents' home, and then magnanimously decided not to discipline the kid (though he did recommend that the child and his parents get counselling to help them overcome their anti-social science behavior).

When police and the Metro Arson Strike Team responded, they also found electrical components in the student's backpack, Luque said. After talking to the student, it was decided about 1 p.m. to evacuate the school as a precaution while the item was examined. Students were escorted to a nearby playing field, and parents were called and told they could come pick up their children.

A MAST robot took pictures of the device and X-rays were evaluated. About 3 p.m., the device was determined to be harmless, Luque said...

The student will not be prosecuted, but authorities were recommending that he and his parents get counseling, the spokesman said. The student violated school policies, but there was no criminal intent, Luque said.

Thames Valley Police officers were filmed using riot shields to sledge down a snowy hill while on duty.

Rick Latham filmed the officers on Boars Hill, Oxford, and posted it on You Tube.

Local policing area commander Supt Andrew Murray said the snow had "a habit of bringing out the child in all of us".

He added: "I have spoken to the officers concerned and reminded them in no uncertain terms that tobogganing on duty, on police equipment and at taxpayers' expense is a very bad idea should they wish to progress under my command."

To be honest I'd rather they were sledging with them than using them to hit protesting civilians...

High court admission of illegal searches on minors in case challenging police tactics at power station protest

• Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 18.48 GMT
• Article history

Protestors march towards Kingsnorth power station from the Camp For Climate Action 2008 on August 9, 2008. Photograph: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images

Police today admitted that they conducted illegal "stop and searches" on 11-year-old twins and other activists at an environmental demonstration.

The chief constable of Kent, Mike Fuller, made the admission in a high court case that challenged the tactics he used to contain a demonstration against a proposed coal-fired power station.

He and his force have already been heavily criticised over their handling of the demonstration, after allegations of brutality by officers who hid their badge numbers, and the use of loud music to stop activists sleeping.

The admission came after a ruling by the European court of human rights in a separate case that it was unlawful for police to use arbitrary stop and search powers against peace protesters and photographers under terrorism legislation.

Kent police is fighting to avoid paying a huge bill for damages to thousands of protesters.

The high court heard that the twins, who cannot be named, and more than 3,500 protesters were herded into airport-style "checkpoints" during the week-long climate camp demonstration at Kings­north power station in Kent.

The twins' mother described how her son was left "crying and shaking" and "very pale". She said that he had overheard that protesters had stickers confiscated by police, and feared he would "go to prison" because he had a sticker in his bag. Nothing was taken from their bags.

They were searched under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which requires officers to have a reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying prohibited weapons that could be used for criminal damage.

At today's hearing, Richard Perks, barrister for the chief constable, said it was now accepted by Kent police that the twins and a veteran environmental protester, David Morris, were unlawfully stopped at the Kingsnorth demonstration in 2008.

Perks added that the chief constable also admitted that unspecified numbers of other climate camp protesters had also been unlawfully stopped and searched.

The twins and Morris, from north London, launched the legal action last year as a test case for the thousands stopped and searched at the demonstration. Kent police have offered to settle in their case but are refusing to admit that thousands of others should be paid damages.

John Halford, the trio's lawyer, said: "Kent police are seeking to buy off these test cases in a desperate attempt to avoid court scrutiny of what amounted to an unlawful frontline policy geared to bring about large-scale breach of civil liberties and protest rights."

Today Perks told the court that Kent police did not admit that they had covertly applied a blanket, unlawful stop-and-search policy at the camp.

There had been a clear and lawful policy, and the huge majority of activists had not been stopped unlawfully. But it was accepted there had been "a misapplication of a clear policy by officers on the ground", he said.

Alex Bailin, barrister for the twins, accused Kent police of failing to obey a court order to disclose documents about the stop and searches. Lord Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Openshaw adjourned the case so that further evidence could be produced.

Last July an official review concluded that the "widescale deployment of stop and search tactics was both disproportionate and counter-productive" at the Kingsnorth demonstration.

It found that fewer than a quarter of the forms recording the reasons for the stop and searches were legible.

• Kate and Gerry McCann in court for second day of hearing

• Portuguese police claim parents faked child's abduction

• John Stevens
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 18.14 GMT
• Article history

Gerry McCann has dismissed Portuguese detectives' claims that his daughter Madeleine is dead. Photograph: PA

Gerry McCann lashed out at Portuguese police today, as a former senior detective dismissed the McCanns' challenge to claims that Madeleine was dead as "pathetic".

In a heated exchange with reporters outside the court in Lisbon, Gerry McCann insisted there was "absolutely no evidence" to support the claim that his daughter was dead, before the court heard more challenges to the McCanns' account of events.

As Madeleine's parents returned for a second day of the libel trial over claims about their daughter's disappearance, Gerry McCann appeared rattled as he argued with Portuguese journalists about the claims of officials involved in the investigation. "There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is absolutely no evidence that we were involved in her disappearance," he said.

This morning the court heard fresh evidence questioning the disappearance of Madeleine. Former senior police officer and criminologist Francisco Moita Flores told the hearing that the McCanns' legal challenge to permanently ban a book by Gonçalo Amaral, the officer who initially led the Madeleine inquiry for Portugal's CID, the polícia judiciária (PJ), was "pathetic".

He dismissed the couple's claim that Madeleine was abducted from the apartment they were staying in at the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz, telling the court it would be impossible to pass a child through the flat's window. Giving evidence via videolink, Flores defended the Portuguese investigation into the case, praising Amaral as a "good professional".

The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, argued the police files reached no conclusion about the window and said there were other ways Madeleine could have been taken from the apartment.

Flores' evidence followed that of a series of senior officers who told the hearing yesterday that Madeleine had died in her family's holiday flat in May 2007 and that her parents faked her abduction.

The McCanns are challenging claims made in Amaral's book, Maddie: The Truth of the Lie that Madeleine was dead.

Amaral, who was taken off the case in October 2007 after criticising British police, is trying to overturn an injunction granted to the McCanns in September last year banning further sale or publication of the book.

At the end of the second day of the trial Gerry McCann defended taking legal action, saying the book had "damaged" the search for Madeleine.

"I'd like to remind everyone that it's the book that's on trial and not Kate and I," he said. "Over the last two days you've heard a lot about Mr Amaral's thesis that Madeleine is dead. There is absolutely no evidence to support that thesis. A thesis without evidence is meaningless."

He added: "There is a little girl missing who still needs to be found and we will keep going until Madeleine is found."

The McCanns, both 41, from Rothley, Leicestershire, say their main motive for fighting the appeal against the book ban is the fear that people will stop looking for Madeleine if they think she is dead. Gerry McCann said: "This is a legal process that we're going through to protect our daughter and our family." When asked whether it was worth the emotional cost for the couple to attend the court case, he added: "Do you have children? Anyone who has children would go through the same process."

Gerry McCann returned to Britain this afternoon because of work commitments, but Kate McCann will stay in Portugal for the rest of the hearing.

The trial is expected to last three days, but the judge could order further hearings before making her ruling.

The trial continues.

Judges in Strasbourg say UK powers under Terrorism Act 2000 violate convention on human rights

• Alan Travis, home affairs editor
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 13.36 GMT
• Article history

A stop and search operation in London: the powers, under the Terrorism Act, have been ruled illegal by a European court. Photograph: Martin Godwin/Guardian

The ability of UK police to use "arbitrary" counter-terror stop and search powers against peace protesters and photographers lay in tatters today after a landmark ruling by the European court of human rights.

The Strasbourg court ruled it was unlawful for police to use the powers, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, to stop and search people without needing any grounds for suspicion.

The widely-drawn ruling said that not only the use of the counter-terror powers, but also the way they were authorised, were "neither sufficiently circumscribed, nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse".

The use of these powers has grown fourfold, from 33,177 times in 2004 to more than 117,200 in 2008.

The Metropolitan police have used them most, but 11 other forces in England and Wales also make routine use of them.

A political furore ensued when it was disclosed that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion since 2001.

The case ruled on today was brought by Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton, who were stopped by police while their way to a demonstration outside the annual arms fair at the Excel centre, in London's Docklands, in September 2003.

Quinton, a journalist, was ordered to stop filming the protest despite showing her press card, while Gillan, who was riding his bicycle, was only allowed to go on his way after 20 minutes. They were awarded €33,850 (£30,400) in costs and expenses.

The European judges said the power to search a person's clothing and belongings in public included an element of humiliation and embarrassment which was a clear interference with the right to privacy.

But they also criticised the way in which the police use of stop and search powers was authorised. There is no requirement that the powers be considered "necessary" – only "expedient".

The use of the powers is subject to confirmation by the home secretary within 48 hours, renewable after 28 days, but the European court said there was no real check on authorisations by parliament or the courts.

This was demonstrated by the continuous renewal, every 28 days, of the use of the powers in London since their first introduction, the judges added.

They said they were further concerned that the decision to stop and search somebody was "based exclusively on the 'hunch' or 'professional intuition' of the police officer".

The sole condition was that the search had to look for articles used in connection with terrorism – but this covered many things commonly carried by people in the street. Police did not even have to have grounds for suspecting such articles were present.

The judges said that, because of this, there was a "clear risk of arbitrariness in granting such broad discretion" to a police officer.

Their concerns were compounded by the fact that black and Asian people were four times more likely to be stopped under section 44 and there was a risk that the power could be misused against demonstrators.

"The absence of any obligation on the part of the officer to show a reasonable suspicion made it almost impossible to prove that the power had been improperly exercised," the judges said in describing the lack of judicial checks.

As such, section 44 was not in "accordance with the law" and amounted to a violation of article eight – the right to respect for private and family life.

Quinton told the Guardian she was delighted with the judgment, saying: "There has to be a balance between private life and security.

"The court has shown that section 44 is an invasion of people's right to liberty and privacy. Hopefully the government will have to put a fairer law in place to protect us."

Gillan hailed the ruling as "fantastic news after a long struggle" and added: "I look to the government for a strong response."

Corinna Ferguson, the legal officer for Liberty and acting for the two, said: "Liberty has consistently warned the government about the dangers of stop and search without suspicion and actively campaigned for the tightening up of the infamous section 44 power.

"The public, police and court of human rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law.

"In the coming weeks parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess."

The shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, said: "We have long said that anti-terror laws should not be used as a way of conducting normal day-to-day policing.

"The government needs to make sure that the police have the appropriate powers to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour."

The full judgment can be read here.

Myleene Klass warned after brandishing knife to deter intruders

Police tell TV presenter she was acting illegally in waving kitchen knife at youths who were peering in window late at night

• Haroon Siddique and agencies
• guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 January 2010 12.08 GMT
• Article history

Myleene Klass is said to be 'aghast' after receiving a police warning for using a kitchen knife to scare intruders at her Hertfordshire home. Photograph: Richard Saker

The TV presenter and Marks & Spencer model Myleene Klass has been warned by police for waving a knife at teenagers who were peering into a window of her house late at night.

Klass was in the kitchen with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths in her garden just after midnight on Friday. She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.

Hertfordshire police warned her she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon", even in her own home, was illegal.

Klass's spokesman, Jonathan Shalit, said the former Hear'Say singer was "utterly terrified" by the intruders and "aghast" at the police warning. "All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off," he told the Sunday Telegraph. "She is not looking to be a vigilante, and has the utmost respect for the law, but when the police explained to her that even if you're at home alone and you have an intruder, you are not allowed to protect yourself, she was bemused."

The warning issued to the model comes after a pledge by the Conservative party last month that they would make it more difficult for people who tackle burglars to be prosecuted.

The shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, spoke out after Munir Hussain was jailed for beating a man who tied up his family in their home. He and his brother used a cricket bat to beat one of the intruders, who was left with a permanent brain injury.

A spokeswoman for Hertfordshire police said no reference was made in the Klass incident report about a weapon. She said the incident was being treated as trespass and "words of advice were given in relation to ensuring suspicious behaviour is reported immediately".

Klass, whose fiance, Graham Quinn, was away on business at the time of the scare, plans to step up security at the property, near Potters Bar.