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.