News1 min ago
Surely this law is half-baked?
26 Answers
Chris Grayling, MP and his team, having flown from London to Edinburgh by domestic airline, were asked for their passports or other ID “with photograph” at Edinburgh airport.
He naturally protested at the idea that British citizens should have to carry and show passports in their own country. But, apparently, the anti-terrorism Act 2000 does give the police the authority to do such checks at random.
Quite apart from the sheer impertinence of this, how can it possibly work?
What is the point of giving the police such powers when there is no equivalent law requiring citizens to carry such ID? What would happen if I arrived at Edinburgh and, when challenged, said” No, I don’t carry my passport in my own country. No, I always keep my driving-licence in a drawer at home. No, I carry no other ID, neither does the law require me to do so”?
What would happen?
He naturally protested at the idea that British citizens should have to carry and show passports in their own country. But, apparently, the anti-terrorism Act 2000 does give the police the authority to do such checks at random.
Quite apart from the sheer impertinence of this, how can it possibly work?
What is the point of giving the police such powers when there is no equivalent law requiring citizens to carry such ID? What would happen if I arrived at Edinburgh and, when challenged, said” No, I don’t carry my passport in my own country. No, I always keep my driving-licence in a drawer at home. No, I carry no other ID, neither does the law require me to do so”?
What would happen?
Answers
Yes chakka, the Act certainly gives the police wide powers and these will almost certainly be abused or at the very least used for purposes other than those for which they were introduced. The most enlightening insight into the minds of the legislators that I find is that in para 1 of the section says:
“An examining officer may question a person to whom...
“An examining officer may question a person to whom...
16:33 Thu 05th Jul 2012
I can't imagine how he got on the plane in the first place. If you look at the web site for any UK Airline, you'll find that they all require a photo ID before allowing you to board. Here's just one example:
http://
http://
I'll get back to this in a hour or so after my pint but, SIDKID, the report was in the Daily Mail, not a paper I normally read, but the detail is there with quotes from Grayling. http://
The report didn`t say he didn`t have his passport. He would have had photo ID to get on the aircraft. The point was that he resented having to show it again when he got to Prestwick. UK`s aviation threat level is "Severe" which means enhanced security measures take place (usually behind the scenes). One of those measures is that the police can ask for identification of people passing through their port. Severe is pretty high (only one down from "Critical" which means an attack is imminent). As the government sets the threat level and as a government minister he should understand that. And basically, if he doesn`t like it then "tough". I don`t know what would happen if you refused to show it though - you`d probably be arrested for refusing to comply.
In general, I am amazed by the general lack of indignation or anger at this procedure. Have we really become so compliant with "regulations" that we're prepared to behave like citizens of WWII occupied France, having to show our "papers" to every petty official? I hope not.
To the detail: ROJASH & SANDYROE: that is a different matter. It is reasonable for an airline to decide who should and who should not board its aircraft. A potential passenger has the choice as to whether he complies with the oppressive rules and flies with that airline or doesn't.
But the police do not own Edinburgh or Scotland and so have no such natural rights.
HEATHFIELD and NIBBLE: The same, presumably, applies if a take a coach or a train or drive there. And if, instead of Edinburgh, it's Manchester or Exeter. Where is the line drawn? Does anyone know?
I do recognise, mind you, that I could not use my insistence that I don't carry ID if, indeed, you have to have it now to travel in your own country. I would still, though, be inclined to refuse to show it and see what I would be charged with and what the media would say.
All very sinister so far, and useless at catching terrorists.
To the detail: ROJASH & SANDYROE: that is a different matter. It is reasonable for an airline to decide who should and who should not board its aircraft. A potential passenger has the choice as to whether he complies with the oppressive rules and flies with that airline or doesn't.
But the police do not own Edinburgh or Scotland and so have no such natural rights.
HEATHFIELD and NIBBLE: The same, presumably, applies if a take a coach or a train or drive there. And if, instead of Edinburgh, it's Manchester or Exeter. Where is the line drawn? Does anyone know?
I do recognise, mind you, that I could not use my insistence that I don't carry ID if, indeed, you have to have it now to travel in your own country. I would still, though, be inclined to refuse to show it and see what I would be charged with and what the media would say.
All very sinister so far, and useless at catching terrorists.
No, em10, a passport is issued by your own government and requests foreign countries to allow you to enter there.
If you are a UK citizen you do not need a passport to leave UK (you can take a private boat from our shores any time) or to enter UK. In the latter case, a passport is the easiest way of proving you are a UK citizen, but in that role it is acting purely as ID. Any other way of proving your citizenship, though no doubt protracted, is just as valid.
The solid gold principle is that we do not need ID to travel in our own country, though the people who provide particular forms of transport (which we don't have to use) may demand ID. A passport is for travelling abroad.
If you are a UK citizen you do not need a passport to leave UK (you can take a private boat from our shores any time) or to enter UK. In the latter case, a passport is the easiest way of proving you are a UK citizen, but in that role it is acting purely as ID. Any other way of proving your citizenship, though no doubt protracted, is just as valid.
The solid gold principle is that we do not need ID to travel in our own country, though the people who provide particular forms of transport (which we don't have to use) may demand ID. A passport is for travelling abroad.
When I book a flight I check what the Ts&Cs are. If I'm required to take photo ID, I check what is acceptable and take the appropriate document.
I have no problem with this and am not entirely sure why anyone else would have a problem. Unless they do not possess the necessary photo ID, in which case they did not read the Ts&Cs and have no one else to blame but themselves.
I have no problem with this and am not entirely sure why anyone else would have a problem. Unless they do not possess the necessary photo ID, in which case they did not read the Ts&Cs and have no one else to blame but themselves.
Schedule 7 (Ports and Border Controls) of the Terrorism Act 2000 says this:
(1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).
[This paragraph provides an interpretation of people considered to be “terrorists”]
(2) This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a) He is at a port or in the border area, and
(b) The examining officer believes that the person’s presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland [or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland].
(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).
(4) An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).
A person who is questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 must—
(a) Give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests;
(b) Give the examining officer on request either a valid passport which includes a photograph or another document which establishes his identity;
So there is little doubt that the police do have powers to demand the production of a passport or photo-ID.
It mean that, in attempting to combat terrorism the UK Parliament has enacted a law that, effectively, requires people who have travelled by air internally to identify themselves and forces them carry documents which enable them to do so.
Mr Grayling was not elected to Westminster until 2001 so perhaps can be forgiven for not knowing the details of the 2000 Act. However, as a government minister he should be aware that the 2000 Act, and a number of other legislative instruments since, have made huge inroads into supposed civil liberties and his indignation is somewhat misplaced.
In answer to your question, Chakka, about what would happen if you had no photo-ID with you (assuming you could have travelled by air without it) the Act allows the police to detain you for up to nine hours to establish your credentials, so I imagine that’s what they’d do. So whilst you are quite correct in that you do not need a passport to travel within the UK, under the 2000 Act you do need to be able to identify yourself with a form of photo-ID (of which a passport is probably the most acceptable) if you are travelling by air.
(1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).
[This paragraph provides an interpretation of people considered to be “terrorists”]
(2) This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a) He is at a port or in the border area, and
(b) The examining officer believes that the person’s presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland [or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland].
(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).
(4) An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).
A person who is questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 must—
(a) Give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests;
(b) Give the examining officer on request either a valid passport which includes a photograph or another document which establishes his identity;
So there is little doubt that the police do have powers to demand the production of a passport or photo-ID.
It mean that, in attempting to combat terrorism the UK Parliament has enacted a law that, effectively, requires people who have travelled by air internally to identify themselves and forces them carry documents which enable them to do so.
Mr Grayling was not elected to Westminster until 2001 so perhaps can be forgiven for not knowing the details of the 2000 Act. However, as a government minister he should be aware that the 2000 Act, and a number of other legislative instruments since, have made huge inroads into supposed civil liberties and his indignation is somewhat misplaced.
In answer to your question, Chakka, about what would happen if you had no photo-ID with you (assuming you could have travelled by air without it) the Act allows the police to detain you for up to nine hours to establish your credentials, so I imagine that’s what they’d do. So whilst you are quite correct in that you do not need a passport to travel within the UK, under the 2000 Act you do need to be able to identify yourself with a form of photo-ID (of which a passport is probably the most acceptable) if you are travelling by air.
''Anti-terrorism'' has been god send to officialdom. They are banning spectators taking any food or drink into the olympics as ''anti-terrorism'' nothing to do with Coca cola and McDonalds holding the food / drink franchise and charging astronomical prices of course !!! I have heard that a half pint botttle of beer in the bar at the olympic sites will cost £8.50 !!!!!
Burger £5 without chips ! McDonalds are set to charge the highest prices anywhere inside the Olympic stadiums they are printing special price lists . That is why there is a total ban on taking in any food or drink even water , but they blame ''anti terrorism''
Burger £5 without chips ! McDonalds are set to charge the highest prices anywhere inside the Olympic stadiums they are printing special price lists . That is why there is a total ban on taking in any food or drink even water , but they blame ''anti terrorism''
Latest Posts
Hyperlinks And Copied Documents
Technology7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
Should We Be Taking Nuclear Threats More...
News21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.