Stopped and Questioned - Section 44

A few weeks ago I was on my way back to the office from the bank during my lunch break. I work very close to Highbury and Islington station and was beginning a walk through Highbury Fields back to my place of work. I didn't pay any particular attention to the police van parked by the junction, or to the policeman standing beside it. "Excuse me," he said as I passed. "Could I have a quick word?"

I said yes, of course. He sounded almost apologetic. He then told me that he was carrying out some "stop and questions", and that he had been authorised to do so by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act - and could I please explain to him what I was doing in the area? I was just stunned - was he serious? It was so absurd on so many levels that I was tempted to laugh, but guessed that he was serious and that an air of ridicule would not have worked in my favour. I said sure - I was on my way back to work from my lunch. Which I was. He said thank you very much that's all - oh, and did I understand why I had been stopped? I said no, I didn't. I thought – why me?

So the bobby proceeded to explain the reasoning behind his action. Except that he didn't. He just repeated, verbatim, what he had just told me. That the Assistant Commissioner had designated this area as somewhere where stop and questioning could take place because of sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act - and that was why I had been stopped. And he assured me that he was stopping people of every colour and race, and that it was nothing to do with that. And that that was why he had stopped me. And questioned me. I didn't point out to him that his reasoning was circular and amounted to really no reason at all. I could see that it wasn't worth it, that he was just doing his job, following orders and trying his best. And, I have to say, he was very, very polite; friendly, even.

Something strange then happened. He offered to take down my name in a notebook - but not necessarily my address. He said this was purely optional, that it wouldn't be kept, and that it for my protection: if I wanted to pursue a claim against him the police notes would reveal who he was. I said ok. I noticed he spelt my name wrong (I have a very awkward surname) and he didn't write down my address. So no chance of anything going on my record in the vast databases the police have. I went on my way, but felt I shouldn't really have given him my name. In fact thet whole episode struck me as an absurd waste of his and my time, and an exercise in futility that made no-one any safer.

Let's suppose I was in fact, a terrorist. Not a freedom-fighter, of course - but a terrorist. (You can write in and we can debate the difference.) Now why would I tell PC Plod that I was on my way to blow up some infidels? You can bet I wouldn't. It would take a blunder of pub-theatre proportions for me to blurt out my dastardly plan. So we can safely say that a real terrorist would not be snared by the "excuse me can I have a word" tactic. I like to think I'm a reasonable chap who recognises that the cops have a tough, and unpleasant job to do so I didn't kick up a fuss, play the race card (I'm a bit swarthy, you see) or threaten to sue anyone. Besides, Plod isn't responsible for Section 44 - the government is.The problem with Section 44 is that it proffers no basis for discerning suspicion. None. It's just applied against whomsoever the officer feels like questioning. From the public's perspective it's a preposterous intrusion into their everyday lives (why do I have to tell anyone why I'm on a street?) and from the police's point of view it's an absurd waste of time and resources. It smacks of the old 'sus' laws in the UK, when the police could stop and search anyone without having to explain themselves. It's the first crack in the shiny white egg-shell of a free society - the apparatus of the state being able to decide at a whim that it should demand that you explain your very presence.

I'm all in favour of hunting down those who mean to kill us. I was on the tube system on 7th July 2005 and escaped the bombs meant to kill me. I want my would-be killers destroyed, stopped, or at least caught. But stoppages of the citizenry need to be based on evidence. Evidence that the fellow walking through Highbury Fields may have been, or is about to be, involved in plotting murder, or evidence that carrying out such stops can actually prevent a crime. (For example if it is known that a bomber is in the Highbury Fields area and he is a 6ft swarthy type - then I'd understand.) Notice I do not say 'proof' - evidence can be something much flimsier than that. I'm happy to entertain the argument that some evidence is so sensitive that it should not be made public - as long as a judge can still view and assess it. But random stop and questions, or stop and searches, that are based on an individual's gut feeling (ie prejudice) serve no purpose, achieve nothing, waste much and ironically leave us more vulnerable to those who would harm us.

If you have had a similar experience, or have a comment to make, please write in.