Anglers charged under Terrorism Laws

[Pete C&C]

posted by chesters1

quote:

quote:

---

not my words mate straight of the links page

---

I know mate, I wasn't getting at you, in fact a few of the papers have got it wrong.

[Guest jay_con]

Before long we will not be able to go out at all.

 

I posted some comments on that website john. Strange how it replaces the word **** with love.

[Guest jay_con]

I think it was woodie guthrie who said this "this land is my land, this land is your land".

 

Whoever said it he certainly didnt mention this land belonging to george urangutang bush and tony bloody blair. Our civil liberties are being eroded guys - get out there and take them back.

 

For some humerous items on bush take a look at www.albinoblacksheep.com

[sanctuary]

I hope I am not alone in thinking this but how long have we in Britain been subjected to terrorist attacks, how many attacks have we had over those years, how many people killed and who financed them and from which countries were those funds raised. Did they shut access to fishing venues at the docks when Cannery wharf was bombed. America is attacked once and look what happens, does that make it right for us to suddenly introduce all these extra laws and would it stop them if they decide to end the cease fire.

[gonefishing]

well, judging by recent events i think it would be far simpler to drive a few cars onto a few level crossings at night..

 

Most of the security measures i have come across since 911 have been half assed practices meant to make a public show or satisfy someones jobsworth mandate/insurance policy.

Whilst you can let just anyone wander around a dock at night, one wonders what letting 10 people on at a time would do seeing as all 10 could be from anywhere in the first place...do the fishing club vet people, ask for passports/id, check for a criminal record, run a check with MI5/special branch?

 

Unfortunately though, public opinion outside a court carries little weight inside, and if your protesting or deliberately breaking the rules then you really should be prepared to face the consequences...wanna be a martyr?

One would hope that this case and the press highlights the inadequacy of the existing security policy and perhaps the decision making and consultation that lead to its inception...but i wouldnt hold my breath.

 

To be honest security here is so ineffective against all the possible attack methods, that i'm actually wonder if we have been meant as a target to date yet anyway.

 

Sleep tight knowing we're little better off than when the PIRA were more active and wonder if there is that level of actvity now.

[Guest jay_con]

Im sure your right fishinggone. just look how easy it is to visit the queen and other royals these days. Look how many newspaper reporters get past airport security.

If we were a target we would have had an attack by now.

I think we may be a target in the future though

[Arthur Negus]

No-one questions the need for security,particularly after Sept 11,but what people unfamiliar with Liverpool Freeport are unaware of,is that the police manned barriers at the dock entrance are permanently raised,allowing anyone to enter the docks at anytime,and to go anywhere they like within the Freeport.Is that "tightened security" ? The only time the Port Police act,is when anglers get their rods out...they suddenly become a terrorist threat !! never mind the countless number of individuals who have entered the port and gone who knows where.

Ray Walker (port police chief) introduced the new measures so he would be aware of exactly who was on the dock estate at all times...absolute farce...he has no idea at all.If things were left as they were with the permit scheme that has been in place for over 20 years,then he would see that the anglers themselves are probably the most security conscious people on the docks.

 

[ 08. November 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Arthur Negus ]

[Guest jay_con]

Yes I beleive that to be true.

 

Plus if you were creeping about on a night doing things you wernt suppose to. seeing a balaclavered smelly man with a 13 foot pole might make you think twice.

 

A few people round here give us grief. one chap hates us simply walking past his home even though its on a public footpath. I think he believes cos he lives so remote that any strangers on a night are burglers. Itried to tell him that having me pass his house reguler with my headlight on may actually deter anyone from actually casing his house. He seems set on just being as abusive as he can be.

[kirkby john]

I have read with interest all the comments posted on this topic and wonder if anyone other than Arthur and gonefishing have any insight into the situation at all.

Just to muddy the water with a few facts, yes FACTS.

There is a right of access to the waters edge or in this case wall guaranteed by charter.

The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company are not acting lawfully in denying the individual his or her right of access. Note the word individual ! not a pre booked group of 10.

The filming done on the night in question was of the Port Police in their efforts to remove the two anglers.

The two anglers had arrived by hackney cab, unchallenged on the gate as per norm.

There are several businesses within the dock estate, sales of imported vehicles being the most visited, again traffic to and from these businesses is not challenged at the gate.

As most of you will be aware there has been a photo-permit scheme in operation for many years. If and I personally believe it to be a BIG IF the concern is genuinely security then surely it would be preferable to have access via a permit for all visitors to the dock estate. If the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is using 9-11 and the "war on terrorism" as a convenience to remove an irritation then their action is both offensive and reprehensible.

There is a compromise which I believe would satisfy all. Return to the photo-permit, on the first visit call into the dock gate with a form of identity, say a utility bill or driving license, get the permit stamped by the Port Police. This allows the individual the access whilst allowing the Port Authority to know who has that access, of course casual visitors who wish to view imported cars are another matter, but anglers are identified.

tight lines and cool heads prevailing see you on the alex.

[gonefishing]

Certainly a photo and checked address ID permit scheme would be better than nothing especially if it can allow access as transparently as possible. I would have thought even a small one-off charge would be acceptable (over the current scenario) and perhaps the port authority could just arrange these during daylight hours.

 

It certainly works in a similar fashion on far more sensitive sites than docks that support public access for various activities.