Comments:European court in Strasbourg rules UK's Terrorism Act in breach of human rights law

It would be much better if there was some sort of limit on the search - what can be searched, and how long the search can take (unless suspicious materials are discovered, which should escalate the situation); as well as some kind of logging that can be used to hold officers accountable for making a quick and efficient search. The way this article described it though, it sounds like UK police have free reign to delay people as long as they want, and if they want to do that they should go through the trouble of identifying a solid suspicion or a legitimate violation. --67.174.131.145 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They should have 'reasonable suspicion,' you say? That would be exactly what we had before, then. 94.193.134.98 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Furthermore, the British set of laws lacks a bill of rights, and the touted 'freedoms" are rapidily deningrated under pressure. Furthermore, dont blank the comments page,its Impolite. 164.116.47.180 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Who blanked the comments page? And yes, exactly - every other piece of stop & search legislation requires that the police have 'reasonable suspicion,' which they must articulate before a search is carried out. Just because we don't have an A to Z of 'rights' in a nice easy-to-read pop-up book of fun doesn't mean we don't have protections. 94.193.134.98 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Much of the reasoning behind the court judgement is because under this Act the police do not need any reason whatsoever. If they wanna search you, they can. That is why it was ruled illegal. Having some test for reasonable suspicion and a method of judicial appeal would be the way forward; at least, that is what the court implied. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)