NationStates Jolt Archive

A police force has apologised after a disabled child and his parents were detained at a Channel crossing point under the Terrorism Act.

Julie Maynard, of Ware, Hertfordshire, was taking a day trip to Calais through the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone, Kent.

The detective constable accused Ms Maynard and her husband Leslie Coombs of trafficking her son Joshua, 12.

Kent Police apologised and described the incident as inappropriate, unprofessional and lacking in tact.

The family was stopped by plain clothes officer from the Channel Tunnel Policing Unit on 20 February.


I wish to reassure you that your highly unsatisfactory experience was a very isolated incident
Insp Helen Shaw

Ms Maynard, a legal advocate, said the officer, who failed to identify who she was, asked for the family's passports then asked "who's the boy?"

"My son is mixed race and the officer then told us, 'I believe you are child trafficking'."

When Ms Maynard asked the woman officer if she would be asked the same question if her son was white, she said the officer replied: "Are you accusing me of being a racist?"

The family were then detained under the Terrorism Act and said they were surrounded by "at least 10 police officers" who ordered them to get out of their car.

'Frightening experience'

Ms Maynard was separated from her husband and son, who is autistic and has cerebral palsy, and taken to a detention room for questioning.

Ms Maynard said the woman officer told her: "It's obvious he [Joshua] has nothing to do with you".

She said officers had told the family they had powers to hold them for up to nine hours under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, but they were released after more than two hours.

Mr Coombs said it was an "unpleasant and frightening experience".

Police apology

Ms Maynard said: "More and more people are being stopped under the Terrorism Act - there's absolutely nothing in the act to stop individual officers abusing their powers.

"They have a difficult job to do in a difficult climate but their approach needs to be reasonable and not presumptive that every person is somehow guilty of a possible terrorism or criminal offence."

Kent Police said in a statement: "Our officer spoke to a white couple with a child of mixed race.

"There were three names on the passport and the officer made inquiries to check the child was leaving the country legally.

"The parents made a complaint for which we have apologised."

The force added that the officer in question no longer works at the Channel crossing and was in another post but the move was not connected to the incident.

Insp Helen Shaw, from Kent Police's Frontier Operations, apologised to the family in a letter.

In another letter she wrote: "Your complaint and my subsequent enquiries allowed me to identify that her (the officer's) manner had been insensitive, lacking in tact and that her conduct overall lacked the professionalism I expect.

"I wish to reassure you that your highly unsatisfactory experience was a very isolated incident."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7520598.stm

A bit much don't you think? After all reasonable checks were done they were still held? In my opinion the officer in question acted totally unprofessionally.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7520598.stm

A bit much don't you think? After all reasonable checks were done they were still held? In my opinion the officer in question acted totally unprofessionally.

I would have raised all bloody hell about this. I wouldn't have been half as gracious about it. It was worse than unprofessional, it was racist and disgusting.

Seems a bit sick....and going to far.

that will learn them for having a mixed race child!

If she wasn't a police officer, I would have decked her. Really.....I have no (printable) words....

If she wasn't a police officer, I would have decked her. Really.....I have no (printable) words....

Silence, serf! It's for your own protection! DO NOT RESIST! You are too stupid to know what's in your best interests! Trust Big Brother to protect you. The police are never wrong and they always act in the best interests of the people. [/sarcasm]

This is why I don't trust the police to detain people for 42 days.

This is why I don't trust the police to detain people for 42 days.

but does the number have any meaning?

And as an illustration of the difference between th U.K. and the U.S. (as if we needed another illustration), in this country instead of an apology, the officer in question would have been "placed on a paid leave of absence pending an investigation".

but does the number have any meaning?

6 weeks is quite a long time to be imprisoned without charge. Its likely to affect your employment and its longer than some prison sentences.

not that kind of meaning,sure it sucks being in prison for that long but i was talking about the number itself,not the amount of days.

<_<

>_>

Are you suggesting that its in some way connected to the answer to life, the universe and everything?

A totally unacceptable way of dealing with the issue, but still an understandable mistake.

<_<

>_>

Are you suggesting that its in some way connected to the answer to life, the universe and everything?

yes,a totally stupid joke but i do stupid jokes a lot.sue me.

How is it even an understandable mistake? Granted, it may be an understandable mistake, but it could just as easily have not been. The fact that the child is a "mixed-race" child and the mother is white does not automatically validate the assumption that she is child trafficking. Perhaps something in her conduct towards the child or the kid was wearing ratty clothing while the parents were wearing decent clothing or something of that vein was suspicious, but as far as we know from the article, there is nothing to say that this was "understandable," at all.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry...

How is it even an understandable mistake? Granted, it may be an understandable mistake, but it could just as easily have not been. The fact that the child is a "mixed-race" child and the mother is white does not automatically validate the assumption that she is child trafficking. Perhaps something in her conduct towards the child or the kid was wearing ratty clothing while the parents were wearing decent clothing or something of that vein was suspicious, but as far as we know from the article, there is nothing to say that this was "understandable," at all.

If what they said in the article is true, then no it's not understandable in the slightest. However, I'm generally suspicious of newspapers ever telling the whole story and I do imagine there were probably other factors involved. Indeed, the fact that the child was autistic may have meant that he was acting in such a way as to seem distant or even resistant to the mother which may have raised suspicions. This does not excuse it however and frankly I think the behaviour of the police was disgraceful.

The question I have to ask is if it was an issue with child trafficking, why oh why were they detained under the terrorism act.

If we're afraid to give cruel and unusual punishment to innocent men women and children, THE TERRORISTS WIN!

The question I have to ask is if it was an issue with child trafficking, why oh why were they detained under the terrorism act.

I'm assuming the terrorism act gives the police broad authority to detain suspicious person at international travel junctures, including suspicion of child(or human persons) trafficking, drug trafficking, hell maybe even trafficking of obscene materials just for fun. It's just a guess.

I'm assuming the terrorism act gives the police broad authority to detain suspicious person at international travel junctures, including suspicion of child(or human persons) trafficking, drug trafficking, hell maybe even trafficking of obscene materials just for fun. It's just a guess.

The terrorism act says nothing about human trafficking. In fact, I don't know which act it comes under, maybe just the EU convention.

The policeman should be taken off active service and given a compulsory course in what rights he is supposed to be protecting.

This is absolutely disgusting.

That articles grammar is also atrocious.

I'm assuming the terrorism act gives the police...
...blanket permission to do anything whatsoever they please?

...blanket permission to do anything whatsoever they please?

If we don't even have the power to arrest disabled children for being a bit dark then frankly we might as well hand ourselves over to the terrorists.

That articles[sic] grammar is also atrocious.

And yours? ;)

If we don't even have the power to arrest disabled children for being a bit dark then frankly we might as well hand ourselves over to the terrorists.

And don't forget the necessity of detaining his family, too!

And don't forget the necessity of detaining his family, too!

Maybe the baby was crying and the copper thought she heard "...aaaaaaaaallah!"

And yours? ;)No. One error in a forum post is not as troublesome as multiple in a BBC article.

*Sigh* Our anti terrorism laws are completely out of hand. You now need a license from the government to hold a peaceful protest, and if you protest with out one and your protest is deemed to be in anyway against the the government the police force now have the authorization to take "Any and all means necessary including the use of lethal force to end the incident". What the hell is this country coming to in the name of "National Security" next thing you know Cameron and Clegg will be declared terrorists and Brown will name himself PM for life!

*Sigh* Our anti terrorism laws are completely out of hand. You now need a license from the government to hold a peaceful protest, and if you protest with out one and your protest is deemed to be in anyway against the the government the police force now have the authorization to take "Any and all means necessary including the use of lethal force to end the incident". What the hell is this country coming to in the name of "National Security" next thing you know Cameron and Clegg will be declared terrorists and Brown will name himself PM for life!

I agree that the UK is sacrificing too much in the name of counter-terrorism measures, but that much hyperbole is just..... silly.

I agree that the UK is sacrificing too much in the name of counter-terrorism measures, but that much hyperbole is just..... silly.

Hyperbole would be "Break out the Guy Fawkes mask chums, it's time to make government fear the people!"

No. One error in a forum post is not as troublesome as multiple in a BBC article.

True, but the hypocriticality of your post was just too tantalising :)

Did anyone stop to consider that when child trafficking occurs most of it is with different races and ethnicities to that of White British people?

If she wasn't a police officer, I would have decked her. Really.....I have no (printable) words....

Yeah, um, grow up.

Did anyone stop to consider that when child trafficking occurs most of it is with different races and ethnicities to that of White British people?

No one is saying they shouldn't have been checked. People are complaining that the response involving detainment under an unrelated Act was inappropriate

No one is saying they shouldn't have been checked. People are complaining that the response involving detainment under an unrelated Act was inappropriate

Most people in the thread seem to just want a reason to moan.

The parent shouldn't have instantly pulled the racist card. That simply shows that she's trying to hide something. Safety and Order before individual convenience.

If I was the officer, I would have done the exact same thing.

Either way, the whole incident isn't anything at all. If the parent and child were sent to prison, then I would understand why people would be upset. However, all that happened was detention, which, when reading what the press says, can range from an officer merely pulling you off to the side and preventing you from continuing to having several officers handcuff you and interrogate you.

So, I sum up my opinion in one word: Whoopdee doo.

The parent shouldn't have instantly pulled the racist card. That simply shows that she's trying to hide something. Safety and Order before individual convenience.

If I was the officer, I would have done the exact same thing.

Either way, the whole incident isn't anything at all. If the parent and child were sent to prison, then I would understand why people would be upset. However, all that happened was detention, which, when reading what the press says, can range from an officer merely pulling you off to the side and preventing you from continuing to having several officers handcuff you and interrogate you.

So, I sum up my opinion in one word: Whoopdee doo.

Meh if the person involved happens to be non-white then obviously its gonna be racist :rolleyes: The amount of people I've seen played the race card just cause they can't stand up to their own responsibilities.

Hyperbole would be "Break out the Guy Fawkes mask chums, it's time to make government fear the people!"

thats been done, seen the historically correct documentary "V For Vendetta"?
been there done that.

Most people in the thread seem to just want a reason to moan.

Welcome to NSG. And it seems you fit right in with the moaning people.

A bit much don't you think? After all reasonable checks were done they were still held? In my opinion the officer in question acted totally unprofessionally.
i would have found out where he lived and fucked it up

It makes sense that under the guise of 'terrorism' the bourgeois states of the world are introducing these laws and systems of repression. The bourgeois are afraid of the decaying and collapsing edifice of capitalism, they want to defend private property, and they are willing now to repress labor under the guise of 'anti-terrorism'.

'Terror' then is appropriate, because the bourgeois must truly be afraid of the working class and their power.

It makes sense that under the guise of 'terrorism' the bourgeois states of the world are introducing these laws and systems of repression. The bourgeois are afraid of the decaying and collapsing edifice of capitalism, they want to defend private property, and they are willing now to repress labor under the guise of 'anti-terrorism'.

'Terror' then is appropriate, because the bourgeois must truly be afraid of the working class and their power.

Not quite. More like a small group of powerbrokers want to use any means necessary to acquire more power and wealth, and they will use the worst in both capitalism and socialism to advance their own interests at the expense of the people. The correct response is through passive resistance and a libertarian philosophy. Reserve armed resistance for when they initiate the violence.

The bourgeois are afraid of the decaying and collapsing edifice of capitalism, they want to defend private property, and they are willing now to repress labor under the guise of 'anti-terrorism'.
So, did the bourgeois tell the various governments to enact anti-terrorism legislation via letter or just face-to-face at the annual bourgeois meet?

So, did the bourgeois tell the various governments to enact anti-terrorism legislation via letter or just face-to-face at the annual bourgeois meet?

The state is the political extension of the economic power which upholds their power.

The state is the political extension of the economic power which upholds their power.
Thank you, Marxism 101.

Thank you, Marxism 101.

So therefore it's not about the bourgeois personally controlling the state, but those in power can only remain in power if they support and defend the basis of private property and therefore the economic power-base which the society rests upon.

It makes sense that under the guise of 'terrorism' the bourgeois states of the world are introducing these laws and systems of repression. The bourgeois are afraid of the decaying and collapsing edifice of capitalism, they want to defend private property, and they are willing now to repress labor under the guise of 'anti-terrorism'.

'Terror' then is appropriate, because the bourgeois must truly be afraid of the working class and their power.

Let's see AP, you've defended Stalinism, now you're defending terrorism. What's next? Nazism? Burning witches? You know, burning witches is *actually* a righteous class struggle against the bourgeois, just like terrorism and Stalinism and of course, Andaras posting on NSG!