Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, police are allowed to stop anyone passing through a UK port “to determine whether they may be involved or concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
The person who is detained can be held for up to six hours, is legally obliged to answer questions and must provide the password or access number for electronic devices, or be held to have committed a criminal offence if they refuse.
It is a core characteristic of a nation that it is able, if it chooses, to inspect every single person and item entering it.
Even countries with open borders reserve the right, and have often exercised that right, to close their borders and enforce strict customs, immigration, and security laws.
It doesn't matter where. Europe, Asia, Africa, "good" countries, "bad" countries-- if you cross their border you can be compelled to unlock your phone.
If you think you live in a country that cannot do so, you are wrong. The only differentiating characteristic among all nations is the nature of the reaction if you refuse to comply.
> The only differentiating characteristic among all nations is the nature of the reaction if you refuse to comply.
You mean the nature ranging from to going to jail to you wasting a few hours more in the airport?
> if you cross their border you can be compelled to unlock your phone.
Do you have a source for this?
Such a shame to see that country go from what it was to what it is now.
It's like they've all decided "ok so we've done being strong and great, now let's try be the biggest pieces of shit we can be".
There's a funny story that Bill Binney tells, the former technical director of the NSA who blew the whistle on the spy programs following the patriot act, about when a couple of FBI agents were sent to his house to arrest him. He wryly says "I caused a problem for them" by telling them something they weren't cleared to know. The FBI guys radioed their superiors, and then were immediately ordered to get away from Binney
(Note that I’m speaking broadly when I say “right,” in the sense that these are human rights that should be universally respected. The UK certainly doesn’t seem to respect the right against self-incrimination, given that it charges people with a crime for not allowing a border agent to rifle through their phone.)
How can you trust him given his personal history of violence, fraud and lying? Are his accounts corroborated by someone reputable?
From his record on Wikipedia and the facts in this article, he's either an idiot with impulse-control issues, or a provocateur who repeatedly gets himself in trouble to play victim for views. Neither suggests a reliable narrator.
Guy been put through hell, in the new UK where free speech is nonexistent and people are imprisoned for opposing 'the party'.
Mind you, I'm not English nor do I live there, but it's scary seeing what is happening there and how it seems to be spreading
Media should call this waste of oxygen by his real name on the headline.
the independent have used the name people would recognise in their headline
The idiot whose name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is also known by the alias Tommy Robinson, amongst others. The aliases exist to protect the identity from the legal and moral consequences of the idiot’s speech. While I’m not sure there is value in always reminding every audience of the real identity every alias refers to, in this case he’s got a history of intentional name obfuscation.
In 2021, he was found to have libelled a 15-year-old refugee at a school in Huddersfield and was ordered to pay £100,000 plus legal costs. In 2021, he was subjected to a five-year stalking prevention order for harassing journalist Lizzie Dearden and her partner.”
Wow. Makes his alleged crime in this case, violation of an injunction, far more believable.