First off, the presumption of innocence has gone. Completely. People are now assumed to be guilty of something based on a police officer’s hunch. They are then searched in public if they want to prove themselves innocent. If they refuse to prove themselves innocent they are assumed to be guilty (without trial or evidence, still all on a hunch) and arrested. There is no defence they can offer and no prospect of representation at this stage. If you refuse to prove your own innocence then you actually do become guilty of breaking a different law. Amazing dismantlement of generations of legal practices.

The thing which really irks me is the fact this is seen as “acceptable” because every one assumes it will just be scary black kids who get stopped (as it was in the past) and this is acceptable. In this it mirrors the removal of prima facie evidence requirements for an extradition which Lord Rees-Mogg has now decided is a bad idea. Will the likes of Libby be equally enthusiastic when journalists are stopped and searched to see if they are carrying illegal official secrets? (The release of which can endanger hundreds or thousands more lives than a 14 year old with a knife)

It is undeniable that murder is a terrible crime, but despite the outpourings from the press it is still a rare enough crime to make headline news. The things which damage ordinary people are carried out by a broader segment of society than the wannabe black gangstas in the inner city hellholes like Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool. Stop and Search powers, like all forms of “profiling” carried out by the “average” copper on the street is always going to be an empty gesture. Shame on Jarrett for saying otherwise, double shame on Libby Purves for supporting it.

I look forward to the day when police are allowed to enter your house without a warrant to see if you have any illegal items. Surely that is the real best way to reduce crime…