perhaps you should explain to your friendly bobby what Section 44 part (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 says:

(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

---

So to me this means that they can only search for and sieze items which are intended to be used for terrorist purposes. (I wouldn't like to get caugth with any restricted/illegal substances though)

The problem here is the vague, loose usage of "connection
with terrorism".

Terrorism itself isn't clearly defined, let alone anything
that has a connection with it.

An address book can be seen as a connection. A map can
be see as a connection. A mobile phone can be seen as a
connection. Anything written on a piece of paper might
be an encrypted message.

Unlike section 60 wich is clearly for weapons only, this
can really be used for anything.

It is the state that decides who is or is not a "terrorist" and the Terrorism Act 2000, like the PTA it replaced, is a civil libertarian's nightmare. Even peaceful dissent can be called terrorism if the state feels so minded. And if the international situation is tense like now, if there are diplomatic favours to be done for foreign countries which want certain groups proscribed, or for any number of other reasons, then the Terrorism Act is being used.

Just wanted to add that 'terrorism' is clearly defined in the TA2000, but the clear definition is extremely wide-reaching.
The link is to the Stationery Office online text of the TA2000

It's pretty clear that cutting fences is damage to property and the point of cutting fences is to influence the government so those two things add up to terrorism.

The TA2000 applies to brits abroad too.
Oddly, the british military threatening to cause damage to property in Iraq in order to influence the government there does not seem to be considered terrorism.