so 3 months imprisonment witohut trial or charge

Former Member

beautiful reichland we're becoming eh

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4411358.stm?display=1


i just wonder who the 30% who agree are, much like the people who agree with the whole ID card scheme etc :chin:


fucking scum though

Former Member

The 30% is people who think that "security" is more important that liberty, I'd guess.

Oh, and the law hasn't been passed yet.

Former Member

Tony Blair says he is not tempted to fight a fourth term as prime minister, despite a Newsnight poll suggesting a quarter of people want him to stay on.

Sauce

Thats more people than voted Labour in the last election......

:chin:

All these figures seem bloody suspect.

According to Radio4 Blair wants "90 days or nothing"

Hopefully he'll get the latter.

Former Member

So if 25% of the people want him to stay for another term, presumably 75% want him to fuck off promptly...

You have to feel sorry for Brown... :rolleyes:

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

The 30% is people who think that "security" is more important that liberty, I'd guess.

Oh, and the law hasn't been passed yet.

Not that I'm supporting this particular law, but you can't have liberty unless you have some sort of security. If you have liberty with no security - we can do anything we want, but we're all too scared to go outside our door without getting blown up.

The question is where should the line be drawn between the two...

Former Member

Isn't this wrong, keeping someone in prison for 90 days without charge?

Former Member

Yes. Very wrong. And uncalled for. Remember the prisoners in Britain's Guantanamo (aka HMP Belmarsh)? Locked up for up to two years and being charged with fuck all.

It's got little to do with security. How curious that as technology advances and we are able to see, hear, and communicate with the most remote parts of the planet instantly, we need 3 fucking months to do security checks on people. You have to wonder how they managed in the past... :rolleyes:

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

Sauce

He he, I thought I was the only one who did that sort of thing...

NQA wrote:

The question is where should the line be drawn between the two...

Indeed, I couldn't agree more. I tend to err on the side of liberty though, I have no faith that these powers wouldn't be abused.

Having said that, I was listening to an MP explain why he felt that 90 days was approprite. He trotted out the security services line about the need to collect evidence and then used the following to support his case that these laws would only be used sparingly. Since the Terrorism laws were introduced, which allowed for 14 days detention without charge, there have been 11 people arrested and detained for the full amount of time.

He was asked how many had been charged after the 14 days. Happily he said all eleven had been.

Sadly the interviewer missed the obvious question. So why is even more time needed?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

How curious that as technology advances and we are able to see, hear, and communicate with the most remote parts of the planet instantly, we need 3 fucking months to do security checks on people. You have to wonder how they managed in the past... :rolleyes:

In fairness, it's not about checking someones ID. It's about trying to "gather evidence".

In defence of the security services here, how long do you think it would take to go through the images of 88,000 CCTV cameras, which is apparently what is being done following the London Tube/Bus attacks...

Sometimes evidence takes a long time to collect. In this instance the services argue that if they have enough "intelligence" to arrest someone then they should on the basis that this will remove the individual as a threat, whilst they gather the evidence they need to get a conviction.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

Not that I'm supporting this particular law, but you can't have liberty unless you have some sort of security. If you have liberty with no security - we can do anything we want, but we're all too scared to go outside our door without getting blown up.

The question is where should the line be drawn between the two...

I think you've succumbed to what Michael Mansfield terms the politics of fear

The pattern is horribly familiar. A bomb outrage: innocent civilians are slaughtered and the government of the day feels compelled to posture a tough stance. Within days there is a raft of new measures creating new offences and powers under the heading "Anti-Terror". The statute book is bursting with such legislation. The question that never receives an adequate hearing in the debates which follow is, whether such legislation is even necessary, let alone effective. Conversely, can such legislation be counterproductive?

The short answer is that none of it, nor the facile vagueness of the new clauses, would have prevented what happened on 7 July. No one should be lulled into a false sense of security, and Charles Clarke should be asked how any of the new proposals, combined with all the previous Acts, would have made the slightest difference to not one but two attacks in July.

It seems to me that the tube is as packed as it ever was........ Londoners aren't paralysed by fear anymore. Men with rucksacks are once again invisible.

And, lets not forget that the more draconian the response, the greater the backlash - ask South Africa and Israel, the two "liberal" democracies that have made use of internment to deter "terror" ...........

I'm not scared NQA - and you're much harder than me - so what are you really saying?

Teh_Gerbil

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

i just wonder who the 30% who agree are, much like the people who agree with the whole ID card scheme etc :chin:

I agree with the idea of ID cards (Not this implemention though... I am it wasn't used well, to benefit us - instead it is a faulty, limited piece of crap.) but I disagree with this - it is a daft law empowering the government far too much.

Welcome to New Right Britain I'd say at this rate.

Former Member

what compensation will there be for those locked up for three months only to not be charged
three months is a long time away from your job ...your home ...both of which you could loose.

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

I think you've succumbed to what Michael Mansfield terms the politics of fear



It seems to me that the tube is as packed as it ever was........ Londoners aren't paralysed by fear anymore. Men with rucksacks are once again invisible.

And, lets not forget that the more draconian the response, the greater the backlash - ask South Africa and Israel, the two "liberal" democracies that have made use of internment to deter "terror" ...........

I'm not scared NQA - and you're much harder than me - so what are you really saying?

Er, never said I was scared - I'm not shaking whenever I see a man with a beard, so worry not.

Nor am i suggesting draconian measures, I even stated I don't believe in the 90 days. I do however take issue with the fact that every thing the Government does is wrong if it takes away some liberty. Each individual action needs to be judged against several criteria 1) is there a threat of terrorism (and I think the underground bombing shows there is) 2) will it increase security 3) does it have an impact on our liberties.

I suspect only those who actually support terrorism would complain if it increases security and doesn't damage liberty. And there's only a few Labour backbenchers who support things which don't effect security and have an impact on our liberties. The problem area exists where something increases security and also reduces our liberty - that is the problem area and I don't think decrying the measures without some understanding of why they are being proposed takes the debate forward in a constructive way.

As an aside your the first person I've ever known who's even considered Apartheid era South Africa a liberal democracy, I'd have thought not allowing the majority of your citizens to vote would automatically disqualify you from being at least a democracy and I would never have regarded Israel as a 'liberal' democracy, its probably better described as a 'theocratic' democracy.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

Each individual action needs to be judged against several criteria

Okay then...

1) is there a threat of terrorism (and I think the underground bombing shows there is)

yes there is, just as there has been since the early part of the last century, most notably in the last part.

More specifically would these measures have stopped the London attacks? No. The intelligence wasn't there inorder to even hold the "responsible" men for 2 hours, ;et alone 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 months.

For me that is the crux. It isn't this measure which is needed, for me this is about the Govt being seen to be doing something. What we actually need is to improve our iontelligence gathering ability. It's worth noting that the police already have the right to stop you, tap your phone, read your e-mail, not to mention CCTV etc...

2) will it increase security

Possibly. There is no clear evidence either way.

3) does it have an impact on our liberties.

Most definately yes.

Former Member

the home sec has said that the victims of terrorism won't get any extra dosh ...they will be treated the same as any other victim of crime so ...why can't suspected terrorists be treated like any other suspected criminal?

Former Member

It looks like Blair is going to go for the 90 days or nothing, it seemed for a while there would be a change, but no.

I'm guessing he know's the odds and will win, but I'm hoping that he has gone properly bonkers and is ignoring advice. A loss here would be excellent.

It isnt the civil liberties argument which is most important, it is the fact this measure will obviously back fire. Even if no people are detained for this 90 days it is the message this sends out, how many people in a Muslim community will want to come forward with information after this passes?

Former Member

So, do you reckon they'll get this through Parliament? I think Labour MPs will somehow be cowed into saying yes to it. Tories dare not vote against it. So yes, another step towards the Blair Reich.

Former Member

I'm suprised that no-one has noticed the flaw in the Governments plan. All any suspected terrorists have to do is claim to be an IRA man on the run after murdering a policeman or blowing up people commerating their war dead and he'll be let go straight away.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4421254.stm

Glad to know how much the Government values the lives of its people - cunts, the lot of them.

Former Member

I suspect this legislation is less to do with protecting the "general public" and more to do with protecting government ministers and their cronies from harm.

Former Member

Yes NQA, that sucks too.

Still doesn't make this law right though.

Former Member

And here is the good news.

I must admit I'm not feeling quite so cynical about democracy right now...