If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
a uk police state
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4207295.stm
charles clarke wants to bring in house arrests for those SUSPECTED of being a threat to national security.....
which brutal tyrants do you want me to compare that too....
if there people were so guilty, charge them, try them and prove them guilty....... if not they can go about as they want, obviously police can obtain tapping orders if they can prove theres some chance theyre guilty
i cant wait to get out of this place, its scary what we're becoming, its the states duty of the burden of proof of guilt, not you proving your innocent
charles clarke wants to bring in house arrests for those SUSPECTED of being a threat to national security.....
which brutal tyrants do you want me to compare that too....
if there people were so guilty, charge them, try them and prove them guilty....... if not they can go about as they want, obviously police can obtain tapping orders if they can prove theres some chance theyre guilty
i cant wait to get out of this place, its scary what we're becoming, its the states duty of the burden of proof of guilt, not you proving your innocent
0
Comments
But they were being detained indefinately in prison until the Law Lords said it was unlawfull, at least it's a step in the right direction. It has happened before, fascist political leaders/activists in WW2 were either imprisoned or placed under house arrest.
Not a perfect solution, but better than locking them up. I personally think that they should be given free reign until proven guilty, but then again I'm just a 17 year old lad with an opinion, the people who make these decisions are probably better informed. But then again, it's our responsibility as citizens to challenge the decisions that are made, so I stand by my opinion
what about the guilty people?
the trouble is ...i'm a threat to national harmony at the moment ...not security but the line that will be drwn between the two will be ...what and where exactly?
IS ANYONE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT ...?NO ...
id start a revolution but im too busy with my 10pm appointment with mediaplayer and a video file
yes you can all chortle but ...
well i didnt really have that 10pm, but im glad someone picked up on the subtlety of the comment
You have to wonder what's wrong with the good old 'arrest them, charge them and send them to trial' formula.
It seems that Britain and Burma have more things in common than just the first letter of their names...
Actually we dont share the first letter anymore, its called Myanmar and has been for a while. Sorry.
As for this, yes, there are some people who want to do the UK harm, but by coming down hard we are only breading more terrorists.
And where does it end, if you are locking someone up because they are a threat, when do you release them? How do you know when they arent a threat anymore? When they are dead?
I really can't understand why they can't bring them to trial though. The excuse of 'ongoing investigations' is the most pathetic one this government has come up with yet.
It might all come down to scoring brownie points with our Masters across the pond...
Also some evidence in based on wire taps, which you cant use in court. Plus some of those wire taps might not have been completely legal.
i dont mind about phone taps, if to get a court order they have to show a judge that theres is reasonable proof you may be involved in a crime which requires it, what i dont trust is where they only take segments and use it against you, and there is such a thing as context, which peopel do seem to forget these days
Not hard to guard against. You just make the Prosecution disclose all the tapes to the defence before trial.
If they are worried that the tapes making all the tapes available to the defence because it might harm other on-going investigations they'd have to take it to the Judge who could make a ruling, saying that the bits of the tape the prosecution want to keep secret a)not relevant to the defence's case or b) important enough that the defence has a right to them.
If it's case (b) the prosecution then have to decide whether its worth going on with the prosecution or letting it go to get a bigger fish later.
you either use a whole tape, or none at all, context is the key in many cases and you would bugger a case up if you snipped even the smallest bits out
if youve ever seen yes minister, a comparison would be freak weather might 'ruin' other tapes that could clear him.....
I entirely agree, which is why laws like this should never be allowed.
They do nothing to protect the innocent, indeed they actually put the innocent at risk because they give too much power to one man.