Suresh: we AREN'T bothered if a "piece of ****'s" rights are infringed, we are worried about misuse, the sort that could infringe MY rights, or yours, or an old man at the Labour conference? Or anyone who doesn't agree with Lying Labour or Tone?

Are you willing to risk that?

Alcazar

 

100% Spot On. This isn't about defending the rights of a 'terrorist' it's about abuse of power. Show me a policeman that actively campaigns for police powers to be reduced.

What exactly is wrong with the current system that requires a judicial review after 14 days? People seem to have the impression that it's 14 days and then they're released - that is not the case - as long as the police can make a good case for detaining the person.

We all too freely give up our rights without questioning why they are done. Just as the US used 9/11 as an excuse to go invading Afghanistan / Iraq and god-knows where next (because it will continue), so our government uses events in July to the same effect to introduce new wide ranging powers in the name of 'national security'.

You have to start wondering why these laws weren't introduced in the 70s in mainland Britain when we were in the grip of bombing campaign by the IRA. The use of detainment without trial in Northern Ireland has also been highly questionable.

Does anyone really believe that extended detainment without trial is right for a supposed democratic government in a 'free' society? This is more like China.

I simply don't believe the arguement that they need more time because of the increase in high tech resources that have to be investigated. My company was involved in the setup of the National High Tech Crimes Unit - in fact we trained most of the guys who now work there. They have huge resources (and that doesn't include M15 / MI6 and GCHQ's own resources).

We really do need to look beyond The Sun's headlines on this one.

 

The comment about the illegal was supposed to be slightly tongue in cheek - BUT - if I was being chased by coppers with guns ( and this bloke didnt just run away from them for 5 seconds, then get shot ) I would stop - especially given what had happened a few days before and knowing they are likely to be a bit edgy.

But then again, I wouldnt be working as an illegal immigrant in the first place, nor is my first instinct when approached by the police to do a runner as I dont have anything to hide or worry about.

I do think its an extreme reaction to the bill to worry about ordinary citizens being banged up for annoying the police though - I cant see it being likely to happen. The police may use the powers to keep hold of some known ****** like a drug dealer or prolific thief to disrupt them, but they hardly have the resources ( or space ) to just hold anyone they want for a laugh.

I have heard as well that they will only be able to hold someone for 30 days before they have to go before a judge to get the period extended by proving that there is a legitimate reason to hold them. Some copper saying 'he called me a tosser' is harldy likely to qualify.

People may worry, and see flaws in the bill, but what is the alternative ? not let the police hold suspected terrorist long enough to get the evidence they need and question them ? Give them free reign to carry on as they are ?

Seems the lesser of quite a few evils to me.

 

My belief in government has been erroded over the last few years by the deceit, spin and incompetence that is new labour. How can we seriously be expected to buy into their proposals based on their past performance?


Alcazar - good points, well made sir!

 

Bury your head in the sand if you want.

All I know is that after the shoot to kill policy we have 1 dead Brazillian electrian and 4 alive and well terrorists having their human rights protected by Cherie Blair and her mates.

If you think the police wont abuse these powers go and ask the 92 year old who was detained under the current powers for saying "bollox" to the home secretary !

 

Current BBC Poll:

Terror laws: How long should suspects be held?
90 days 43%
42 days 6%
28 days 23%
No change 28%
39755 Votes Cast

 

His name's George Bush - Not God

Tories soft on crime - Lewis soft in the head

 

Yes! And I've got brown skin, so am about 10million times more-likely to be selected as a terrorist suspect as you are.

But any changes to existing laws should be automatically repealed after, say 12month period to allow for evaluation. I don't think sitting on our hands and letting the scum walk because evidence could not be evaluated is an option either.

Suresh

 

The old **** at the labour party was about a far from a terror suspect as you can get.

You honestly trust the police not to abuse these powers !

You're off you head !

 

As far as I can see the police are ALREADY abusing the "public order" act, and have abused the terrorism act at least once.

That's enough for me

NO MORE!

Alcazar

 

Here's a scene for you.


A bunch of muslims are staging a protest at the next Labour Party Conference.

Tony's private army arrest them all and hold them for 90 days because they represent a "real and immediate" threat to our great leader.

After 90 days they're released with no charge.

Don't say that would never happen - the old **** was an attendee at the ******* last conference and he was held for a couple of hours as a terrorist !

This will be lawful by this evening .

 

there have been a few points here about trust. while on paper, this could be a good thing, in reality - and in the hands of this scheming lot - it's a pretty scary escalation; work fills time available so next thing you know, 180 days will be needed.

i'd prefer more money being committed to getting the resourcing right so 14 days remains sufficient to build the case.

anyway, am i right in saying that as things stand, if a judge can be convinced that 14 days is insufficient, he can grant an extension to custody on a case-by-case basis? HG calling telboy, HG calling telboy ...

 

So, well over half the votes are against the 90 day period. Most people want 28 days or no change.

 

Are you sure? I thought it had to get past the Lords first. They'll save us from the New Labour Politbüro.

 

That's what I thought happened. But look at this:

So even if 90 days becomes law it would still have to be approved on a case by case, week by week basis by a judge according to Home Secretary Dumbo.

I really can't see why they are so determined to get this through. Once again it's come down to Blair's ego and desperation to assert some kind of authority over his party.

 

**

which begs the questions, "that's the point of all this?"

so the judiciary has to work a little harder and judges get woken at 2am to approve extensions to custody. strikes me that in cases of national security, special branch will get their extensions approved anyway.

it comes back to the point of ID cards; if they're not going to prevent terrorism, then what's the point?

all sounds typically orwellian to me ...

 

found this on www.b3ta.com and thought it appropriate!!

 

Not really.

The greater majority in fact want a change to 28 days or more, with the majority of those actually agreeing with the Government that 90 days is right.


VOTE RESULTS

Terror laws: How long should suspects be held?

90 days
42%
42 days
6%
28 days
24%
Remain at 14 days
28%
70980 Votes Cast

 

Here's a 'stat' for you:

MPs rejected the plans by 322 votes to 291 - a bigger than expected majority of 31. It is Mr Blair's first defeat since Labour came to power in 1997.

Thank god not everyone is as stupid as the great unwashed of this country.

 

My faith in our parliamentary system was partly restored last night. The unbelivable arrogance shown by Blair and Charles Clarke was staggering. I think this got up the nose of many Labour MPs as much the 90 day issue. I also think that the events at the Labour Party Conference probably sealed the fate of this. We've still doubled the time that someone can be detained, which to many would still be too long. To me this seems a sensible compromise - if the police can't gather enough information to continue to justify the detainment after 28 days, then they don't deserve to be in the job!

 

The 49 Labour rebel MPs who voted against the 90 days represent areas where the great unwashed of the country actually live (check for yourself).

So you are the one who is siding with the unwashed!! Twit.

 

So you've been to all these areas and know everyone who stays there? Twit.

 

Intresting number of ex-cabinet members...