Changing the law to reverse the burdan of proof is going way too far and is a dangerous power to give to the authorities for criminal trials. I wouldn't accept it.

The Dutch case was formally thrown out because of lack of evidence. The suspect is in custody again though...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4341784.stm

The police believe increasing the time available to gather evidence is an important step in securing a terrorist conviction. How is it that you seem to have better information than they do? I suspect you don't.

 

edit - sorry I mis-read your original post!

 

remember when the next nuke wipes out some town / city.

PSL is the man behind it!!! or so he says!!


if anyone deserved 90 days away its you mate!!!


M

 

I'm not, I'm concerned about the rights of the general, law abiding innocent public, victim or not.

You really don't have a clue do you?

Please explain how exactly the 90 day law will prevent further terrorist attacks. In detail please, pointing out how existing legislation and requests to extend detention based on available evidence are inadequate.


You really are loosing the plot. A new law hasn't been introduced, the Police just wanted more time. The cracking statement of late that "one building took 2 weeks to make safe before forensics could get in". Err if there is that much explosive about, how much convicing do you think a judge will require to grant an extension for detention?

Terrorist suspects like the Brazillian electrician? Terrorist suspects like anybody coming out of a mosque?

Neither could I, but I would give a toss if some poor innocent (and we seem to be getting more of those than actual terrorists of late) was banged up for 28 (or worse 90) days because the police felt like it.

 

Have to say it's amusing watching the remaining Blair devotees maneuvering in their doomed attempts to defend their idol.

The harder they try, the more proposterous the statements they make. What a laugh!! LOL

 

Pete - please stop talking out of your backside. The BBC poll showed that over half the people rejected the idea of 90 days. The latest poll on the BBC website has over 60% agreeing that the politicians made the right choice. Hardly going against the will of the majority of the nation is it?

 

What I will remember is that Blair's inept foreign policies and his illegal invasion of another country is what caused the 'redicalisation' of British Muslims in the first place.

 

Chris - Pete know's no other way

 

Superb typo

 

No where did this legislation state enforced when the police feel like it

I think those not backing this really are just jumping on a Oh! no not 90 days locked up! band wagon,

Thats not what this policy was about. The 90 day policy included a valuation every seven days by an independent, to justify the extension.

Why dont some of you guys put these potential terrorist up in your homes and protect them from our laws our way of life, Hey heres an idea let them use your sheds garages to build bombs too.....
(some veiws on here are pretty scary or your values for life are low)


These terrist dont just blatantly plan an attack it can be a mild build up over years and gathering evidance can be long and drawn out affair.

terrorist should be given no quarter, if they were innocent then this would be proved within the normal period,

But those with a some what questionable background and funds linked through out the world with terrorist organisation are more difficult to investigate so the 90 day rule would be a huge benefit

 

Hermann Goering:

 

scary eh...

 

No, but they have already show that's how they apply it. May I remind you of the old duffer at the NL conference. This complete abuse of the legislation by the police should be serving as a warning to people. Add this to previous claims that the force is institutionally racist and I wonder how many blacks, asians and other non-whites now feel safer?

 

How many people were killed by terrorists on UK soil this year? Last year? How does that compare to the number of people killed on UK soil by non-terrorists (i.e. murders)? Which is the bigger problem to society in general in actual fact and in perception?

 

I hate people dropping litter. 90 days is too good for them.

 

"I don't like the look of him Sarge.... 90 days in the slammer? Yeah, why not, we've got the power"

 

When Tony is finally kicked out on his **** then I would suggest he takes up singing -
his first record release can be a cover of 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word to say'!

 

You mean somebody like Lord Hutton?

 

Precisely!

Les

 

"The argument is that fundamental liberties are being sacrificed here for no good reason. Disturbingly, this suggests that — even after the July London bombings — influential people still don’t seem to grasp just what we are up against.

Quite simply, the threat posed by Islamist terrorism is so completely different from previous terrorist threats that it requires new attitudes and new procedures to defend ourselves against it. The rules of the game, as the Prime Minister said, have to change.

Earlier this month, a paper published by the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch spelled this out very clearly. In the past, the police waited before making arrests until at or near the point of a terrorist attack, so that they could assemble enough evidence to make the case stand up in court.

But unlike previous terrorists, those threatening us today give no warnings and seek to inflict as many casualties as possible.

So the police can no longer afford to take the risk of waiting. To protect the public, they are therefore forced to arrest suspects well before they have finished their investigations. Given the global nature of the terrorist networks, those investigations can involve inquiries on several continents, involving hundreds of computers and with many different languages to be translated.

In such circumstances, the two-week limit for questioning is clearly absurd. Indeed, it has already posed insuperable difficulties in adequately preparing terrorist cases for trial.

To describe the proposed extension as ‘internment’ or a ‘police state’ is grotesque. Internment is the random and indefinite incarceration of a group of people. What is being proposed, by contrast, is a limited period of detention targeted at individuals in a specific situation.

Despite reports to the contrary the independent terrorism law watchdog, Lord Carlile QC, has supported the case for a 90-day limit. Indeed he underlined how current procedures have left us unprotected when he wrote:

'I am satisfied beyond doubt that there have been situations in which significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts have gone unprosecuted as a result of the time limitations placed on the control authorities following arrest. This is not in the public interest.' "

Extracts from Melanie Philips, puts it better than I could - but put it it does!!

Pete

 

The Conservatives have got themselves in a guddle over terror. They hoped to inflict a defeat on the government at all costs. Now they look as though they are soft on terror.

Tony Blair wins either way!!


The chances are there will be another terrorist attack on Britain before the next election and the Tories are going to look weak as they opposed measures which might have stopped it.

Pete

 

If there was a terror suspect and it was imperative that he was held for an extended period in order to build a case, then so be it. My concern is that these powers would be abused in the same way that other anti-terror laws have been abused. Trust is missing.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the London bombers "off the radar" (what a horrible phrase)? In which case, even if the law allowed people to be held for 365 days without charge, they wouldn't have been stopped. Hmmm.

 

If you randomly asked 7000 people what they thought you wouldn't of got 86% to agree with Tony Blair, the people who disagreed with him didn't bother ringing in because the vote went their way

 

There's been a discussion amongst some friends of mine regarding this - and I think the following is a rather well put point:

"A woman whose mother was blown up in the Enniskillen rememberance day
bomb was giving a very articulate account at how she feels to see the
same government which let terrorists out of jail, is offering amnesties
to those on the run, and which whilst in opposition invited Sinn Fein /
IRA leaders to Westminster change it's tune in response to headlines and
demand locking people up for 90 days on "suspicion"

For those with short memories "internment" as it was then called had no
real effect in NI other than to alienate large sections of the
population outraged at detention without trial - and was violently
opposed by the labour party.

Also amusing to see the reaction of labour "yes" voters to have chunks
of magna carta (much of which is still common law afaik) quoted at them.

Goodness knows I have a strong enough view on terrorists, but I don't
like the idea of locking people away - if there's not enough evidence to
charge them, then there isn't a case for locking them up for some
extended period of time - especially when convicted terrorists are being
let out in droves, and those against whom there is pretty good suspicion
(eg the woman from Sinn Fein's Washington/new york office) being
promised amnesty.

If the NI politicians had my brand of black humour they'd invite Osama
bin Laden for tea and cake at Stormont castle ....."

Reading this Pete? LABOUR OPPOSED the bill for internment.... for KNOWN TERRORISTS... and then started inviting the self same people for lunch.

Double Standards? Hypocrites?

Our country safe in THEIR hands? I don't think so.

Oh, and in case you're wondering what I'm talking about (Magna Carta), here you go:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terro...634983,00.html

 

Yes, but it's a shame you didn't read what I wrote

I repeat for your benefit:-

"Quite simply, the threat posed by Islamist terrorism is so completely different from previous terrorist threats that it requires new attitudes and new procedures to defend ourselves against it. The rules of the game, as the Prime Minister said, have to change"

Pete

 

What relevance or validity do phone votes have?
Self selecting sample so easily, on issues like this, manipulated using "activists".
No statistical use.
A fact not lost on the scientifically trained Mr. Lewis I'm sure.

 

Explain some more lewis, in your own words this time. Why is it so different?

 

Deserves being quoted again I think.

 

It's a pity you didn't read my post Pete...

While this Government is releasing CONVICTED terrorists.... and granting amnesty to suspected ones, it is attempting to push through an unconstitutional law that directly impinges upon innocent peoples liberties.

Oh, but of course. Your idiotic reply will simply be "the innocent have nothing to fear"