Government may want tougher terror controls.
17 October 2006, 12:58 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
Still maintain the normal people living normal lives are unaffected.
Realistically what curbs on freedom has anyone experienced apart from supposedly longer queues at airports and not being able to clip their nails on board?
Realistically what curbs on freedom has anyone experienced apart from supposedly longer queues at airports and not being able to clip their nails on board?
Control orders were created from the need to find another way of dealing with people believed to pose a threat to national security when there is not enough evidence to bring them to trial.
This could be because the evidence against them has been collected by bugging the suspect - and is therefore inadmissible - or because using it could reveal intelligence sources.
Control orders contain conditions restricting the behaviour and movement of the recipient.
In some cases, they effectively allow the authorities to keep suspects under house arrest.
Interim orders, signed by the home secretary, must be referred to a judge within seven days for confirmation.
The control orders can:
-Ban possession or use of specified articles or substances and prohibit the use of certain services, such as the internet or phones.
-Restrict work or business, restrict association or communication with certain individuals, or other people generally.
-Restrict a suspect's place of residence or who is allowed into the premises.
-Require a suspect to be at specified places or in a particular area at certain times or days; put a specific 24-hour ban on movements and order the surrender of a passport.
-Require a suspect to allow officials to search his home and allow them to remove items from premises for tests.
-Require a suspect to be monitored by electronic tagging
This could be because the evidence against them has been collected by bugging the suspect - and is therefore inadmissible - or because using it could reveal intelligence sources.
Control orders contain conditions restricting the behaviour and movement of the recipient.
In some cases, they effectively allow the authorities to keep suspects under house arrest.
Interim orders, signed by the home secretary, must be referred to a judge within seven days for confirmation.
The control orders can:
-Ban possession or use of specified articles or substances and prohibit the use of certain services, such as the internet or phones.
-Restrict work or business, restrict association or communication with certain individuals, or other people generally.
-Restrict a suspect's place of residence or who is allowed into the premises.
-Require a suspect to be at specified places or in a particular area at certain times or days; put a specific 24-hour ban on movements and order the surrender of a passport.
-Require a suspect to allow officials to search his home and allow them to remove items from premises for tests.
-Require a suspect to be monitored by electronic tagging
Now here's the rub. This could happen to you, tomorrow. And there is not a single thing you can do about it. You can't take it to court because of precisely the same reason the authorites won't take you to court - national security or lack of evidence.
In other words, you will stay under a control order for as long as an arbitary panel deems fit - You have no legal recourse, you cannot challenge the decision.
And remember you have been convicted of nothing, you have had no case put before you to answer.
You seem to be making the assumption that because control orders have been issued, then there must be intentions on the part of these people to commit crimes. I.e. No smoke without fire. My question is, how can we possibly know? These could well be ordinary members of the public that the authorites have decided present a risk.
If you said to me that 20 years ago people could effectively be held on house arrest, without charge, for an indefinite period of time, I would assume that the Soviets had managed to invade.
17 October 2006, 03:06 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
We are faced with a newer enemy, one that is totally unafraid of killing themselves, their wives or even their children in the process.
Are we prepared to let them go to Afghanistan and train in camps, let them learn about explosives and mass murder, let them communicate and send emails (possible coded), let them spread dissent amongst their own communities and do absolutely nothing until they are caught red-handed in a Tube station with a bomb strapped to their bodies?
Because at the moment they can sneer at the police and do all that without a single repercussion.
And don't be so worried about power-mad politicians, the real reason why there is so much persistant prosecution and invention of new fines for the averag person is solely to do with making money for government and councils, because they spend it so irresponsibly. Anyone who works in the public service will confirm that there is virtually no management or control at all.
Are we prepared to let them go to Afghanistan and train in camps, let them learn about explosives and mass murder, let them communicate and send emails (possible coded), let them spread dissent amongst their own communities and do absolutely nothing until they are caught red-handed in a Tube station with a bomb strapped to their bodies?
Because at the moment they can sneer at the police and do all that without a single repercussion.
And don't be so worried about power-mad politicians, the real reason why there is so much persistant prosecution and invention of new fines for the averag person is solely to do with making money for government and councils, because they spend it so irresponsibly. Anyone who works in the public service will confirm that there is virtually no management or control at all.
teflon created the biggest double negative when he and WW introduced the human rights act. he wants tougher anti terrorism laws, she wants innocence for all. Unfortunatly the two cannot co exsist effectivly. So he puts them away, she lets them out, what sense is there in that. However if you are innocent, then you get processed and tagged by the system to boot.
what ever happened to the good old bobby on the beat, the eyes and ears of the community?? today its cameras and technology, there ok, but only as good as the data they recieve.
we are in the grip of statistical governing and policing, where individuals dont count, but targets and policys do. unfortuatly they discriminate, despite assurances they dont.
We have lost all sense of checks and balances, and unless redressed, will move ever closer to a police / big brother state.
the trouble is now, that teflon could say we were going to be invaded tommorow, and we could be, but the spin and crying wolf, thats so prevelant at the top today, has clouded the real issues. Once trust is lost, its near on impossible to restore it. Even when we change our next hmg there will allways be an element of doubt.
Mart
17 October 2006, 03:52 PM
#33
My point is that I believe that the rights and protection of the majority of people in this country far outweighs the human rights of the few people that would be subject to control orders, and the even fewer amount that may incorrectly be subject to control orders.
Also don't forget that the police force is largely there to protect the government and society as a whole. They owe absolutely nothing to the individual.
Also don't forget that the police force is largely there to protect the government and society as a whole. They owe absolutely nothing to the individual.
17 October 2006, 04:13 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
Also don't forget that the police force is largely there to protect the government and society as a whole. They owe absolutely nothing to the individual.
Dave
17 October 2006, 04:36 PM
#35
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hutton_d
If that consent is removed then they are useless.
Dave
Dave
17 October 2006, 05:05 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the definition on consent is similar to the new rulings on rape where yes can really mean no 
17 October 2006, 09:26 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Steve Whitehorn
This is what can happen when emergency powers are envoked to ´protect´ the population from a threat real or percieved.
Reichstag Fire Decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am not saying we are going to end up like **** germany but it started in a similar way with the suspension of civil liberties.
However we dont want terrorists killing inocent people - so money and recource needs to be put into surveillance etc. The big question is, which none of us can answer, Is how real is this threat? How much of it is percieved,a load of hype that is used to take away our civil liberties....Or is there a very real threat.
At the moment they seem to be picking up young guys with terrorist intentions making home made devices but who are no match for our security services. I don´t read about an expert team of terrorists in their 30s and 40s trained to nines in counter/anti surveillance explosives etc being picked up.
Who knows...we dont...perhaps the threat is very real???
Steve
Reichstag Fire Decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am not saying we are going to end up like **** germany but it started in a similar way with the suspension of civil liberties.
However we dont want terrorists killing inocent people - so money and recource needs to be put into surveillance etc. The big question is, which none of us can answer, Is how real is this threat? How much of it is percieved,a load of hype that is used to take away our civil liberties....Or is there a very real threat.
At the moment they seem to be picking up young guys with terrorist intentions making home made devices but who are no match for our security services. I don´t read about an expert team of terrorists in their 30s and 40s trained to nines in counter/anti surveillance explosives etc being picked up.
Who knows...we dont...perhaps the threat is very real???
Steve
interesting of the 6 articles within the degree, we by one way or the other seem to be well on the way
Quoted from wikpedia
The decree consisted of six articles. Article 1 suspended most of the civil liberties set forth in the Weimar Constitution — freedom of the person, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, the secrecy of the post and telephone, not to mention the protection of property and the home. Articles 2 and 3 allowed the Reich government to assume powers normally reserved to the federal states (Länder). Articles 4 and 5 established draconian penalties for certain offenses, including the death penalty for arson to public buildings. Article 6 simply stated that the decree took effect on the day of its proclamation.
I,m sure there allready working on the others!
Mart
17 October 2006, 09:33 PM
#38
What absolute rubbish!!
I'll ask again. What freedoms has anyone on this board lost in the last 20 years? In fact we have more freedom than ever but most of you are too selfish and paranoid to see it.
I'll ask again. What freedoms has anyone on this board lost in the last 20 years? In fact we have more freedom than ever but most of you are too selfish and paranoid to see it.
17 October 2006, 10:05 PM
#39
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
My point is that I believe that the rights and protection of the majority of people in this country far outweighs the human rights of the few people that would be subject to control orders, and the even fewer amount that may incorrectly be subject to control orders.
There have been cases in The Netherlands where obvious terrorist suspects have been set free because just plotting to perform a terrorist act was seemingly not a crime. One of the suspect individuals concerned had in his possession the plans to Schiphol airport, a nuclear powerstation and the equivalent of the equivalent of the house of comments. Obviously normal, everyday articles.
He was also found to be in possession of what he believed to be a fertiliser bomb, but was set free because upon testing, the substance was found to be inert.Samir Azzouz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He's up in court again at the moment for plotting an attack on the Dutch MI5 building, but I expect he'll be walking free again.
Surely that's correct as technically he isn't guilty?
From my standpoint, any legislation that could deny such a piece of **** a fair trial would be a good thing. Just make sure that the bill has a sunset clause after, say, 2 years to prevent it becoming permanent. It should be debated by parliament and only renewed if still found to be necessary at that time.
Can't say fairer than that.
18 October 2006, 10:37 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
What absolute rubbish!!
I'll ask again. What freedoms has anyone on this board lost in the last 20 years? In fact we have more freedom than ever but most of you are too selfish and paranoid to see it.
I'll ask again. What freedoms has anyone on this board lost in the last 20 years? In fact we have more freedom than ever but most of you are too selfish and paranoid to see it.
If I wanted to protest in front of parliament about this outrageous decision I'd fall foul of the new law about protesting within 1km of Parliament Square without prior police consent.
I am sure that there are many more, but that's just a very small sample.
18 October 2006, 10:58 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
I think it's a good idea, we aren't strict enough with people these days.
Many of these people take far too many liberties and abuse their so-called "human rights" while taking the **** out of this country and it's authorities.
Many of these people take far too many liberties and abuse their so-called "human rights" while taking the **** out of this country and it's authorities.
If the law was upheld to the greater extent then there'd be less of a problem anyway...
The police don't live "at the end of your street" anymore. Any time most people will see them close up is when a horde of them descends mob handed.
The police are too remote and distanced from the average person.
Turn the last statement on its head and "the most the police see of the general public is when they're fighting or thieving".
Welcome to the former "great Britain". Services will now be provided within ever decreasing budgets and people will vote for it.
J.
18 October 2006, 11:06 AM
#43
Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
From July next year I won't be able to go to the pub and spark a cigarette up.
If I wanted to protest in front of parliament about this outrageous decision I'd fall foul of the new law about protesting within 1km of Parliament Square without prior police consent.
I am sure that there are many more, but that's just a very small sample.
If I wanted to protest in front of parliament about this outrageous decision I'd fall foul of the new law about protesting within 1km of Parliament Square without prior police consent.
I am sure that there are many more, but that's just a very small sample.
And Parliament Square was an absolute disgrace with all those filthy protesters and their placards. Would any other country in the world allow tramps to spoil their parliament buildings, especially those with such heritage as the UKs
18 October 2006, 11:08 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
And from July next year I'll have the freedom to enjoy smoke free air in all the pubs I go to.
And Parliament Square was an absolute disgrace with all those filthy protesters and their placards. Would any other country in the world allow tramps to spoil their parliament buildings, especially those with such heritage as the UKs
And Parliament Square was an absolute disgrace with all those filthy protesters and their placards. Would any other country in the world allow tramps to spoil their parliament buildings, especially those with such heritage as the UKs
19 October 2006, 09:12 AM
#46
Britain is an easier target, they have concluded, because of its traditional links with Pakistan which is visited by tens of thousands of people each year. Intelligence agencies have found it very difficult to penetrate the camps there.
Britain now top terror target
So what do we do about this sort of thing? Where we have people proven to have gone to a training camp and are imminently able to carry out an attack.
19 October 2006, 09:25 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
from
from
Britain now top terror target
So what do we do about this sort of thing? Where we have people proven to have gone to a training camp and are imminently able to carry out an attack.
Britain is an easier target, they have concluded, because of its traditional links with Pakistan which is visited by tens of thousands of people each year. Intelligence agencies have found it very difficult to penetrate the camps there.
Britain now top terror target
So what do we do about this sort of thing? Where we have people proven to have gone to a training camp and are imminently able to carry out an attack.
19 October 2006, 09:28 AM
#48
Originally Posted by OllyK
If you have your way, we'll hold without the 10's of thousands above, without trial, on the off chance that they may be a terrorist.
19 October 2006, 11:01 AM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
Well I'm still waiting for an intelligent alternative to be suggested by anyone else. Did we let 10's of thousands of Germans wander around the country in 1940? The British had a different spirit back then though.
19 October 2006, 11:30 AM
#50
Originally Posted by OllyK
Nor did we arrest every British citizen that visited Germany, occupied France, Italy or Japan between 1939 and 1945 wich is closer to what your suggesting. The recent acts of terrorism have been conducted by a rather small number of British Islamic fundamentalists, not Pakistani nationals.
You can be as paranoid as you like but at the end of the day the people under control orders or those arrested under the terrorism act are not the average Muslim family that is content and settled in the UK.
19 October 2006, 11:48 AM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
To clarify I wasn't necessarily suggesting Pakistani nationals, my worry, for example, is someone who has been proven to go on a terrorist training camp or has links with terror camps or groups. A loaded gun if you like.
The sort of person that is obviously against the UK but hasn't committed a provable criminal offence.
You can be as paranoid as you like but at the end of the day the people under control orders or those arrested under the terrorism act are not the average Muslim family that is content and settled in the UK.
20 October 2006, 02:51 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it comes to what to do about our present status as a top target for Al Quaeda KiwiGT, maybe if you were to apply your policies to the disposal of Billy Boy and his cronies, that might do a lot of good where the rest of us are concerned.
Les
Les
20 October 2006, 04:00 PM
#54
Originally Posted by Leslie
When it comes to what to do about our present status as a top target for Al Quaeda KiwiGT, maybe if you were to apply your policies to the disposal of Billy Boy and his cronies, that might do a lot of good where the rest of us are concerned.
Les
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Oz
ScoobyNet General
19
25 September 2001 07:19 AM