unclebuck

90 days?? I think not. So, Billy boy is accusing everyone (and that is just about everyone) who opposes his madcap schemes to further turn the country into a police state of "woeful complacency".
LOL - when is he going to realise that the game is up as far as he's concerned. Everyone can see through his schemey schemes now. We all know he's a lieing two faced *******.

The only reason he can come up with to support his 90 day detention without charge proposal is that "The police have made it absolutely clear the importance they attach to 90 days. "

Well, I'm sure the Police would say that wouldn't they? They are bound to support any poposal that gives them more power and further erodes our civil liberties. I can't think of a better reason for NOT doing it. Billy however doesn't seem to understand this in his increasing desperation to 'create his legacy'.

Personally, I can't see him lasting much longer. Nobody seems to take him even vaguely seriously anymore - and rightly so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4411358.stm

The Zohan

I was listening to any questions (R4) yesterday and an PM or senior cop was on about the flat in London that one of the bombers was holed up in took two weeks just to make safe so that forensics could get inside and start to gather what they need to help convict. I feel 90 days is a long time but feel it needs to be long enough to allow the security forces to do their job properly. As far as i am concerend they can keep suspected terrorists for as long as it takes as long as they have sufficient grounds to do so.

Hopwever i do not trust Blair and this government as far as i could chuck him/them and i do worry about how these powers can be used against anyone the government feels they want to.

Now a conspiracy therorist may put two and two together and think that Blair is just making more work for Cherie and her bleeding heart human rights law practice as they are not having a good year or so i hear

GC8

Surely the time required would be provided after a simple judicial review Paul? I dont think that there is any question that the suspects would have been released before their property could have been searched.....


Simon

unclebuck

If 14 days isn't enough then they can go before the courts to apply for more time as they did in the above example. They certainly wouldn't need 3 MONTHS!

We can't allow the Police (of all people) to control government policy making in this country. It would set a frightening precendent if that were ever to happen and be a huge victory for those enemies of free speech and thought - the religious fanatics (and of course the New Labour power miesters)

I'm sure the Government would condemn laws that allowed detention of people for 3 months without trial in other countries. What the hell is Blair thinking that he can impose it on us in this country?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

It certainly scares me. How long is it sice supposed anti-terror laws were used against an old man at the Labia conference? Have we all forgotten already? And how long AFTER a 90 day law was on the books before it would be used to lock up someone who opposed Tone and his Lying Labour cronies?

Apparently, they've trotted out a survey this morning that comes down heavily IN FAVOUR of 90 days? Who the fek did they ask? PSLewis?

Alcazar

OllyK

That's no surprise, it will have been a loaded survey as usual:

Which would you prefer:
1) Bombers to blow London tube stations up on a weekly basis.
2) The Police to be able to hold anybody for 90 days if they think they may be a terrorist.

Not much of a choice really

Reality

Don't forget the powers they currently have allow them to shoot anybody suspected of being a terrorist - which they've used on a brazillian electrian but not used on 4 terrorists !

Leslie

We have seen 8 years of "Woeful Complacency" now when it comes to actually thinking and doing anything significant for the people of this country. If it seems that it might promote popularity or votes they will say that they will do the obvious thing that we have wanted them to do for ages as if it is all a new idea! Trouble is, it rarely seems to actually get done.

It may sound reasonable to lock someone up for 90 days without charge if you think he is a terrorist, but it is a very dangerous attack on our legal freedoms which have stood for such a long time and for good purposes too. It could be seriously misused with future untrustworthy goverments. Only too easy to get it extended for special reasons too!

Could you trust the authorities which are prepared to detain an 82 year old man under the Prevention of Terrorism act when all he did was to utter one word of disagreement at the Labour Conference?

Les

The Zohan

Very good point, i had forgotten all about this and a prime example of how this can be abused.

SJ_Skyline

Blair's legacy will be one of high taxation, bureaucratic government, needless legislation, incompetence and deciet.

Senior police are more interested in ethnic diversity and political correctness (Ian Blair has said so himself) than preventing crime and catching criminals. What's next after 90 days? Cessation of elections? Protest against this and you get banged up for 3 months?

Leslie

And the rest!

Les

DeltaBravo 9

and years ago when they shot 3 ira members in gib everyone went nuts , as far as security is invovled they can't win !!

CrisPDuk

Not quite true, the human rights obsessed liberal tw@ts that populate the media tried and failed to get the rest of us to protest about it.


Besides, if the police now have these shoot to kill powers when dealing with terrorists, why are the scum that murdered and gutted that McCartney guy in Ireland still free to walk the streets?

Reality

Not everyone .

Nobody gives a **** if a scumbag gets it (well I don't).

However - I do have a problem with gunning down innocents cos you're allowed to .

Too much power in the wrong hands is a very bad thing - just look at some of the mods on here

Chris L

Bearing in mind that the police were prepared to use anti-terrorist laws to keep a pensioner out of the Labour Party Conference, I have serious concerns about this new law. We are walking blindly into a police state if we are not careful. The very things we are trying to defend are our freedoms - if we give these up in the name of protecting against terrorism, then we need to take a long hard look at what we are doing. This has the whiff of a new-jerk reaction disguised as 'national security'.

Watch it Reality, show some respect or you'll be banned

Chris L

"The trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both." Christopher Hitchens

unclebuck

Police say they have stopped more people in the last three months under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act than they had in the previous year.


In Hampshire, for example, there have been 4,438 stops and searches since July compared to 696 for 2003/4.

There were just four searches in Humberside in 2003/4, yet in the last three months, there were 1,830.

In recent months the use of Section 44 has become increasingly controversial.


It gives officers the power to stop and search at random provided the area they are policing has been identified by the Home Office as one that “might be targeted by terrorists.”

Brighton, in the week of the Labour Party Conference, was a designated area of risk and accordingly police were given Section 44 powers. (we all saw what happened there).

Police do have powers to stop and search people under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - but that requires officers to have "reasonable suspicion" that a criminal act is being committed. There is no such requirement under Section 44.

This week a 21-year-old student was stopped and warned by police under Section 44 for taking pictures of the M3. Matthew Curtis had been gathering images for the website of a design company, where he works part-time when he was stopped, searched and cautioned.

In 2001 there were 8,500 stops and searches under the Terrorism Act 2002.

The following year, there were 21,500 and for the year 2003-04, the last for which annual figures are available, there were 29,407.

People stopped under Section 44 powers were eight times more likely to be arrested for other offences, including motoring offences.

Just think – were the new legislation to be passed any or all of these 29,000 people could then be held for 90 days without any explanation required. It’s plain scary what’s going on at the moment.

SJ_Skyline

If Mugabe started locking people up for 90 days without trial there would be uproar about it!


In hindsight, he probably does already!

unclebuck

In his annual review of the Terrorism Act, Lord Carlile said the use of Section 44 "could be cut by at least 50% without significant risk to the public or detriment to policing".

The Home Office minister Hazel Blears has given government assurances that the powers would only be deployed when there is "a good reason to believe that there is genuinely a terrorist threat". But critics say these latest figures add weight to the growing concerns that the powers are being misused.

Chris L

"In Hampshire, for example, there have been 4,438 stops and searches since July compared to 696 for 2003/4.

There were just four searches in Humberside in 2003/4, yet in the last three months, there were 1,830.

In recent months the use of Section 44 has become increasingly controversial."

In my business (IT Security) this is known as 'false positives' - just stopping more people doesn't actually do anything. How many of these 'stops' led to further action - not many I suspect.

MikeCardiff

iTrader: (2)

... god forbid we hurt the poor terrorists feelings, or even worse, deny them their human rights.

Smacks a bit of people worrying about something that is unlikely to ever effect them. The security services in this country have a lot of data about suspected terrorists, and arent going to waste their time just randonly dragging people in off the street on the offchance. ( unless you are an illegal immigrant who just happens to be working in a known terrorsists house, then do a runner from armed police who are shouting 'stop or we'll shoot you'

Anyone remember the people who complained so much about CCTV in town centres because it was a violation of their privacy ? - yeah right, it'll violate the privacy of muggers, thieves, vandals and nutters - poor them !

I think one of the main problems with behaviour in this country is that too many people are too worried about the rights of the minorities who commit crimes, and not enough protecting the majority who dont.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

No mate, what we're worried about is the misuse of the proposed new powers, in exactly the same way as existing powers have ALREADY been misused, to take away the rights of the majority of lawful citizens.

Witness the disgraceful seens at the Labour Party conference

Alcazar

unclebuck

If you can get fingered for simply taking photographs of a motorway I think we all have a great deal to worry about!! If that guy had taken offence or 'got up the copper's nose' in some way he could find himself interned for 90 days with no recourse to justice whatever. How can you say it's nothing to worry about??

drumsterphil

iTrader: (1)

Our Tone keep saying that the vast majority of us are backing him on his quest to get the 90 days approved - funny, but compared to worrying about the state of Britain at the moment, everybody I've spoken to couldn't give a toss about world terrorism.

And while the bill was being discussed in Parliament last night, our Tone decided to have a few of the July 7th (I refuse to call it 7/7) victims over to no.10 for a knees up; what a coincidence!..............

Suresh

Couldn't agree with you more.
I am also totally fcuked off that the nambys are more interested in the possibility that some piece of ****'s rights might be infringed. Get a grip!

Reality

Did you hear that warning being shouted Mike - How did the illegal look with his head blown all over the train as he was pinned down ?

Sir Ian Blair has stated publicly that his previous statement about a warning being given was a lie !

He made it up to make the actions of his innept force appear better.

Oh - and why the **** has it taken 4 months for the enquiry/cover up (delete as appropriate) to produce any findings ?

I dont think there's anyone on this board that would not applaud the shooting of a real terrorist - but if you give power to idiots you get New Labour !

pslewis

Tories .... soft on crime, soft on terrorists

Right will win over and we will get our 90 days

Tony and Labour have God on their side after all!!

Pete

_RIP_

We? Is this the royal we?

pslewis

Blair IS part of the Royals ................ isn't he??

Pete

SJ_Skyline

Which God would that be?