Reply to: 42 day detention

[The Lone Gunman]

For terror suspects, signed off by both houses and the attorney general after review of the case.
Just exactly why is Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells concerned?

Or is there some deeper conspiracy?

The concern comes because a 70 year old bloke was arrested under terrorism laws for shouting "rubbish" during the Labour party conference. One assumes that had he refused to give the police his password to sign on to his computer they would have held him for longer.
The concern comes because a Brazilian electrician was shot as a terrorist because the police got it wrong.
A crowd of protestors were arrested as terrorists when waving free Tibet flags at the Chinese ambassador.

Agreed this new rule requires a burden of proof to be provided and that is a good thing, but this is in effect a fishing licence for the police and home office. If they have suspicion then they should arrest and charge the suspect who could then start to prepare a defence with legal representation.

As for your other point about means and will, there are any number of posters on here (let alone general members of the public) who have expressed an urge to stab/shoot/blow up or maim any number of politicians, footballers or other posters. The police are not beyond taking such harmless threats and making them full terrorist threats, particulalry if you happen to have a bottle of peroxide and some encrypted data on your pc. I do not trust the Police to get it right, nor do I trust the legal system and the Government to get it right.

[zathras]

Can someone pls remind me why we have a separate set of rules for terrorists than "conventional criminals"?

What's the argument that stops the police from carrying out their investigative duties for terrorists? Surely there are complex cases of fraud, murder, etc that take ages to solve, why is it different for terrorists, that requires new laws?

So much has gone through on in the past few years, can't even remember the initial argument for extending the detention limits. Someone must know...

We don't and there is none. The argument that a terrorist is dangerous and should be taken off the streets does not hold water since in this country you are innocent until proven guilty - since no proof has been supplied to the relevent authority (a court of law) then they are not guilty of anything, let alone terrorism.

[lilelvis2000]

The thinking is that murder & fraud suspects are generally free to roam until they have been charged. Understandably, that isn't acceptable with an alleged terrorist hence the need to lock them up whilst a case is built.

The trouble is, if after seven weeks you're not charged your life has been effectively ruined. Your work will have sacked you and your wife and child will have been hounded by the local community.

I think that tagging/control order is a much more humane way to treat somebody, but must also be held to the same scrutiny. Indefinite control orders are worse than internment.

I think the point is to hold 'em in there and let them confess. Don't know why it takes that long however..should take no more than 3-4 days to come up with some evidence. But I also think they want to catch the entire group and not just the single person. They do that by sweating them out, not knowing what they're in for.

[Moscow Mule]

Can someone pls remind me why we have a separate set of rules for terrorists than "conventional criminals"?

What's the argument that stops the police from carrying out their investigative duties for terrorists? Surely there are complex cases of fraud, murder, etc that take ages to solve, why is it different for terrorists, that requires new laws?

So much has gone through on in the past few years, can't even remember the initial argument for extending the detention limits. Someone must know...

The thinking is that murder & fraud suspects are generally free to roam until they have been charged. Understandably, that isn't acceptable with an alleged terrorist hence the need to lock them up whilst a case is built.

The trouble is, if after seven weeks you're not charged your life has been effectively ruined. Your work will have sacked you and your wife and child will have been hounded by the local community.

I think that tagging/control order is a much more humane way to treat somebody, but must also be held to the same scrutiny. Indefinite control orders are worse than internment.

[BankingContractor]

Can someone pls remind me why we have a separate set of rules for terrorists than "conventional criminals"?

What's the argument that stops the police from carrying out their investigative duties for terrorists? Surely there are complex cases of fraud, murder, etc that take ages to solve, why is it different for terrorists, that requires new laws?

So much has gone through on in the past few years, can't even remember the initial argument for extending the detention limits. Someone must know...

[lilelvis2000]

Makes Mr. Davis look like a fool.

Any chance that as soon as the ink dries on the queen's signature the home office minister declares a "major terrorist event is occuring" and rounds up a few usual suspects.

[Ruprect]

PM turns out also to be a chicken and not willing to entertain the debate. Does it get more authoritarian than that? "Do as I say and shut up":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7460345.stm

[lilelvis2000]

what's a potential bomber?

A brazilian electrician.

[lilelvis2000]

It may not be a done deal just yet even if Labour win the vote, because the House of Lords is bound to vote it down and who knows what might happen before it returns for a second Commons vote.

I reckon GB threatened the Labour rebels with the doomsday option if the govt lost the vote, i.e. that he'd resign and call an election (not that he'd probably have the bottle to go ahead and do that).

We'll see. it still needs a third reading..normally a formality. But if the opposition want to pull a nasty surprise!

I think GB will pull some bribes outta his ass and buy off the Lords..or appoint in some more Labour ones to swing the vote.

[lambrini_socialist]

Liberal doesn't belong to the left baggy, well, only in the US.

indeed, i don't think this is a left/right issue, more of a libertarian / authoritarian one.

[Lucy]

I think you will find many people on this board will disagree with anything the Government does, even if it makes sense and even if it makes them appear a 'leftie liberal'. I couldn't care less for the rights and freedoms of terrorists or the views of conspiracy theorists

Liberal doesn't belong to the left baggy, well, only in the US.

[lambrini_socialist]

Or is there some deeper conspiracy?

shark officially jumped.

[Spacecadet]

Just exactly why is Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells concerned?

Disgusted of Tunbridge is disgusted because he knows that holding people without charge is NOT what England is about and by holding people for 42 days with out charge we're loosing another little piece of our (collective) soul.

[Bagpuss]

You're spectacularly missing the point. No one gives a sh!t about the rights or freedoms of terrorists (**** knows where the conspiracy theory bit comes into it) it's the right and freedoms of those who are not terrorists that we're all worried about.

I don't trust the police not to get it wrong, in fact I almost expect them to get it wrong more than they get it right, and generally to use (And abuse) any legislation they have at their disposal. This is 6 weeks of detention, without charge - wrap it up how you like, but that's way too much and I've yet to see any compelling evidence as to why it's needed.

For terror suspects, signed off by both houses and the attorney general after review of the case.
Just exactly why is Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells concerned?

Or is there some deeper conspiracy?

[snaw]

I couldn't care less for the rights and freedoms of terrorists or the views of conspiracy theorists

You're spectacularly missing the point. No one gives a sh!t about the rights or freedoms of terrorists (**** knows where the conspiracy theory bit comes into it) it's the right and freedoms of those who are not terrorists that we're all worried about.

I don't trust the police not to get it wrong, in fact I almost expect them to get it wrong more than they get it right, and generally to use (And abuse) any legislation they have at their disposal. This is 6 weeks of detention, without charge - wrap it up how you like, but that's way too much and I've yet to see any compelling evidence as to why it's needed.