Reply to: uk police state wants to hold suspects for 3 months without charge

[Rebecca Loos]

i think they're also trying to say that:
1. pirated dvds help terrorists
2. downloading songs for free help terrorists
3. in fact anything illegal help terrorists. You are probably helping terrorists when you speed at 71 mph, when you're reading mags for free at whsmith, in fact browsing the web while "at work" probably helps terrorism somewhere!

[Not So Wise]

Weren't the government recently telling us that tax avoiders [sic] aided organised criminals and terrorists?

According to the gov everyone, even the single mother nicking baby clothes from Mother care, is somehow financing terrorists and organised crime

[wendigo100]

Weren't the government recently telling us that tax avoiders [sic] aided organised criminals and terrorists?

[BobTheCrate]

Oh yes. Well bloody said John.

That should be written in marble outside the HoC.

Preferably in large letters so they can be seen above the anti-car bomb concrete slabs.

[John Galt]

Basically New Lie are trying to fix a problem of their own making. It was not so long ago that extremist Muslim clerics were being welcomed with open arms into the UK. Due to the Human Rights Laws (bought in by NL) their every whim and desire has been fulfilled and we have no right to question the content of their 'religious meetings'. NL were so desperate for cultural and religious integration that it was painful to watch. Now some of those extremists have bit the hand that fed them NL are back peddling like fury. No surprise really

[The Late, Great JC]

Using phone-tap evidence in courts being considered

No way. That to me means that anybody can have there phone tapped for any number of vague reasons. If phone taps are admissable as evidence for terrorists , maybe IR will argue that they can use them in fraud investigations or tax evasion or benefit fraud? It basically opens the way for phone taps to be used as evidence in any invetigation. I dont agree with that

The reason that the security services don't want this is because it would reveal the extent of "monitoring" that goes on already.

[sunnysan]

State VS Law

Yes I do see a distinction, but it seems that any mechanisms that are being introduced are giving less power to the judiciary and more power to the state.

IMHO the state is confined to working withing the parameters set by the judiciary.

Lets look at the main points

Outlawing "glorification" of terrorism

WTF is that? If I happen to agree with some points made by a radical Islamic Extremist, am I glorifying terrorism? Is anti western sentiment or anti capitalist rhetoric glorifying terrorism. How do you legally define that statement?


Offence of acts preparatory to terrorism

If I get found with a case of C4 in my cupboard, there must be 100 other laws I can get charged with. Acts commited against the state are treason anyway so why does this need to be extended

Law against giving or receiving terror training

Does attending a Madras constitute terror training? What is terror training? Is it military training? If I learn Arabic am I training myself as a terrorist

New offence against indirect incitement of terrorism

How do you draw the line between free speech and incitement of terror?

Powers to tackle bookshops selling extremist material

Once again what is that? Is it anti western literature, questioning our values or is it firebrand jihadist literature

Using phone-tap evidence in courts being considered

No way. That to me means that anybody can have there phone tapped for any number of vague reasons. If phone taps are admissable as evidence for terrorists , maybe IR will argue that they can use them in fraud investigations or tax evasion or benefit fraud? It basically opens the way for phone taps to be used as evidence in any invetigation. I dont agree with that

Pre-charge detentions powers extended from two weeks to three months

Detention without trial or charge. If the vague terror offences become law, it would be possible to find any reason to detain someone anyway, so why this reinforcement of the state right to lock anybody up for any reason?

Those applying for British citizenship must be "of good character"

Seems like a soundbyte to me. It will create subjectivity in the immigration process. Cant they just create more stringent immigration requirements?



In short I think the proposed changes are too subjective. I realise that ultimately someone will have to assess each case on its individual merits but should that case not be subject to existing precedents? Wil the new laws mean less consultation with the judiciary when deciding what consitutes a terrorist.

IMHO.

[Lucifer Box]

Welcome to the National Socialist UK Workers Party (aka New Labour)

Proud motto, "Arbeit Macht Frei".

[DimPrawn]

Welcome to the National Socialist UK Workers Party (aka New Labour)

[BobTheCrate]

The police are answerable to the state and the state is answerable to the electorate.

WHOOPS !

The police here are suppose to be answerable to the LAW. You might well say the Law and the State are the same thing but the difference is actually a little more than subtle.

Extending Police custody to a maximum of 3 months by default is begging for the Police to eventually use this as a weapon against those it is not meant to be directed against.

I agree there are going to be occassions the Police should be able to extend the custody. This should still be the exception though, not the rule, at least for the time being. And as such I see no reason why the POT act cannot be modified to accommodate Police applying to a court to have the custody extended. The court I'd of thought is capable of making a rational decision.

[The Lone Gunman]

Chico, you still fail to answer the bottom line question.

How do you know these people are terrorists?

If our state forces are so good then how come they shot a Brazilian spark on his way to work.

I dont mind giving the police powers to detain or arrest for as long as they want, but there is a burden of proof to support those powers.

[xoggoth]

Listening to news tonight, some Muslim spokesman on suicide bombers in Israel & Iraq and thinking I agree with nearly everything he almost said. If I put myself in position of a Palestinian in land occupied by the god-awful Isrealis or an Iraqi in land occupied by US/UK forces I might well do the same. They are permitted no official army, so what resistance to occupation of their countries do they have but "terrorism"?

By government thinking I must be a terrorist sympathiser. Hell no!, if I had my way and believed it was practical, I would kick every Muslim out of our country because I believe in nationalism. I believe that for the people of any country (NOT just ours) having a culture of its own is immensely important, more important than economic prosperity beyond a certain minimum.

Goverrnment thinking on what is and is not supporting terrorism is simplistic nonsense.

PS George Galloway is on now. Hell, I agree with him too.

[threaded]

Why not go the whole hog and pronouce everyone guilty and then have a trail to allow the innocent free?

[Not So Wise]

Blindly trust police and the state? Are you nuts?
Police and state officials are human beings (well police are, politicians i sometimes wonder), with their in built petty loves, hates, ambitions, presures racial/sexual prejudices and limitations.

For this very reason no free intelligent society makes any one of them individually judge,jury and executioner. Even with all the checks and balances (in some ways to many) the innocent still get jailed time and time again, be 100 times worse if this was changed

And really lets look at the that time period, 3 months. Why that amount of time? Hell if they have so little evidence why are they arresting someone in the first place?

Because they "believe" someone might be a terrorist? Law unlike religion is not meant to be about belief. It's meant to be about facts. And if they cannot get the facts in a few days i highly doubt they will get them in 3 months. While i do beleive police should have a bit more time if they think someone is a clear and present danger or they beleive they will flee, this period should never go beyond 7/14 days, if by that time they cannot get something to convince a judge (note judge, a trained profesional that gets to see everything not just what the defence cannot block from evidence like in a jury trial) that there is a case to answer for (note again not "proof of guilt") then i seriously doubt they ever will.

Only way powers like this would every be controled and acceptable to me is if they get the powers, arrest someone, keep them for months and then release them without charge (As the US goverment is constantly doing in guantalamo) the person could then turn around and receive huge automatic compensation from the goverment for false imprisonment (if they did not manage to get evidence in 3 months pretty much means it was false imprisonment in my books). This would be the only thing that would make them think twice before exersiing these powers.

Otherwise it would be just giving them right to do whatever they want, destroy the life of whoever they want, whenever they want with no risk, cost or loss to themselves

[vista]

Oh dear

If it were just terrorists that would be locked up it'd be fine but it won't just be terrorists will it?