Blairs 90 day dentention Bill
Discussion
So it looks likely that by the end of today the police will have powers to detain, without charge, without evidence, anyone they effectively don't like the look of or suspect has been upto something, for 90 days. Equivalent to a 6month prison sentence.......
Fair enough we are told that this power will only be used to detain a very small number of suspected terrorists on very serious grounds......the same argument was put forward for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which the police have since used to arrest, an 80 year old heckler at a Labour Party Conference, a woman walking along a cycle path, and an actor who was found to have a penknife in the glovebox of his car along with a huge number of other people.
Everyday I have watcched news coverage and listened to Radio coverage.....and on not one occaision have I heard any reference to the thought that the police might get it wrong. Not once have I heard the idea mentioned that the police may not be in aggregate capable of using this level of power with anything like the level of self control or concience needed.
We will have a state of affairs where, if you say the wrong thing in the pub, on the bus, or if you're denounced by a neighbour or a work colleague or you are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, you may well hear a knock at the door and that's the last anyone will see of hear of you for 3months.
3 months is a long time, enough to loose your job and your house, and probably your family, the police merely being able to threaten that is in itself a worrying prospect.
Fair enough we are told that this power will only be used to detain a very small number of suspected terrorists on very serious grounds......the same argument was put forward for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which the police have since used to arrest, an 80 year old heckler at a Labour Party Conference, a woman walking along a cycle path, and an actor who was found to have a penknife in the glovebox of his car along with a huge number of other people.
Everyday I have watcched news coverage and listened to Radio coverage.....and on not one occaision have I heard any reference to the thought that the police might get it wrong. Not once have I heard the idea mentioned that the police may not be in aggregate capable of using this level of power with anything like the level of self control or concience needed.
We will have a state of affairs where, if you say the wrong thing in the pub, on the bus, or if you're denounced by a neighbour or a work colleague or you are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, you may well hear a knock at the door and that's the last anyone will see of hear of you for 3months.
3 months is a long time, enough to loose your job and your house, and probably your family, the police merely being able to threaten that is in itself a worrying prospect.
I want them to lose the vote because it will surely mean the end of Bliar if they do.
But I am fairly relaxed about giving the police these powers. They will only be used in exceptional circumstances and if they prevent more atrocities like the 7th July attacks then it's all to the good.
But I am fairly relaxed about giving the police these powers. They will only be used in exceptional circumstances and if they prevent more atrocities like the 7th July attacks then it's all to the good.
unrepentant said:
I want them to lose the vote because it will surely mean the end of Bliar if they do.
But I am fairly relaxed about giving the police these powers. They will only be used in exceptional circumstances and if they prevent more atrocities like the 7th July attacks then it's all to the good.
If that were true I would agree would agree with you.
I am doubtful though, with the track record of the police under Blair.
How do you know "Unrepentant"?
In the past the police have been known to make all sorts of mistakes and even deliberately falsify evidence to obtain convictions. Now they won't have to bother falsifying evidence!
If there is a "War on Terror", what is the war for? I would suggest that the only reason to fight a war is to preserve peace, justice and freedom. If none of those objectives are being achieved, then whatever measures are being taken to prosecute the "war" are not justifiable. More pragmatically, such measures will more than likely end up being counter productive - resulting in LESS peace, more injustice and fewer freedoms - exactly what the terrorsists want.
In the past the police have been known to make all sorts of mistakes and even deliberately falsify evidence to obtain convictions. Now they won't have to bother falsifying evidence!
If there is a "War on Terror", what is the war for? I would suggest that the only reason to fight a war is to preserve peace, justice and freedom. If none of those objectives are being achieved, then whatever measures are being taken to prosecute the "war" are not justifiable. More pragmatically, such measures will more than likely end up being counter productive - resulting in LESS peace, more injustice and fewer freedoms - exactly what the terrorsists want.
unrepentant said:
I want them to lose the vote because it will surely mean the end of Bliar if they do.
But I am fairly relaxed about giving the police these powers. They will only be used in exceptional circumstances and if they prevent more atrocities like the 7th July attacks then it's all to the good.
But why given the behavior of the police with the Prevention of Terrorism act do you believe that it will only be used in exceptional circumstances?
The PoT act wasn't marketed to the public on the basis that it would be used to arrest people en mass, yet that is exactly what has happened.
Of course we are being told that detentions will be exceptional, we're hardly going to be told otherwise are we.
I was generally against this 90 days thing but looking into it the police have to get weekly approval from a Judge (not an MP) to keep you. I think this is a fair compromise and should prevent the government from just being able to lock up people who are politically difficult for them (my cheif concern).
I must admit I haven't been following this that closely, but I understand it's the police that are pushing for this. Has anyone ever given any real life examples of when being able to detain suspected terriblelists for longer would have made a difference?
In principle I'm against it but would really like some more detail.
In principle I'm against it but would really like some more detail.
Imagine if for example, an electrician was mistaken for a terrorist because he lived in the same block of flats as a suspected terrorist...
He might be 'lucky' enough to be held without trial or charge for just three months. A let-off compared to what actually happened.
From what I heard on Radio 4 this morning, the crux of the argument from the Police, is that they need all this time to build a case against the person they've arrested. Smacks of poor investigating to me, wouldn't it be more sensible to have evidence before arresting someone for a crime and then prosecute them?
He might be 'lucky' enough to be held without trial or charge for just three months. A let-off compared to what actually happened.
From what I heard on Radio 4 this morning, the crux of the argument from the Police, is that they need all this time to build a case against the person they've arrested. Smacks of poor investigating to me, wouldn't it be more sensible to have evidence before arresting someone for a crime and then prosecute them?
theaxe said:
I was generally against this 90 days thing but looking into it the police have to get weekly approval from a Judge (not an MP) to keep you. I think this is a fair compromise and should prevent the government from just being able to lock up people who are politically difficult for them (my cheif concern).
What kind of a judge is going to approve the detention of a suspect against whom there is no charge and no evidence though?
It will be the word of the police against the suspect in which the police have no need to actually provide any evidence.
Judge "Do you have genuine reason to detain this person" Police "Yes we have reason to believe so". Judge "In that case I have no choice but to approve his/her further detention under the provisions of the act"
timmy30 said:
I was generally against this 90 days thing but looking into it the police have to get weekly approval from a Judge (not an MP) to keep you. I think this is a fair compromise and should prevent the government from just being able to lock up people who are politically difficult for them (my cheif concern).
What kind of a judge is going to approve the detention of a suspect against whom there is no charge and no evidence though?
It will be the word of the police against the suspect in which the police have no need to actually provide any evidence.
Judge "Do you have genuine reason to detain this person" Police "Yes we have reason to believe so". Judge "In that case I have no choice but to approve his/her further detention under the provisions of the act"
Good enough for me.
I'd rather that a few people who may turn out to be not quite as guilty as the police thought they were spend bit of time in prison than some lunatic gets released because of an over liberal policy and proceeds to blow up my countrymen.
I was initially against this for all the reasons already stated however, to get this through they have had to put a "sunset clause" on it whereby the bill automatically expires in a year. Although still uncomfortable with it it will be useful to see how the new power is [mis]used in the next year. Any mistakes or overuse will see it removed from the statute books when it has to be voted back in next year.
Raify said:
From what I heard on Radio 4 this morning, the crux of the argument from the Police, is that they need all this time to build a case against the person they've arrested. Smacks of poor investigating to me, wouldn't it be more sensible to have evidence before arresting someone for a crime and then prosecute them?
That's what I don't understand, why is terrorism so different to something like organised crime?
When arrest and sentencing without trial was previously in operation in the UK (Northern Ireland) it created an untold number of "new" terrorists and prolonged the violence by at least ten years.
That's what I mean by counter-productive. Terrorists usually act out of a sense of injustice (whether real or perceived). Providing them with further motivation is hardly a good move, is it?
That's what I mean by counter-productive. Terrorists usually act out of a sense of injustice (whether real or perceived). Providing them with further motivation is hardly a good move, is it?
viggen114 said:
but I understand it's the police that are pushing for this.
Who told you that, the Police or a New Labour politican, Clark, B Liar etc
You were also told about WMD
and did you know 'speed kills'
Um I think is the repeated statements by Sir Ian Blair and the Scottish Chief constable all the way through, what should be a purely parliamentary debate, that MPs should vote in favour of the bill.
Eric Mc said:
When arrest and sentencing without trial was previously in operation in the UK (Northern Ireland) it created an untold number of "new" terrorists and prolonged the violence by at least ten years.
That's what I mean by counter-productive. Terrorists usually act out of a sense of injustice (whether real or perceived). Providing them with further motivation is hardly a good move, is it?
Yes a similar argument was put forward yesterday, that arresting large numbers of Islammic or Islamic 'looking' young men, detaining them without, charge, evidence or a valid reason will create a fertile bed of potential terrorists.
And not just brown ones eithers ( please excuse my crudeness I don't mean to cause offence ) white young men arrested without chage, evidence or reason may also prove to be sufficently bitter after the experience to provide a source of white, non muslim islamic terrorists.
I believe the IRAs most effective operatives were English sympathisers with no previous convictions or records.
90 days detention without proof, just suspicion!!!????....... I'm getting REALLY scared that bLIAR is leading Britain into a socio-fascist state... something that I do NOT want to be associated with.... 1984 and all that....
YOUR rights are being eroded faster than in a thrid world banana republic... time to get out on the streets and revolt... hang the barsteward at Tyburn and draw and quarter him as well......
YOUR rights are being eroded faster than in a thrid world banana republic... time to get out on the streets and revolt... hang the barsteward at Tyburn and draw and quarter him as well......
Another twisted bill designed to protect Blair and his cronies. This 'law' could (and will) be twisted to stop anyone protesting about anything, as said before old man at labour party. Maybe it will be stretched to Little old ladys asking not to close their care home? - Sounds stupid? Well just think they stopped the chap protesting about his son dying in the Iraq war close to No 10.
IF it is supposed to be that good why has he called Brown and Straw back from far more importent duties than to help protect their mates ego? Police powers..Hmmm. Maybe they should forget about pointless laws. Local Police know local problems.
Oh sorry I digress.......
The law is to help protect our shores against terrorists..How is this going to help? I can picture the scene now. Police arrest a cleric (for example) hold him against his will. Protests follow followed by rioting. with shouts of anti this and anti that.
meanwhile the other terrorist cell hears about this disbands and distroys evedence.
Covert operations and obvervation is what is needed. How would have they found the bombers before, from what I keep hearing/reading most of them were model members of the community all this bill is going to do is alienate the ethnic community and push back this countries fragile state back 30 years.
They said under Thatcher it was a police state, well sorry folks you 'aint seen nothing yet!
IF it is supposed to be that good why has he called Brown and Straw back from far more importent duties than to help protect their mates ego? Police powers..Hmmm. Maybe they should forget about pointless laws. Local Police know local problems.
Oh sorry I digress.......
The law is to help protect our shores against terrorists..How is this going to help? I can picture the scene now. Police arrest a cleric (for example) hold him against his will. Protests follow followed by rioting. with shouts of anti this and anti that.
meanwhile the other terrorist cell hears about this disbands and distroys evedence.
Covert operations and obvervation is what is needed. How would have they found the bombers before, from what I keep hearing/reading most of them were model members of the community all this bill is going to do is alienate the ethnic community and push back this countries fragile state back 30 years.
They said under Thatcher it was a police state, well sorry folks you 'aint seen nothing yet!
It's a very dangerous road for a government to take. Explaining such measures away on the grounds that "We know best and it's for your own good" are totally spurious and smack of the justifications used by Adolf Hitler to gradually dismantle German democracy in the 1930s. In 1933 many of the reasons given by the Nazis for restrictions of rights and increased powers for the authoritires seemed awfully sensible and reasonable to most Germans.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff