Police State

[Damocles]

Well morning guys. Wake up and see the brave new world. It has taken them 200 years, but government ministers have finally won back their right to lock up people without having to prove they are guilty of anything.

The best of it, is all they have to do if challenged is claim they have secret evidence that someone might be a terrorist. In fact, even if they have evidence that someone is probably not a terrorist, but might be.

So which of you out there supported the fuel tax protests? Don't you know that is terrorism? Threatening to bring the country to a halt is plain terrorism in any ministers book. So next time you get involved in any civil disobedience, watch out! our only hope is that the home secretary could not write fast enough to sign the orders.

And all this on the anniversary of the spanish bomb. The spaniards did exactly the correct thing. First they refused to give in to terrorists. They refused to deny the rights of their citizens to liberty. They refused to change their way of life. They continued to fight for democracy. This means acting like a democracy.

It also means they got out of the illegal invasion of Iraq. How can anyone claim that right is on their side when their actions are the same as the terrorists?

Welcome to police state Britain. Curtesy of Tony Blair, but I fear Mr Howard was not far behind.

 

[Thermo]

i think youll find mr howard and mr kennedy both fought against it as being ill concieved and shoddy. thats why they want it redrafted and more time put into it.

 

[david and julie]

Damocles...You are right in that this is another poor piece of legislation from a poor government, that said what would you do? would you let them carry on plotting and scheming whilst making sure they stay within the law? usually courtesy of legal aid.

The security forces obviously know what these people are up to but proving it is another matter. The truth is they (many who were born here) don't like our religious beliefs or are liberalism in general, indeed they don't really even like us. We are now stuck in a pathetic PC situation which these people are milking for all its worth. We don't need more laws all we need to do is stop legal aid,dole,social, houses etc, for anybody who wasn't born here or hasn't paid their fair share in. If we did this their own countries would seem more attractive and they would go back.

What I don't understand is, if there is a threat, why are we letting more and more come in? surely this is only making the situation worse and storing bigger problems for the future.

 

[pipme]

I quote the BBC News at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4288407.stm

Control Orders Why are they needed?
Mr Clarke says in some cases intelligence material reveals someone is a terrorist threat to the UK. They cannot be prosecuted in court because the bugging evidence is not admissible in court and/or because intelligence officials fear their sources could be revealed.
Why now?
... Because a law pushed through after the 11 September attacks - the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001 (ATCSA) - will expire on 14 March. This piece of legislation allows the indefinite imprisonment of foreign terror suspects without trial.
The measure needed to be renewed each year. But the law lords recently ruled such detention was a breach of human rights. Now the law either needs to be renewed or replaced - with replacement seen as the best option by ministers in the wake of the law lords' ruling.
Why the big fuss?
The most controversial element initially was that the new orders would allow an elected politician, rather than a judge, to effectively deprive a British citizen of their liberty - something which critics say is the biggest threat to civil freedoms in the UK for more than 300 years.
The home secretary has given ground and said a judge should impose the orders, the worry is that Britons will be subject to restrictions without trial, or even knowing what the case or evidence against them is.

The remaining eight foreign nationals being held without trial under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001 have been granted bail.
None of the men could be deported because lawyers believed they would face persecution in their home countries and some have now been released.

I guess there is a fear that 'Britons' themselves may provide the 'danger within' I guess it all just begins to show that multiculturalism may not, just naturally, be right for us.
I do think it is a matter for a Judge not a Politician.
Perhaps protecting borders and limiting access to outsiders is the safest option ... Tis no good filling this country with / creating disaffected people of whatever race or for whatever reason ... I just cannot see the purpose ... high ideals and reality do not always mix well.
Things seem little better today than they ever have been ... surely that is a sad indictment of the whole system.
P

 

[Thermo]

bit of a mockery, we think your a terrorist and you certainly dont like this country and what it stands for. Dont worry though we wont send ou back to where you came from, you might get persecuted there......Tough bloody luck! I dont care what happens to them, just get rid of them. If they are not here they are not such a threat

 

[jasy]

In the mean time they are free to have a go at persecuting us in our country

 

[Damocles]

What would I do about the terrorist threat? As far as new laws are concerned, absolutely nothing.

I heard a long winded yank today on the radio. But he eventually made the point that after the explosions in America, congress spend 2 years writing a report about what went wrong. Their conclusion was that absolutley no new laws were needed. All that was needed to have prevented the explosions was for the existing security services to have got off their complacent backsides and to have done what they were already expected to do.

That means using conventional means. Reading letters. following people. Sending in spys under cover. tapping their phones. And then when you have collected some real evidence, charge and convict them.

As I heard it, the home secretary still writes the arrest orders. Only now this needs to be rubber stamped by a judge, who only needs to be convinced that there is a suspicion that the person could be a terrorist. The government got virtually everything it wanted in this bill. Indefinite arrest on suspicion and no intention to repeal the act for the indefinite future. The power of ministerial arrest is here to stay, do not kid yourselves.

How did people catch members of the IRA? Certainly not with help from the Americans, who keep giving them money. It was done by undercover work. If you have a terrorist suspect, what you want to do is leave him exactly where he is until you know everything about him. And if you know everything about him you will have proved he is a terrorist, or that he is not. And then you can prove it in court.

What is this issue about telephone evidence? Total nonsense. I see no reason why telephone intercepts can't be used. Does anyone think the police would not bug the phones of terror suspects? I can only see one reason for refusing to enter this evidence in court. Because if they did, then we would all see that it did not amount to anything. That there was no evidence. By holding out and saying it is too sensitive, we never get to see that actually there is no evidence at all.

I fancy Mr Kenedy was still battling away. But he could not do much after Howard caved in. Blair was arguing like crazy about not having a sunset clause. why so much fuss? All it did was alow everyone a bit of time to think about it before sorting a bill properly. But Blair would not have it. Can only mean that he means this bill to stay for all time. Welcome to the police state.

 

[oilman]

The security forces obviously know what these people are up to ........

And even if they do, the government will misrepresent the facts to suit some trumped up reason for doing something they want to do anyway. While you're thinking this is a good bill, just keep in mind they're intent on getting rid of jurys for many cases as well.


(There, that's probably got me locked up).

 

[david and julie]

No problem with you quoting me oilman.

Quote:
The security forces obviously know what these people are up to ........


And even if they do, the government will misrepresent the facts to suit some trumped up reason for doing something they want to do anyway. While you're thinking this is a good bill, just keep in mind they're intent on getting rid of jurys for many cases as well.

But please don't mis-quote me, this is what I said.

Damocles...You are right in that this is another poor piece of legislation from a poor government,

What do you and for that matter damocles suggest we do? and don't forget it is a labour Gov in power with a big majority, the Libs or Tories can't be blamed for this.

The reason we are seeing draconian measures is because we have severe problems. The multi cultural experiment has failed and we need to get a grip. Illiberal thugs are taking advantage of our freedoms. The obvious answer is remove the people and not our rights.

As regards juries, its the legal gravy train that as called problems there.

 

[oilman]

I should have been a bit clearer, it was the views like Thermo's that I was referring to.

As for what to do, what not to do is restrict people with out trial. If you do that, you support torture. No? Sorry, yes you do. You restrict them and the only evidence that's made public is that they confessed. ANYBODY will confess given enough pressure. Even with trials, torture was used by some police forces to extract confessions. Call it something else if you can't face reality, but torture it is.

So we have severe problems? Says who? Where's the evidence? Or is it just scare tactics?

You are more likely to suffer at the hands of delinquent teenagers, or more likely, drug addicts/dealers than so called terrorists.

Tony Blair has been advised by the security forces,..........are these the same advisors he claimed gave advice prior to invading Iraq? and when the lies were pointed out by the BBC resulted in the death of a government advisor, thanks to the stories pedalled by someone named after a can of soup. Having spent his youth as a gigolo in the south of France at £250 a time. You didn't know that?

 

[kevplumb]

not the same difference old son we are talking about extremists that behead a man that has done diddly squat then transmit the vid
a few slight inconveniences are handed out in retribution
if thats what you want to call it why should the "civillised west" treat them any different

you feel that strongly get over there as far as i'm concerned they would get a parachute and be pushed out of the plane over iraq

sorry if this rant causes offence to anybody it's how i feel

 

[david and julie]

As for what to do, what not to do is restrict people with out trial. If you do that, you support torture. No? Sorry, yes you do

Oilman you present that as a fact, you say I support torture can you say why?

If you are going to get involved in a debate get both your facts and your quotes right first.

 

[AdamW]

Perhaps Tony already has his list drawn up? Whilst walking past Downing Street the other day I did pick up a piece of paper with the following written on it:

People I am going to one day have arrested:

1) Mr Cloggs, my fourth-form Latin tutor for making me stay behind after scoring 3 out of 10 on my vocab test
2) Dave Biggins, who tormented me for being wet and rubbish at rugby
3) Johnny Smith, cos Cherie snogged him at the students' union once when we were going out, and she reckoned he was a better kisser than me.

Reckon it's his?

I can't understand the problem he had with a sunset clause. If it turns out to be the bad idea everyone is saying it is, then we should get rid of it. I think such clauses would be a good idea for most new legislation. A cooling off period.

 

[oilman]

david and julie (though I never understood why you write under two names) do stop taking things so personally. "You" as in "vous", not "tu".

Kev, I presume the beer was ok. As for extremists, what would you do if someone invaded this country? What happened with Northern Ireland, Palestine, North America when the Europeans got there? When people start playing hardball, the reaction may be hardball. Apart from the videos, the London gangs used to do some pretty unpleasant things to the people who crossed them. (So did the South African police). Don't forget it was the USA who originally made use of Bin Laden's services.

 

[jasy]

Oilman, it sounds like you are on the side of these peoples human rights regardless of what evidence is there. Out of a population of 58 million the police arrested 12. Now to me that sounds like there was something going on. And don't forget, that bloke they arrested in Gloucester.........he pleaded guilty to trying to blow up an aircraft. We are too soft and it is attitudes like yours which make it easy for these people