Lock you up and throw away the key?

[Captain_Chaos]

This whole thing is a Bliar attempt to claw back some of the ground lost to the tories over immigration. TB is trying to portray himself as the defender of the British people and that the tories are soft on terrorism and if anything happens it is someone elses fault.

This issue with the release of the Belmarsh prisoners should have been anticipated months ago, but Bliar was too concerned with fox hunting and sucking up to George Bush to do anything.

The really scary thing about the whole episode is to think that Bliar and his cronies actually believe the bollox they are talking.

Did anyone else hear the 5 Live interview between Nicky Cambell and the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland?

A discussion that started off about the IRA offering to take the legal system one step beyond Tony Bliars current proposal resulted in a spluttering government minister when having acknowledged that Martin McGuiness is a member of the IRA, a terrorist organisation, that he should the first to be lined up for house arrest....you could almost hear the cogs turning as the dimwit minister tried to think about his response. It is clear that the whole thing has not been thought through and that the people running this country are not very bright.

 

[BobOwen]

Jimi,

Yes, I have had similar thoughts. It is fair comment and possibly true but I repeat the question.....

[ QUOTE ]
To those who say conventional policing and security as exists, is enough, I simply ask one question.

"What if your wrong?"

[/ QUOTE ]

A quick web search will bring plenty of detailed information on current and past terrorist activities. It is pretty overwhelming and frightening.

Do we really tell the families of the next victims (As there will surely be) "Well, we are sorry, but it wouldn't have helped much anyway if we increased the terrorist laws" ?

 

[Piddy]

From: The security services

We now have the names of all of you that have objected to this bill and will regard you as suspect terrorists. In the next few days (if the bill is passed), your internet connections will "mysteriously" cease to work, you telephones will be monitored to establish how much of a threat you are to the good citizens of London and our other cities. (Terrorists don't live in the country as this government regards it solely as a weekend play area for city dwellers).
Your boats will be searched "at random" by the customs service every time it moves from its mooring and all MMSI numbers transmitting will be cross referenced against known infiltrators and will be taped to assist with prosecution for "crimes against the state". Not that you will know untill you are inside Parkhurst Prison which will be cleared out of lower grade criminals such as murderers (who will all be sent to Ford open prison as it's more convenient for visitors) for an indeterminate time or untill a movement such as that involved with freeing Nelson Mandela starts up in your cause. Mind you that only took something like 30 years.
-So be warned.

 

[Das_Boot]

The current bill is more to do with immediacy or containment. The Home office need to act swiftly if they become aware of a threat.
This need is argued in favour of the politician taking the decision to lock someone up before evidence which will sustain a conviction is available.
The evidence is mostly eavsdropping Therefore one would assume that allowing wire tap evidence to be presented in court would negate this.
One has to wonder why the law enforcement agencys are against this. IMHO this is because if it were to be allowed in court checks and balances would have to be introduced. Like in America you would need the permission of a judge you would have to show a good reason for the tap, whereas at the moment there is a free for all, no restrictions are put on the agencys and this is what they dont want to lose.

 

[ColdFusion]

Bob,

Hope you don't mind if I turn that question around - what if you're wrong?

What kind of country will this be then, after our civil liberties have been taken away? And what "do we really tell the families of the next victims (As there will surely be)" of miscarriages of 'justice'?

What's apparent from almost all the posts here is that the anti-terror bill is ill-conceived at best and nothing short of an attempt to turn this country into a police state at worst. It will be a very sad day if this bill goes through.

 

[jimi]

... and ? How can't existing legislation work? Think you fail to see the fundamentals here.

 

[Guest]

But what if Tony Blair is wrong? So many centuries of developing Britain as a 'free society' governed by the rule of law sacrificed for nothing. These are liberties that many Brits have died in the past for one way or another. To throw them away because there may be a heightened risk, possibly, or possibly not?

TB already asked the public to take his word for it recently - over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The result has been that the threat of terrorism in Britain has been greatly increased, not reduced. It is breathtaking that he can even think of doing it a second time.

I despair of a country that not only thinks that it's OK to invade another country on a false pretext, but considers that the mistake was not big enough to be a resigning matter (presumably only a sex scandal would be considered sufficiently important, tens of thousands of non-European/Anglo-Saxon deaths is not interesting), and to top it all looks like it will re-elect the culprit. I can see why some people start to find Al Qaeda attractive.

Does anyone know why it is not possible to adopt measures that provide for expelling the suspects? I know that it would involve possibly allowing a potential terrorist to walk free (outside the country), but there are already many Al Qaeda members and sympathisers in the world, one or two more shouldn't make much difference.

 

[ColdFusion]

Re: From: The security services

Piddy, that was almost funny.

 

[Das_Boot]

Existing legistlation cant work because Wire taps, Phone taps etc are not allowed to be given in evidence, unfortunatly they are the main source of intelegence. The whole Idea is to catch them before the bombs go off. If they were allowed in court the whole problem would go away. By problem I dont mean terrorism but convicting or containing them in a court of law. We could convict on conspiricy charges etc physical evidence would not play such a big role.

 

[Rowana]

Re: From: The security services

Yes, many a true word . . .

 

[tome]

Another question I have is why the government are so adamant that they don't want to use phone-tapping evidence, citing excuses of security. I can only imagine that phone tapping is already so widespread that they fear letting the cat out of the bag.

 

[Das_Boot]

Tome that is the issue. I cannot think of another reason for them beeing so dead set against it. Perhaps someone else might know a reason I just cant think of one.

 

[AlexL]

[ QUOTE ]
what if you're wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst case? maybe another 9/11 (i don't think many people believe that but lets assume for a minute) maybe another -what 3-4,000 people dead in a once a decade event? about the same as the annual UK road death toll. 10 times that number die annually because of basic cleanliness and general incompetance in UK hospitals . Lets get this b**lsh*t into perspective.
Want to protect the population? Clean the bloody hospitals, lock up pissed doctors, start policing the roads instead of collecting speed tax revenue and ignoring the rising death toll.

How about some real perspective on this? I can't find any UK stats, but in 2002 in the US 1.2 million people died.
340,000 heart desease
290,000 malignant neoplasms (whatever they may be!)
70,000 accidents
29,000 Flu and Pneumonia
28,000 suicides
18,000 chronic liver disease
15,000 septicemia

Clearly there are more important avoidable causes of death for a society to conentrate its resources on than a mythical, or at best an arguable terrorist threat.

Want to really send a message on terrorism? Lock up Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams, Arrest all the people collecting for the IRA in New York and London on st Paddys day next week.

Basic Justice and human rights is not something to be used as a political football. Especially as Fox hunting used about 3 months of parliamentary time, and now possibly the most fundamental change in the UK legal system and supposed constitution gets about 10 minutes and is done by executive decision anyway.

 

[BrickSailor]

[ QUOTE ]


Do we really tell the families of the next victims (As there will surely be) "Well, we are sorry, but it wouldn't have helped much anyway if we increased the terrorist laws" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we say these people died in the fight for freedom. Our fathers and grandfathers died in their tens of thousands to defend these basic freedoms, so why should we be afraid to? The only reason the terrorists mount these attacks is because they know the reaction they will get. If they come to realise that we aren't cowed by them they will give up.
Anyway, if I were OBL at the moment I wouldn't be bothering to plan any real attacks. Just sow a few rumours and sit back watching the governments of the UK and US do it all for me....

 

[Captain_Chaos]

nobody in their right mind wants to let terrorists run free. Bliar is trying to make out that anyone opposing his bill is somehow soft on terrorism and the causes of terrorism. This is total nonsense. His stooge, the ex top banana copper that spoke out at the week end banging on about the terrorist threat was scare mongering.
If the threat comes from non nationals, then throw them out. If they are convinced that they are about to commit a terrorist act then change the rules of evidence and allow phone taps etc, but let an independent judiciary (excluding Hutton) decide, not some second rate chancer like the home secretary.

Other countries seem to manage without such draconian laws.

 

[Ships_Cat]

As an outsider looking in it seems to me that many of you are about ready for some Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax lookalikes to lead you.

To be frank, I would rather see a few suspicious types in robes get sent on a short route march down the rear ramp of a Hercules at 2,000 feet out over the sea than let them get the upper hand by allowing them take advantage of the complexities of western justice systems and overexercised desires to be fair as they now do.

John

 

[Guest]

Where do you get the information from that wire taps and phone taps can't be used in a court of law? I don't recall coming across such a restriction.

Do you mean if they such taps were illegally obtained?

 

[tome]

[ QUOTE ]
a short route march down the rear ramp of a Hercules at 2,000 feet

[/ QUOTE ]

bloody hell John, remind me not to disagree with you in future!

I firmly believe that our existing legislation is adequate to deal with a terrorist threat, up to the point when we start to detain 'on suspicion'. That's a red line for me, and I would rather face the possible consequences of an occasional attack than live with the restrictions proposed by this government.

Many brave souls have died to maintain our civil freedom and it would be an insult to them to hand that over to the likes of Blair and Clarke.

 

[TheBoatman]

Here Here!!

 

[Das_Boot]

I think the problem is like you say they are all illegaly obtained and therefore not admissable. I seem to remember the case of Colin Stag (?) who was recorded talking to a woman police officer on a phone. She was trying to trap him into admitting a crime. I dont remember if this was over a phone or in direct contact and the conversation was recorded. I am not a lawyer but am sure phone taps etc are not admissable. I will ask my son what the law is and let you know.