jimi
Well-known member
I think the Colin Stagg case was more to do with the manner of him being led on by the WPC rather than the means of data collection.
Lock you up and throw away the key?
- Thread starter ColdFusion
- Start date
Das_Boot
New member
I know but they did use some type of recording of their conversation. I know phone taps are inadmissable so either it was a direct recording of their conversation or they are admissable. If they are admissable, under what circumstance are they and in that case what have the politicos and press been going on about.
alant
Active member
No, we say these people died in the fight for freedom
_____________________________________________
Tell that to any child (or Mother of a child) maimed in a terrorist attack!!
Because this is exactly what all the terrorists claim as well!
The prime purpose of any Government is protection of its Citizens. If this means locking people up until the threat has passed, then I'm in favour. I'm buggered if I'm going to worry about the civil liberties or human rights of someone trying to kill me or my family. My oppinion has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with survival.
Those who sacrificed & died in the fight for freedom in past wars, did so by killing the enemy before they killed them. All we are talking about is restriction of activities, not putting them in a cold grave!
Wake up people, they might be right about the terrorist threat -remember people thought Churchill was crying wolf until Adolph went walkabout & there were few objections amongst the populace when internment took place. This is a war, whether we like it or not, so maybe we should start taking unpalatable action for the duration. Stop thinking about the personalities & think instead of the results if we fail to do so.
_____________________________________________
Tell that to any child (or Mother of a child) maimed in a terrorist attack!!
Because this is exactly what all the terrorists claim as well!
The prime purpose of any Government is protection of its Citizens. If this means locking people up until the threat has passed, then I'm in favour. I'm buggered if I'm going to worry about the civil liberties or human rights of someone trying to kill me or my family. My oppinion has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with survival.
Those who sacrificed & died in the fight for freedom in past wars, did so by killing the enemy before they killed them. All we are talking about is restriction of activities, not putting them in a cold grave!
Wake up people, they might be right about the terrorist threat -remember people thought Churchill was crying wolf until Adolph went walkabout & there were few objections amongst the populace when internment took place. This is a war, whether we like it or not, so maybe we should start taking unpalatable action for the duration. Stop thinking about the personalities & think instead of the results if we fail to do so.
Das_Boot
New member
Nobody advocates letting terrorists let off bombs just different ways of stopping them.
You can stop them by removing all rights of all citizens this is the dumb way it does not work.
Or you can use the methods we use to deal with all crime. Through the courts, using the safeguards we have taken many years to put in place.
The methods advocated at the moment look like lazy law, a dumb man lashing out, bringing the boot down and not caring who you squash.
You can stop them by removing all rights of all citizens this is the dumb way it does not work.
Or you can use the methods we use to deal with all crime. Through the courts, using the safeguards we have taken many years to put in place.
The methods advocated at the moment look like lazy law, a dumb man lashing out, bringing the boot down and not caring who you squash.
AlexL
Member
I've got no problem with locking up terrorists, it's locking up anybody that the home secretary fancies on a whim which I object to. what if its you? What if for some reason you piss off the home secretary, under these laws you are locked up, have no recourse to justice, no trial, no appeal, no lawyer, no nothing. The home secretary does not need to prove you are a terrorist under these rules - just has to give the go ahead. Now I know the powers that be will tell you that they will not do this and will use these powers responsibly and I'm sure we've got no reason to suspect the government or security services of abusing their power ( /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif), but if this piece of legislation is allowed then what is next? By definition it will have become OK to bypass the judicial system. And whats to stop the next government extending this to, say anyone who badmouthes the government? or Fox Hunters? or Football Fans? or anyone they fancy? and citing this legislation as precedent.
SlowlyButSurely
Active member
"Or you can use the methods we use to deal with all crime. "
This concept would be amusing if it weren't so frightening. The idea of not even bothering to prosecute 81% of terrorists and giving some of the rest an ASBO would be a little inadequate I fear. Something a bit more robust is required I think!
This concept would be amusing if it weren't so frightening. The idea of not even bothering to prosecute 81% of terrorists and giving some of the rest an ASBO would be a little inadequate I fear. Something a bit more robust is required I think!
tome
New member
I was reading a similar thread on the BBC site and saw this
"Had Blair and his ministers been placed under house arrest, and denied communication with the outside world, 3 years ago the UK would be a far safer, and more pleasant, country to live in."
{Nikki Sullivan, Northampton}
"Had Blair and his ministers been placed under house arrest, and denied communication with the outside world, 3 years ago the UK would be a far safer, and more pleasant, country to live in."
{Nikki Sullivan, Northampton}
Captain_Chaos
Member
This bill puts us on a slippery slope. The gap between the proposed legislation and the IRA "shall we take the suspects out and shoot 'em" approach is not significantly different.
If we are not going to let something as inconvenient as evidence and proof get in the way then why not go the next stage and have the secret services bump them off? At least in this age of litigation, the compensation for an illegal killing would probably be less than for improperly locking someone up , sorry house arrest, for a few years.
Also, as a practical issue, if someone is under house arrest, who pays the mortgage and buys the food to feed the family? House arrest= not working = no money = subsidised by the state?
With regard to the French system, they do incarerate people on suspicion but my understanding is that the process is controlled by the judiciary not the government and I think that is the crucial point that Bliar does not appear to understand.
The sooner the pratt is voted out the better. He should be put under house arrest as a danger to the nation
If we are not going to let something as inconvenient as evidence and proof get in the way then why not go the next stage and have the secret services bump them off? At least in this age of litigation, the compensation for an illegal killing would probably be less than for improperly locking someone up , sorry house arrest, for a few years.
Also, as a practical issue, if someone is under house arrest, who pays the mortgage and buys the food to feed the family? House arrest= not working = no money = subsidised by the state?
With regard to the French system, they do incarerate people on suspicion but my understanding is that the process is controlled by the judiciary not the government and I think that is the crucial point that Bliar does not appear to understand.
The sooner the pratt is voted out the better. He should be put under house arrest as a danger to the nation
Das_Boot
New member
'Something a bit more robust is required I think! '
There comes a point where fear becomes its own worst enemy. At some stage a country must stop employing more and more police otherwise we will end up with more police than the people they are trying to police. It is the same with the law there have to be cut off points you cannot just introduce more and more draconian legistlation. I think allowing politicians to jail people is one of those cut off points.
There comes a point where fear becomes its own worst enemy. At some stage a country must stop employing more and more police otherwise we will end up with more police than the people they are trying to police. It is the same with the law there have to be cut off points you cannot just introduce more and more draconian legistlation. I think allowing politicians to jail people is one of those cut off points.
Piddy
Active member
This is surely a combination of Political brinksmanship/electioneering.
If it is that important to have this level of control surely the opposition parties and the Lords would be able to see it and agree on a sensible law to cover what is required.
It seems absurd that a government of so-called clever people can't arrange to think slightly further ahead than tomorrow when the current legislastion runs out. We have a number of lawyers in the Government and opposition and Lords that have said that this would be a "bad" law, so why pursue it?
The lunch time news is talking about a snap General Election if they (Bliar & Co) lose: So be it, let's get back to balanced politics for a while - it almost doesn't matter who wins the next election as long as they don't have a large majority as that has led this lot to virtually ignore parliamentary procedure and everything that goes with it.
Doh! - to quote my son.
If it is that important to have this level of control surely the opposition parties and the Lords would be able to see it and agree on a sensible law to cover what is required.
It seems absurd that a government of so-called clever people can't arrange to think slightly further ahead than tomorrow when the current legislastion runs out. We have a number of lawyers in the Government and opposition and Lords that have said that this would be a "bad" law, so why pursue it?
The lunch time news is talking about a snap General Election if they (Bliar & Co) lose: So be it, let's get back to balanced politics for a while - it almost doesn't matter who wins the next election as long as they don't have a large majority as that has led this lot to virtually ignore parliamentary procedure and everything that goes with it.
Doh! - to quote my son.
SlowlyButSurely
Active member
But the point is that the terrorist threat is not like ordinary crime which is dealt with by the courts, not least because a terrorist suspect may not have committed any crime yet. Do you wait until they have before prosecuting whatever is left of the corpse or act in a pre-emptive manner?
tome
New member
So who's going to volunteer to be the first victim of a miscarriage of justice under the new proposals? Surely the supporters here of this ludicrous legislation would not object to being banged up in the interest of the greater good? After all, it would be pre-emptive even if wrong.
G
Guest
Guest
Well it's a little while since I stopped practising as a solicitor, and litigation was never my thing, but from my very distant memory of the subject at law school I can't imagine why phone taps legally carried out shouldn't be admissible. And illegally carried out phone taps are also admissible in evidence - against the officer who did them /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Mudplugger
New member
One could of course believe Mr Bla Bla ,but the similarities of the legislation limiting the freedom of what is supposedly a democratic society, bear a remarkable resemblance to that which was introduced in Germany pre '39, Do you suppose that "Mein Kampf" is now the bible of New Labour ? I thought that the reason for WW2 was to prevent this! Thank the Lord for a second chamber.
G
Guest
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
But the point is that the terrorist threat is not like ordinary crime which is dealt with by the courts, not least because a terrorist suspect may not have committed any crime yet. Do you wait until they have before prosecuting whatever is left of the corpse or act in a pre-emptive manner?
[/ QUOTE ]
If he plotted with others to commit a crime then he would already be guilty of the crime of Conspiracy. No need to wait until he actually does the crime.
The problem is of course proving the plotting "beyond reasonable doubt". The aim of the draft bill is presumably to reduce this burden to just having a suspicion, and avoiding all those inconvenient judges who might not be so suspicious as civil servants (it is well known that studying the law gives you a less fertile imagination).
But the point is that the terrorist threat is not like ordinary crime which is dealt with by the courts, not least because a terrorist suspect may not have committed any crime yet. Do you wait until they have before prosecuting whatever is left of the corpse or act in a pre-emptive manner?
[/ QUOTE ]
If he plotted with others to commit a crime then he would already be guilty of the crime of Conspiracy. No need to wait until he actually does the crime.
The problem is of course proving the plotting "beyond reasonable doubt". The aim of the draft bill is presumably to reduce this burden to just having a suspicion, and avoiding all those inconvenient judges who might not be so suspicious as civil servants (it is well known that studying the law gives you a less fertile imagination).
AlexL
Member
SlowlybutSurely, that is not the point - it is the reason that the politicos are giving, but the point is that you cannot lock people up without trial and evidence. Yes combatting terrorism is about potential threats, not actual post crime punishment, but IF someone is suspected then by definition there must be some evidence, phone taps, internet taps, intelligence etc. In this case the person in question could be prosecuted for conspiricy to do something or other using this evidece - what is wrong with this? Nothing, its what happens in other countries. However we seem to live in a country where this is too much effort so the entire legal and justice system can be bypassed for nothing more than political expediency. This should have been sorted out as soon as the law lords (rightly) overturned the existing legislation, instead it was decided that fox hunting was far more important, and now this is nothing more than a mixture of blatant electioneering and el presidente blair increasing his power base.
Das_Boot
New member
To the police everyone is a suspect.
When the finger of suspicion is pointed it might land on you.
When you ask why, you are not given an answer. How can you proclaim your innocence when you dont know the charge. How can you refute the evidence when you are not allowed to see it. There will be no satisfaction that at least a disintersted party has weighed you accusers words.
If a person has enough evidence to suspect someone of planning a crime surely this can be put before a judge. They are not forming the suspicion out of thin air. Do the government think the judges in this country are so useless that they will not see what the government sees in the evidence.
Do they think the Judges are on the side of the terrorists.
When the finger of suspicion is pointed it might land on you.
When you ask why, you are not given an answer. How can you proclaim your innocence when you dont know the charge. How can you refute the evidence when you are not allowed to see it. There will be no satisfaction that at least a disintersted party has weighed you accusers words.
If a person has enough evidence to suspect someone of planning a crime surely this can be put before a judge. They are not forming the suspicion out of thin air. Do the government think the judges in this country are so useless that they will not see what the government sees in the evidence.
Do they think the Judges are on the side of the terrorists.
SlowlyButSurely
Active member
Yes, quite. I was asking the question, not putting forward a point of view, because this is the issue: do we put up with the odd miscarriage of justice for the sake of enhanced security or do we suffer countless dead and injured in order to preserve a principle? ie. just how many dead and injured is this principle worth?
Das_Boot
New member
A few million in both wars
tome
New member
[ QUOTE ]
do we put up with the odd miscarriage of justice for the sake of enhanced security or do we suffer countless dead and injured in order to preserve a principle?
[/ QUOTE ]
Countless dead and injured? This is the hysterical language of fear that Blair is using in his agenda to have us abandon our rights of liberty and freedom from unnecessary state interference. Just how exactly will this new legislation protect us?
do we put up with the odd miscarriage of justice for the sake of enhanced security or do we suffer countless dead and injured in order to preserve a principle?
[/ QUOTE ]
Countless dead and injured? This is the hysterical language of fear that Blair is using in his agenda to have us abandon our rights of liberty and freedom from unnecessary state interference. Just how exactly will this new legislation protect us?