Tony Blair loses, terrorists go free

Underemployed

Muse
Underemployed
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
764
So, the Dear Leader has at last lost a parliamentary vote - and by quite a significant margin. For those of you outside the UK wondering what this is all about, check out:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1638775,00.html

The government wanted to allow police to detain suspected terrorists for 90 days without trial. This has been universally decried by the freedom-loving media of England.

Doesn't seem to be too much of an attack on civil liberties...plenty of people spend weeks on remand before sentence, although at least they will have been up before a magistrate. On the other hand, it would have made it very easy to get rid of people for a few months at a go - I have no illusions that this power would have been used solely to detain 'terror suspects'.

Is this something to ber worried about? Has a real attack on our rights been averted, or is it just an excuse to corw over Tony Blair losing his grip on the party? Should we allow the authorities to imprison who they like on the off-chance they are a terrorist? Don't we have enough laws to handle this already?
 
Same old assumption; terrorists are the people who are arrested and kept for 90 days. 'Terrorist suspect' is vastly different.

Considering that the law was suggested because police have claimed that they do not have the resources to acquire and interpret electronic evidence inside of the present time period... it seems like a major issue when the government goes down this road rather than addressing the core problem.

A 90 day jail sentence without any evidence is essentially what it would amount to. Pushing things a little, and makes living here a tad scary. Why not fund for extra police resources?

Athon
 
Last edited:
It kind of funny, I wish the US would hold terrorist suspects for "only" 90 days without charges.

It should be noted that Parliament increased the time from 14 to 28 instead of Blair's asked for 90. Does anyone know if the British government needs to provide evidence to a judge before the detentions? And can the suspect see a lawyer?

CBL
 
Don't it just suck when you actually have to try the people you incarcerate in a court of law? Makes the whole process damned inconvenient.
 
So we are back to 28 days...wonder if that option comes with torture or short stay flights abroad?
 
Underemployed said:
So, the Dear Leader has at last lost a parliamentary vote - and by quite a significant margin. For those of you outside the UK wondering what this is all about, check out:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1638775,00.html

The government wanted to allow police to detain suspected terrorists for 90 days without trial. This has been universally decried by the freedom-loving media of England.
Click to expand...

No. They wanted to be able to hold them for 90 days without charging them.
 
CBL4 said:
It should be noted that Parliament increased the time from 14 to 28 instead of Blair's asked for 90. Does anyone know if the British government needs to provide evidence to a judge before the detentions? And can the suspect see a lawyer?
Click to expand...

Parliament has not "increased the time" - what was voted on were amendments to a bill passing through parliament. The bill itself will be voted on at some point in the future, and, if passed, will then become law and thus increase the time.

As I understand it, the bill was originally drafted reading "three months". Amendments were tabled to change this wording to "90 days", "60 days" and "28 days", and these amendments were voted on. Note that had the votes all been "Noes", the bill would have remained unaltered, reading "three months". Thus even those who opposed any increase are still forced to vote "yes" for the minimum available (28 days) - hence the accusations of this being a Dutch auction, because some people are forced to vote for something they don't want, as the alternative is worse... However, there's still the option of defeating the whole bill later. Thank god.
 
This confusion is, in a kind of haphazard way, what I am trying to highlight.

Listening to the news, you would never get the impression that this is an amendment to a bill. Nor are there any meaningful explanations as to why 90 days is any better or worse than current limits, only emotive language regarding civil liberties. No context is given to allow the average voter to decide for themselves.

I suppose this sounds overly paranoid; I am not advocating any sinister agenda on the part of the government or the media, just bewailing the fact that it is extremely difficult to make any judgements without making time-consuming enquiries of our own.

Is this a problem unique to our modern world? Or were the original Greek voters making similar complaints?
 
The ancient Greeks couldn't even listen to the debates unless they were a) independently wealthy or b) were willing to leave their farms unworked for several days to travel into Athens.
 
demon said:
So we are back to 28 days...wonder if that option comes with torture or short stay flights abroad?
Click to expand...

Or conjugal visits?

(edited to add) It's is certainly noteworthy that both Bush and Blair (Tweedle Dumb & Tweedle Dee) are claiming to spread Democracy and freedom on one hand, while the hand behind their back is busy curtailing freedoms for the citizens of their own countries - and all in the name of terrorism.
 
Last edited:
I listened a lot to what the people pushing for 90 days wanted, and it pretty much seems to be the rational was that 90 days would allow them to detain people on very slight suspicions and then do the investigation and given that rationale I wouldn't support an extension to 90 days.

28 days without charge I think is more then pushing it.

I don't only want to be safe, I want to live a society that is based on the freedom of the individual. Even with the current laws I am more likely to win the lottery jackpot and be hit by a meteorite going to collect my winnings then I am likely to be a victim of a terrorist.
 
90 days is roughly equivalent to a six month prison sentence... without even being charged.

Nonetheless, the 90 day period would be subject to 7 day judicial reviews by a high-court judge, and is therefore not quite as draconian as the left-wing tabloid gutter press would have us believe.
 
3 months seemed a bit extreme and it seems that others agreed.

Would 'terrorist' include octogenarian protesters that shout out in Labour conferences?


.
 
H3LL said:
Would 'terrorist' include octogenarian protesters that shout out in Labour conferences?
Click to expand...

This whole thing has been completely blown out of all proportion by this contry's woefully sensationalist cater-to-the-idiots media.

New Labour decided they didnt want Wolfgang back in conference and asked if the police might be so good as to deny him entry and confiscate his pass- which they have a right to do after all----- it was their conference.

Unfortunately, the Sussex Constable who stopped him mistakenly quoted Sec.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop him. The Constable was a probationer and made a genuine error- training need for Sussex Police perhaps? But Wolfgang was NOT detained or interrogated as the idiot media would go on about.... he was just stopped and prevent from entering. Sheesh!!....
 
Jon_in_london said:
This whole thing has been completely blown out of all proportion by this contry's woefully sensationalist cater-to-the-idiots media.
Click to expand...

Quite probably. It's still fun to mention though.

What about 'terrorists' armed with boiled sweets?


.
 
I wished to start a thread about that and I must say that I am appalled by the title of this one.

It seems that the British Parliament still resists and holds firmly to the principles of Freedom and Democracy.

90 Days kept without charges??? Why 90 and not 95 or 85?

This is ridiculous! Kudos to the British Parliament.
 
Jon_in_london said:
This whole thing has been completely blown out of all proportion by this contry's woefully sensationalist cater-to-the-idiots media.

New Labour decided they didnt want Wolfgang back in conference and asked if the police might be so good as to deny him entry and confiscate his pass- which they have a right to do after all----- it was their conference.

Unfortunately, the Sussex Constable who stopped him mistakenly quoted Sec.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop him. The Constable was a probationer and made a genuine error- training need for Sussex Police perhaps? But Wolfgang was NOT detained or interrogated as the idiot media would go on about.... he was just stopped and prevent from entering. Sheesh!!....
Click to expand...

What abbout "terrorists" engaged in peaceful protests?
Perhaps against the arms trade? I'm sure the police wouldn't ream of using anti terrorist legislation against them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom