Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Anti-terror Laws: Is 90 Days Too Long?  
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2064 times:

MPs are to vote on powers to hold terror suspects for 90 days without charge, in what is being called a test of Tony Blair's leadership credentials.
Labour rebels who say the plans breach human rights have refused to back down. Both Conservative leadership candidates are opposing the 90-day clause, backing instead an amendment put forward by Labour backbencher David Winnick setting the maximum time suspects can be held to 28 days.

But some Tory MPs have indicated they might defy their party line and vote with the government.

The Liberal Democrats and many Labour rebels are expected to back the 28-day plan.

Do you think 28 days is enough? What if an innocent person is held for 90 days?

52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2042 times:

Ninety days is fine. . . . while I hope no innocent person is kept there for 90 days (and compensated appropriately if they are innocent) it may take 90 days (or more) to clear this person . . . .

We'll see how it goes . . . . I support it.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2033 times:

Well, I hate it.

90 days without charge is absolutely outrageous. Yes, the police want it, but it is not the purpose of a democracy to do everything the police want. It'd make their jobs easier if everyone was locked in their houses from dusk to dawn too.

Something like 8,000 people have been detained (for up to 14 days) under the Prevention of Terrorism Act so far. Of those, a mere handful have been charged. So you lock them up for 90 days (effective internment) and if they didn't hate us before, they bloody well will by the time they get out.

It's also important to recognise that the chances are, the courts will tend to frown on any evidence garned towards the end of the detention period, as it may be felt to be gained under duress. It might well also fall foul of the Human Rights Act.

It's far too high a price for a pretty nebulous gain. All we've had as an argument in favour is that the police want it (see above). It's too high a price. We're destroying the freedoms that made us different in the first place. And the really depressing thing is how many people are keen to see it happen. We had the IRA for 30 years and there was never any suggestion we'd go down this route on the mainland. We had internment in the early 70's in Northern Ireland, and that was a disaster.

I truly hope MP's will vote this appalling proposal down. It might happen. I really hope so.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 2):
90 days without charge is absolutely outrageous. Yes, the police want it, but it is not the purpose of a democracy to do everything the police want. It'd make their jobs easier if everyone was locked in their houses from dusk to dawn too.

Exactly - I'd like to think that if the caught a real terrorist, they'd have worked out long before 90 days is up that they really were one. The thought of having somebody banged up for three months who turns out to innocent of any charges is a decidedly worrying one - we are a democracy, not some totalitarian state.

Quoting Banco (Reply 2):
We had the IRA for 30 years and there was never any suggestion we'd go down this route on the mainland. We had internment in the early 70's in Northern Ireland, and that was a disaster.

Exactly. and people have very short memories - as awful as the recent terrorist bombings are, lets not forget that it isn't as if we are experiencing terrorism for the first time - although you might think so listening to some people. Christ, I remember my old flat shaking when the Ealing IRA bomb went off a few years back. Yes it is a different threat, but in the same way such tactics alienated even more catholic Irish agianst the british in the 70s, the same would happen here to a almost certainly far greater extent - only turning more disaffected muslims into potential terrorists.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 2):
Something like 8,000 people have been detained (for up to 14 days) under the Prevention of Terrorism Act so far. Of those, a mere handful have been charged.

Well you do have a point there.


User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2010 times:

Just to add...

At the end of the day it's what the Police want and we all know the Police are always right and never make mistakes.

Having said that we need to protect the public.


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting 9VSPO (Thread starter):
MPs are to vote on powers to hold terror suspects for 90 days without charge, in what is being called a test of Tony Blair's leadership credentials.
Labour rebels who say the plans breach human rights have refused to back down. Both Conservative leadership candidates are opposing the 90-day clause, backing instead an amendment put forward by Labour backbencher David Winnick setting the maximum time suspects can be held to 28 days.

But some Tory MPs have indicated they might defy their party line and vote with the government.

The Liberal Democrats and many Labour rebels are expected to back the 28-day plan.

Do you think 28 days is enough? What if an innocent person is held for 90 days?

If there is another evidence that labels somebody a terrorist, no, 90 days is not to much. It is a brand new world with people trying to kill as many as Non-Muslims as possible.

I know that people are going to scream about innocents and Democracy, and the people that bring that up have a valid point, but, in a way, there is a war going on. I say, vote these measures in, on a temp. basis.....



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

90 days without charge? Proposed by a prime minister who should sit in jail for 90 years for all the people killed in Iraq? Not a good idea.

Even 14 days is way too long in my opinion. People should be charged within 24 hours or be released.

You can't make politics based on fear!


User currently offlineLeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Some statistics from Private Eye (admittedly maybe a slightly biased source, but still)

Number of days terrorism suspects may be held before being charged:

24 hrs in Australia (al-Qaeda death toll: 88)
5 days in Spain (al-Qaeda death toll: 191)
7 days in the USA (al-Qaeda death toll: 3000)
90 days proposed in the UK (al-Qaeda death toll: 52)


So - what happens when 90 days is no longer sufficient? 180 days?


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

Quoting LeonB1985 (Reply 8):
7 days in the USA (al-Qaeda death toll: 3000)

In Guantanamo Bay, hundreds of people are being held without being charged. They've been held there for years and only a handful of the hundreds of detainees have been charged.

Is this a democracy? Not if we're treating prisoners (any kind) like this.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineLeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Yeah - the Brits and Americans want to 'install' their brand of democracy in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, yet they set the example of imprisoning people who are not proved to be guilty. I by no means sympathise with the terrorists, but there are two sides to every story. I don't think locking up possibly innocent people for three months is going to make people feel any better about Britain. The police do make mistakes, as we saw not long ago at all when a very unfortunate Brazilian electrician paid with his life. Nobody innocent will be held for 90 days? Yeah, right!

User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 6):
I say, vote these measures in, on a temp. basis.....

Just to provide information on that point, the intention would be to install a "sunset" clause, whereby it would have to be renewed by Act of Parliament every 12 months.

I still hate it. Interesting to note that a couple of the Law Lords came out describing the Bill (Parliamentary Bill, not the police, though now I come to think of it...  Wink ) as "intolerable".



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24928 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

90 days should be fine I think, perhaps 120 days would be better though?


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineTheSorcerer From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 1048 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 12):

I wonder if you'd still say that after being stuck in a prison for 120 days and being innocent.
It wouldn't be fine for anyone, but I would go to prison for 90 days if it makes Britain safer(I'm not saying it is).

The Sorcerer



ALITALIA,All Landings In Torino, All Luggage In Athens ;)
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1941 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 12):
90 days should be fine I think, perhaps 120 days would be better though?

Excellent. Habeas Corpus has only been a fundamental part of our legal system for 900 years. Let's abolish it completely eh?  Yeah sure



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineLeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 12):
90 days should be fine I think, perhaps 120 days would be better though?

Are you being serious?
 Confused


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting TheSorcerer (Reply 13):
but I would go to prison for 90 days if it makes Britain safer

I'm sorry, that's crap. We're not talking a nice cushy number in Ford Open prison here. Belmarsh prison; constant interrogation. You'd be absolutely terrified. And more to the point, you'd have no avenue of appeal because you hadn't been charged. You'd have no prospect of challenging your imprisonment in front of the courts, you'd be stuck there. And at the end of that 3 months, you'd be let out, with no apology, no compensation, no job, no hope of a job.

And you'd be willing to do that? To make the country somehow "safer"?

Either you've not thought this through, or if you have, I simply don't believe you.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

It is only going to alienate minority communities further. Michael Howard said in the Commons today..."What is going to be the effect on an innocent person jailed for 3 months, their friends and relatives?"

It's a complete joke and it's nothing more than bullying.


User currently offlineTheSorcerer From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 1048 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 16):

Ok , i was exaggerating.
But do you agree that people found with Jihad tapes should be stuck in prison for 90 days?
It's obvious that people with that sort of material are up to something.

I exaggerated banko, please don't roast me for it.
Thanks

The Sorcerer



ALITALIA,All Landings In Torino, All Luggage In Athens ;)
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Quoting TheSorcerer (Reply 18):
But do you agree that people found with Jihad tapes should be stuck in prison for 90 days?
It's obvious that people with that sort of material are up to something.

No, I don't. If you find a body and someone next to it holding a knife, you could say it's obvious that they are up something. Do you think they should be locked up without a trial? Of coruse not. That's what it's for.

Now, if you want to make possession of such material a criminal offence in its own right (and there is a precedent, possession of pornographic images of children is an offence in its own right) then fine, we can discuss the merits of that. But the fundamental problem with this piece of legislation is that it imprisons people without them being found guilty of anything. To me, that's an absolute. No detention without trial. Short-term detention to allow the police to investigate is one thing, a three month prison term (and let's be clear, that's what it is) without any form of trial is totally unacceptable.

Quoting TheSorcerer (Reply 18):
I exaggerated banko, please don't roast me for it.

OK.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1914 times:

Quoting TheSorcerer (Reply 18):
But do you agree that people found with Jihad tapes should be stuck in prison for 90 days?

Well if you put it like that, let's lock them up and throw the key away! Big grin


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1912 times:

And the government have lost the vote:

322-291 against the proposal.

Must admit, the scale of the defeat has surprised me somewhat. But anyway, just occasionally, MP's renew your faith in democracy.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

It didn't get the vote  Sad

The 90 day detention has been rejected, voted 322 to 291  Sad

Damn  Sad


Lee



Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

You can be sentanced by a court to much less than 90 days detention for a lot of crimes. This is punishment by detention without a trial and should be avoided at all costs.

IF you have evidence to hold them, then charge them on that evidence. That gives you enough leeway to convince a Judge that bail should not be given and the suspect should be held in custody until trial. During that time you can continue to investigate for other crimes.

Investigation by trawling is never good policing.


User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 21):
322-291 against the proposal.

 Wow!

So do they now apply for 28 days?


25 BMIFlyer : Yes, but if that is voted "No" they will then decide on 60 days. Lee
26 RichardPrice : Im glad it didnt pass. At least there are some same MPs still.
27 Banco : 28 days is realistically the most that will get through. Not just because of the Commons, but the Lords will throw out anything longer, not least beca
28 Post contains images Cornish : Bet Gordon Brown is in a foul mood after getting called back to vote after just arriving in Tel Aviv only to find out his vote wouldn't have made any
29 Banco : 28 days has been accepted by the Commons. So, short of the Lords rejecting that, that's what we'll have. I dislike that as well, but I can just about
30 RichardPrice : I can live with 28 days. Hope Tony gets the message that he isnt God. Yet.
31 Post contains images 9VSPO : I think 28 days is more than enough. The Police made a good case but there was no evidence to show that 90 days was needed going off previous cases. G
32 777236ER : What nonsense. The police, headed ostensibly by a man who feels more at home on TV screens than determining whether or not his men shot an innocent m
33 SQNo1 : Just wondering if the ogvernment could use the parliament act to pass through the bill of holding a terror suspect for ninety days, or was that formed
34 MD-90 : It is an outrage. One day is long enough. Charge him with a crime if you have reasonable suspicion of involvement in any crime, from a bombing down to
35 RichardPrice : No, this cant happen. The Parliament act dates back to the 1911s, and was updated in the 1940s to add power for the government to force through legis
36 ANother : 90 days, 28 days or even 1 day - no police force should have this 'right'. Checks and balances need to be in place to ensure that the law is not abuse
37 RichardPrice : That was pretty much how the 90 day bill was going to be. Suspect detained by police and after each 7 day period the police had to justify the next 7
38 Post contains images TheSorcerer : How long are the suspects in Sydney being held? They had reconnaissance videos, maps and charts and chemical weapons(I think). Tony looked like he was
39 Post contains images FlyLondon : Don't be so stupid! When a pensioner heckles Blair at the party conference clearly the police should have the option to hold him without charge for 90
40 Thorben : I see it like this: The police should only arrest people if they have an arrest warrant issued by an independent judge, who is responsible for that.
41 GDB : That 'Apple' is a Poppy. This flower that was seen even in the mud and trenches of WW1, so the Poppy became the symbol of UK war remembrance, both Wor
42 Ryangooner : I think you need a little bit more than just a "reasonable suspicion" to gain a charge! Ryan
43 9VSPO : All my life I have been a Labour supporter but seeing Tony Blair tonight try and defend his actions really turned my stomach.
44 WhiteHatter : Blair was following what the police and numerous public polls have indicated would be the acceptable figure. However the House decided that 90 days wa
45 RichardPrice : Now all that needs to be struck down is secret evidence. Thats the ability for the prosecution to present evidence that only the judge can see. The de
46 FlyAUA : I can only agree... it's easy to say "I support it" or "90 days is not long", but one day when you are held for 90 days for not doing anything, you w
47 B744F : There are still American citizens locked up with no charges filed against them. Jose Padilla comes to mind as one of them who was locked away for qui
48 Post contains images LeonB1985 : Only passing on what the text said!
49 Thorben : OK, thanks for the explanation.
50 Post contains images Banco : It isn't a law. It was a proposal, but has been rejected by Parliament. It can't come into law. Well, I'm gald you mentioned that, because I have a h
51 Post contains images 9VSPO :
52 DaddiesSecret : Jesus, It took you this long for Blair to turn your stomach ... Yes, you can. The Police force is highly politicised otherwise how could you explain
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Britain's New Anti-Terror Law posted Sat Mar 12 2005 11:02:08 by Mdsh00
New Anti-Porn Laws Coming In To Your Car posted Thu Mar 11 2004 06:36:53 by Superfly
New Terror Laws Used Vs. Common Criminals posted Sun Sep 14 2003 20:08:53 by Jhooper
Announcing New "post Too Long" Feature... posted Mon Apr 1 2002 06:24:29 by 747-600X
New Anti-semitic Cartoon Contest... posted Tue Feb 14 2006 11:18:54 by Agill
New Tillie (Peugeot 207) Is Here (Pics) posted Fri Jan 20 2006 15:37:12 by UTA_flyinghigh
New System Of A Down Is Finally Out! posted Wed Nov 23 2005 04:50:46 by Swabur
New Supreme Court Nominee Is . . . posted Wed Jul 20 2005 01:46:58 by Diamond
3 Arrested In Heathrow Under Anti-Terror Act posted Sun Jul 10 2005 17:10:57 by Avek00
USA/France Run Extensive Joint Anti-terror Ops posted Sun Jul 3 2005 16:34:01 by Avek00