triskelion Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 On the other hand, it is supported by the majority of British public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Back in the day we were under the impression that detaining a suspected terrorist for a length of time would have lots of positive outcomes, the most prominant ones were that if an attack was imminent then this would mean that the explosives had been mixed and would have to be used within 7 days or they become unstable. You nick a terrorist who is involved in the planned attack and the infastructure crumbles which prevents the planned target being blown up. The other plus side was a cell becoming twitchy in the knowledge that one of the member has been detained, this causes them to either flap and make mistakes or abandon the cell and try and regroup, if they do try and regroup then they have to involve a hierachy, this way the security services can pin the different cells to the hierachy and help build the network picture. Then you have the whole legal side of it where it takes more than 48 hours to make a case, so in 42 days you could have a wealth of information gained, some of which the above 2 points would link into. The negatives of being able to detain someone for 42 days are.... nanny state.. police state... fuck that, as long as i am on the right side of the law and i know that harsh powers are needed for harsh times and they can be used, then i am a happy bunny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexMcC Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Now conviction A total shocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 as long as i am on the right side of the law and i know that harsh powers are needed for harsh times and they can be used, then i am a happy bunny. As long as you're not a Brazilian getting on a tube train....................... edit to add TOTALLY INNOCENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The negatives of being able to detain someone for 42 days are.... nanny state.. police state... fuck that, as long as i am on the right side of the law and i know that harsh powers are needed for harsh times and they can be used, then i am a happy bunny. Not just that though - habeous corpus, alienation etc. Don't forget this is about holding people PRE-charge, not post-charge and to court. About 1.5% of the British population are Muslim yet they currently represent 12% of the prison population. Much recruitment goes on in prisons - and so disaffected people will invariably/likely cause more trouble in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Dont run away from policemen carrying guns and you will not get shot. And if you think that people are just grabbing people off the streets without carrying out "P" checks or the people not being under surveialence to warrant the arrest then you would be mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Dont run away from policemen carrying guns and you will not get shot. Like the guy in Sussex who was shot in bed? What was he doing? Snoring in a dangerous manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Dont run away from policemen carrying guns and you will not get shot. Like the guy in Sussex who was shot in bed? What was he doing? Snoring in a dangerous manner? No copper has been prosecuted for shooting someone in the last 30 odd cases - including for shooting that guy 'armed' carrying a table leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted June 12, 2008 Author Share Posted June 12, 2008 I see that David Davies has now resigned over this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I see that David Davies has now resigned over this..... Blimey! At last some honour, integrity and some decency in British Politics coming to the fore. BBC News. "Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who also voted against 42 day detention, said his party would not be fielding a candidate in the by-election, after speaking to Mr Davis.". If Labour don't field a candidate either, nothing much will change though I suspect, but at least it makes for an interesting approach. Labour won't be happy it seems until they get half of British Joe Public angry enough and out on the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 as long as i am on the right side of the law and i know that harsh powers are needed for harsh times and they can be used, then i am a happy bunny. As long as you're not a Brazilian getting on a tube train....................... edit to add TOTALLY INNOCENT Errr, actually if he hadn't broken the UK immigration laws he wouldn't have been there to be shot at in the first place. In any event, the Met and the Intelligence Services are staffed by people and people make mistakes - it's called Living On Planet Earth. So all you can do is put processes in place that hopefully will help prevent mistakes being made but to think they are always going to get it 100% right is naiive in the extreme. I'm also of the opinion that the current situation has left the previous legislation behind - things move on. So I see nothing wrong with trying the 42-day option to see how it operates. If things go badly wrong they can always change it back again you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP. He is to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency which he will fight on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit. Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who also voted against 42 day detention, said his party would not be fielding a candidate in the by-election, after speaking to Mr Davis. Blimey! At last some honour, integrity and some decency in British Politics coming to the fore. If Labour don't field a candidate either, nothing much will change though I suspect, but at least it makes for an interesting approach. Labour won't be happy it seems until they get half of British Joe Public angry enough and out on the streets. I don't know what you're on Albert but I want some! What a load of complete and utter bs. Brown et al rightly claim that in the main Joe Public wants the extra protection the 42-day limit might give them. Face it, it's a whole lot better than being blown up on a tube train. So Davies is going to resign his seat and fight it "on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit.". Oh no he isn't. At the last election it was Con 22,792, Lib 17,676 and Lab 6,104. So he's going to win with a thumping majority and then try to claim it is the public voting AGAINST the 42-day limit - which is complete and utter tripe. Pass the sickbag Alice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Joe Public wants the extra protection the 42-day limit might give them. Face it, it's a whole lot better than being blown up on a tube train. That'd be a whole lot more convincing if internment in NI hadn't been such a miserable faliure, or if MI5 were specifically asking for the limit increase (which Jacqui Smith admits they haven't), or if the association of chief police officers' lead on counter terrorism hadn't come out recently as saying 42 days wasn't necessary. All signs point to this being an ineffectual piece of political tubthumping that undermines the rule of law for little reason other than win votes by soothing a paranoia regarding terrorism that the Government itself has encouraged. Errr, actually if he (de Menezes) hadn't broken the UK immigration laws he wouldn't have been there to be shot at in the first place. Well done. You've managed to transcend simple stupidity and rise to outright disgusting. Your pantomime dame histrionics are becoming boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Errr, actually if he hadn't broken the UK immigration laws he wouldn't have been there to be shot at in the first place. Evidence that emerged during the course of the criminal trial into the Health and Safety charge showed that Mr de Menezes was lawfully in the country on 22 July 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Dont run away from policemen carrying guns and you will not get shot. But the IPCC report invalidated the assertion that de Menezes had acted suspiciously prior to boarding the train (indeed the statements that he vaulted over a turnstile and was wearing bulky clothing capable of concealing a bomb have been proven to be false). He died because the police operation was a series of cock ups from start to finish, from identification to threat assessment to execution, each stage was found to be flawed and littered with mistakes - radios didn't work in the tube station, orders weren't relayed to officers, the surveillance team didn't know what the firearms team were doing, and several opportunities to stop de Menezes were missed despite the mistaken belief he was a serious threat. Whatever mistakes de Menezes is guilty of, none of them are as serious as the general incompetance and mistakes made by agents of the state. It is this incompetance, this capacity for serious and catastrophic errors to be made, and the seriousness of their consequences that demonstrate why people should be concerned about the Government's increasing desire to undermine the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.