Zastrozzi
|
Take that, Tony...
Nov 09, 2005, 17:22
|
|
...as the ninety-day detention bill takes a bath... ha!
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: Take that, Tony...
Nov 09, 2005, 18:03
|
I don't know why I'm responding, hongnam, as I'm sure you and I will never agree on anything other than that the Cope chap has written a decent tune in the past. However...
The freedoms that British citizens enjoy and about which so many in government & the media have crowed about for so long, have been steadily eroded since 1979. There's been no slow down since 1997 and a return to internment (which is what this is no matter what the spin doctors say) would be one of the worst examples of that erosion.
Look what the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 admitted to in a far shorter time. I have no idea what I would admit to after 90 days and I hope that I'm never in the position to find out. We hope that the tactics used by governments of other countries (including the US in Guantanamo Bay) would not be used on suspects in UK custody, but we've already accepted using evidence obtained by torture elsewhere. Using..er...'robust' interrogation measures over a prolonged period (e.g.90 days) would only be a small step on from that. The extension to 28 days that has been passed by pariliament is hardly anything we should be proud of.
These laws are part of the anti-terrorism measures being adopted and will be seen by many people as a response to acts of violence from fundamentalist muslim groups, but could clearly they could be applied to anyone suspected of an offence (stand up Walter Wolfgang).
It's also a worrying development because if laws like this can be accepted, what would come next?
|
Father Sky
|
Re: Take that, Tony...
Nov 09, 2005, 18:15
|
|
Even Jack Straw and Gordon Brown rushing home couldn't save them... what a crushing defeat! However the compromise 28 days is still too long in my opinion. 14 days should be more than enough time.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Take that, Tony...
Nov 09, 2005, 20:20
|
Beautifully said VJ!
I always paraphrase Jello Biafra stance on this kind of thing: I'm against 90 days without charge, because they may get the wrong guy ... and it might be ME!
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Take that, Tony...
Nov 09, 2005, 22:08
|
I really hope you don't find yourself arrested without charge some-day hongnam...
I find the notion just as horrifying as terrorism itself.
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Take that, Tony...
Nov 10, 2005, 00:41
|
Fhey keep rolling out that "it took fourteen days to gather evidence after July 7!!!!!!"
Now, there's two very important words in that. First "evidence". I know I'm on the lower range of the average age round here (just), but I semeber what the SUS laws did. Secondly, "AFTER". Turns out the one person the police had a hand on that actually did have anything to do with the London bombings (who legged it to Spain) wsa released TWO days after being detained. Well, fuck me, letting him out an extra 76 days EARLY would've made all the difference.
Blair said (in the speech before loosing) that the police were responsible for the security of this country. Really? So whose job is enforcing the law? And, whay are we paying for all those extra security services? Who told us Iraq was a clear and present danger?
Training again tomorrow, but when I get back to the office on Friday, I will be checking how my MP voted on this. If she went against the Gov't I will send her congrats (it's about time, christ she's useless). If not, I won't be surprised and another abusive email form me won't make any differnece.
|
Merrick
|
Re: Take that, Tony...
Nov 10, 2005, 17:25
|
There has been a wilful conflation of the concept of 'gathering evidence to secure a conviction' and 'having enough evidence to charge'.
If the coppers have enough of a clue that you are guilty, they charge you. They don't need to have got all the evidence together. That's what the time after charge is for.
Charges are often dropped before trial for a lack of evidence. People are brought to trial but acquitted for a lack of evidence.
If you are likely to be guilty, you're charged. If it's a serious offence and/or there's a good chance you'll abscond, you get remanded in jail until trial.
I really don't see why this isn't enough already.
|
Rolling Ronnie
|
Re: Take that, Tony...
Nov 10, 2005, 17:29
|
'I really don't see why this isn't enough already.'
I agree, it should be enough. What the police (and the government) would use the 90 day rule for IMO is to take people out of circulation for 90 days when they know they don't have a cat in hells chance of getting any/enough evidence against them.
Completely political!!
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Take that, Tony...
Nov 10, 2005, 20:36
|
|
Well OK. Frankly I'm not as trusting of authority as most people seem to be. Sure I'm sickened by terrorism as everyone, but I don't like state-terror either... Yeah I know, nothing is black-or-white but shades of grey. I know I still tend to see things black-and-white and overtly opinionated and stuff. But it's not like I'm not aware of my weakness and the implications, y'know? I'm not ignorant, at least...
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Of course
Nov 11, 2005, 11:47
|
The Gov't are getting well stroppy about this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4427096.stm
"A British man has described how he, his wife and an Australian man were kept "hostage" for 13 days by Iranian authorities during a sailing trip.
Rupert and Linda Wise and Paul Shulton were seized by the Iranian Navy as they sailed from their home in Dubai to a disputed island in the Gulf. "
13 DAYS!!!! The animals! And, apparently kept in great comfort and treated with every courtesy. Oh, the humanity... Surely, they could've looked at their skin colour and realised there was no way they were spying or a security threat. It's not like they were Brazillian or anything...
|
