3 months to hold suspected terrorists - is it right ?

[Uncle Spielberg]

Superb front page on the Sun today of Davis and Cameron " Dumb and Dumber " going against the 90 day holding of suspected terrorist without specific charge ".

I am with the Sun and Blair on this one.

Will Cameron and David have the blood of the English on their hands when the next terrorist attack happens ?.

 

[Beeercan]

A bit too long innit

 

[Curious Orange]

If the police want to hold someone for 90 days, or 14 days, or whatever, they must have a reason. If they have a reason they must have evidence to be able to charge that person, if they have no evidence then they shouldn't be being held.

Holding someone on a suspicion smacks of the kind of police state some of these terrorists want us to have. We are better than that.

 

[London Calling]

Yep 90 days is taking the p***. Welcome in the Police State of locking up all undesirables.

But 14 days is also a farce, how on earth could any organisation collect key evidence on world terrorists in such a short space of time?

30 days should be sufficient for initial charges to be brought in!

LC

 

[Dandyman]

If the police want to hold someone for 90 days, or 14 days, or whatever, they must have a reason. If they have a reason they must have evidence to be able to charge that person, if they have no evidence then they shouldn't be being held.

Holding someone on a suspicion smacks of the kind of police state some of these terrorists want us to have. We are better than that.

Well said. 90 days is a prision sentence with no charge, no court case, no jury, just the suspicion of an inept police force.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I would like to thing the Police will have something more concrete than " He has a beard and a rucksack lets lock him up for 90 days "

 

[Uncle Buck]

I would like to thing the Police will have something more concrete than " He has a beard and a rucksack lets lock him up for 90 days "

The Brazilian lad?

 

[Chicken Run]

No the tories are right (for a change) I can not believe this is a Labour PM pushing this

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Pipe down Piers

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Yes the Brazilian lad but also there was the small matter of 52 people being blown to pieces as well.

 

[Redhead]

The Brazilian lad?

Surely its better for people like him to be locked up for nintey days than shot. By people like him i mean innocent people.

 

[Albion Dan]

Yes the Brazilian lad but also there was the small matter of 52 people being blown to pieces as well.

Yeah by some lads who the Police didnt think were woth pursuind as suspects? Hmmm really good to trust the police.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Pipe down Piers

Sorry Garth, I will pipe down and just let you put your jack boots on and goose step your opinions.

Ok?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Thats fine

 

[Bwian]

It can always be changed if it proves to be unworkable or is being abused. In these times terrorism is the thing most people abhor-why not try these measures to see if they work? It's better than shooting innocents and if it helps prevent the death of hundreds of innocents I'm in favour.

 

[Grendel]

To date, 11 people have been held for the current maximum of 14 days. All have been charged. Why lock people up for 90 days when it appears that amount of time is not needed in order to charge someone.

Today's cartoon in The Times was a good one:

 

[Rougvie]

If they are a threat to the security of the country I say look em up INDEFINATELY.

 

[Grendel]

If they are a threat to the security of the country I say look em up INDEFINATELY.

So if the police thought you were a threat to security, despite having no evidence of this whatsoever, you wouldn't have a problem with being locked up for a few years?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

There are lots of people in this country who want to kill English people for being English , Christian and not avidly following Islam. In their minds its worship Islam and you will live, do not worship Islam and you must die. It makes me laugh people desperate to protect the rights of these people whp are the scum of the earth without thinking of the dire consequences.

90 days in prison is not going to kill them and if it saves 1 innocent life it would have been worth it.

 

[Dandyman]

The ratio of arrests to convictions for terrorism has always been minute, fueling the belief that the PTA is more about appearing to do something and/or intimidating dissenting voices rahter than actually fighting terrorism ( whcih might be better done by not supporting distatorships like the House of Saud).

According to the Beeb:

Last Updated: Friday, 11 March, 2005, 14:29 GMT

Since the 9/11 attacks hundreds of people have been arrested in the UK under anti-terror laws, but fewer than 20 have been convicted.
Between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2004, were 701 arrests in the UK under the Terrorism Act.

But only 119 of these had faced charges under this legislation, with 45 of them also being charged for other offences.

A further 135 people were charged under other legislation - including terrorist offences covered in other criminal law, such as the use of explosives.

Only 17 have been convicted of offences under the Act.

The details are contained in the Home Office's background briefing papers relating to the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Bill currently being considered by Parliament.

However, research by BBC Radio 4's Today programme suggests that not all those convicted under the Act were accused of participating in international terrorism.

Information gathered with the help of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Institute of Race Relations provided details of 13 convictions.

It emerged that three of the convictions related to Irish republicanism and four to the Irish loyalist movement.

Two stemmed from a Sikh terrorism case and one involved Tamil terrorism.

Only three related to some form of Islamic terrorism.