Richard Whiteley
New member
- Sep 24, 2003
- 585
Gareth Glover is a fountain of fetid shit.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
3 months to hold suspected terrorists - is it right ?
- Thread starter Uncle Spielberg
- Start date
London Calling
New member
Why did the rules of engagement change in July?
This statement is repeated again and again.
We or a lot of us lived through the IRA bombing campaign in London, the rest of Great Britain and obviously in Ireland.
We didn't need the repression of 90 days then so why now?
How many atrocities took place? It wasn't just once but hundreds of times with thousands of lives lost.
Did we have ID cards? No?
In terms of innocent people. The Jews ans socialists were innocent of crimes in 1930's Germany but it didn't stop the Nazi's rounding them up, locking them up and then giving them some gas for their innocence.
As I said earlier 14 days is probably not enough, though it appears to be totally sufficient so far with respect to 7/7. So again, it appears the "rules" at the moment seem perfectly OK.
LC
This statement is repeated again and again.
We or a lot of us lived through the IRA bombing campaign in London, the rest of Great Britain and obviously in Ireland.
We didn't need the repression of 90 days then so why now?
How many atrocities took place? It wasn't just once but hundreds of times with thousands of lives lost.
Did we have ID cards? No?
In terms of innocent people. The Jews ans socialists were innocent of crimes in 1930's Germany but it didn't stop the Nazi's rounding them up, locking them up and then giving them some gas for their innocence.
As I said earlier 14 days is probably not enough, though it appears to be totally sufficient so far with respect to 7/7. So again, it appears the "rules" at the moment seem perfectly OK.
LC
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #63
And you Whiteley are a really nice well rounded man who puts his arguments across in such a well thought out way, how old are you 7 ? 
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
Westdene Seagull said:
Stinky Kat
Tripping
God its the SUS rules of the 70ies and 80ies but with a 90 day lock up without charge.
I think you should charge people if you suspect them.
Worlds gone mad
I think you should charge people if you suspect them.
Worlds gone mad
When I learnt about due process at university the maxim we were told to remember was that it was better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer.
I guess we're all now debating whether we do believe that, especially in a climate where terrorism is so feared.
This is different from the IRA era, because the IRA very rarely killed in the numbers that Islamic terrorists have done. The IRA always gave warning and often their main design was to create chaos and damage property rather than to just kill. Recent attacks by Islamic fundamentalists around the world show one sole aim: to kill as many as possible.
I don't see why anyone should be surprised that people believe this extension is a good idea, or why the police or security services would want it. They want to save lives in the event of another attack. 100s and even thousands of lives could be saved and they obviously think this extension will make a difference.
I'm undecided, but thre's a compelling argument to ditch the above maxim and that's that it's better that one innocent man suffer than one thousand die.
I guess we're all now debating whether we do believe that, especially in a climate where terrorism is so feared.
This is different from the IRA era, because the IRA very rarely killed in the numbers that Islamic terrorists have done. The IRA always gave warning and often their main design was to create chaos and damage property rather than to just kill. Recent attacks by Islamic fundamentalists around the world show one sole aim: to kill as many as possible.
I don't see why anyone should be surprised that people believe this extension is a good idea, or why the police or security services would want it. They want to save lives in the event of another attack. 100s and even thousands of lives could be saved and they obviously think this extension will make a difference.
I'm undecided, but thre's a compelling argument to ditch the above maxim and that's that it's better that one innocent man suffer than one thousand die.
Mr Banana
Tedious chump
Do me a favour, Gareth. “Superb” front page of The Sun? It’s the most depressingly narrow-minded, right-wing piece I’ve ever seen. May I remind you – although I doubt you already knew as you have clearly waded in despite knowing precisely f*** all about the situation as usual – that 90 days is six times the current maximum limit and the equivalent of a six-month sentence. Democracies are not allowed to impose imprisonment without trial.
Since when, on any issue, has it been the right of The Sun to declare a ‘list of shame’ of those who dare to vote against it? Since when has Charles Clarke (look it up if you don’t know who he is) been able to cat-call those daring to oppose the plans as “pathetic liberals”? I again remind you that we live in a supposed democracy, but seeing as you get your opinions from The Sun I wouldn’t expect you to understand that concept either.
Since when, on any issue, has it been the right of The Sun to declare a ‘list of shame’ of those who dare to vote against it? Since when has Charles Clarke (look it up if you don’t know who he is) been able to cat-call those daring to oppose the plans as “pathetic liberals”? I again remind you that we live in a supposed democracy, but seeing as you get your opinions from The Sun I wouldn’t expect you to understand that concept either.
Dandyman
In London village.
DJ Leon said:
As far as the UK goes, the IRA and other terrorists connected to The Troubles have killed far more people than Islamic terrorists have.
The figures for deaths in the NI conflict between 1969 and 2001 are:
British Army (BA) 297
British Police (BP) 1
Catholic Reaction Force (CRF) 3
Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD) 5
Garda Siochana (GS) 4
Irish Army (IA) 1
Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) 113
Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO) 22
Irish People's Liberation Organisation Belfast Brigade (IPLOBB) 2
Irish Republican Army (IRA) 1706
Loyalist Retaliation and Defence Group (LRDG) 2
Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) 18
non-specific Loyalist group (LOY) 252
non-specific Republican group (REP) 89
not known (nk) 80
Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) 52
People's Liberation Army (PLA) 3
People's Republican Army (PRA) 4
Protestant Action Force (PAF) 37
Protestant Action Group (PAG) 5
real Irish Republican Army (rIRA) 29
Red Hand Commando (RHC) 13
Red Hand Defenders (RHD) 8
Republican Action Force (RepAF) 24
Royal Air Force (RAF) 1
Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) 55
Saor Eire (SE) 3
Ulster Defence Association (UDA) 112
Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) 8
Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) 147
Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) 1
Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) 426
TOTAL 3523
Dandyman
In London village.
Benny Zamora said:
Well said.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #70
Benny
Not much democracy in sight for the 52 people who were made into Jam that day in July was there. Oh and just because my view is different to you does not mean I have a lower intellect than you.
Sorry to have the audacity to put a point of view across that does not meet your left wing, politically correct studenty views.
Have a good day.
Not much democracy in sight for the 52 people who were made into Jam that day in July was there. Oh and just because my view is different to you does not mean I have a lower intellect than you.
Sorry to have the audacity to put a point of view across that does not meet your left wing, politically correct studenty views.
Have a good day.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,864
Following Dandyman's numbers, that doesnt count the "civilians" killed. Just because they spread it out over 30 years, does it make the lifes of those innocent bystanders worth less than today? What would you call that, value of life inflation. so many killed in a Birmingham pub is worth less than on a London Bus?
Last edited:
Life After Bobby
New member
Back to the issue.
The headlines talk about locking up people for 90 days.
The proposal is for the power to detain suspects, subject to a review by a high court judge every 7 days, for a maximum of 90 days.
The headlines talk about locking up people for 90 days.
The proposal is for the power to detain suspects, subject to a review by a high court judge every 7 days, for a maximum of 90 days.
Dandyman said:
This is my point:
9/11 - 2,986 lives lost
7/7 - 56
Madrid - 190
Bali 229 (in 2 attacks)
TOTAL 3461 in 5 ATTACKS
There is a difference in scale. The police and security services are trying to stop an attack which could rival the impact of 9/11 - which incidentally claimed more British lives than any other single terrorist attack.
RexCathedra
Aurea Mediocritas
What's the standard applied in the interim review process? And is the presumption to release, or to continue to hold until the 90 days are up? Is the review ex parte, or can the detainee or his counsel attend?
If it were probable cause then the process is by my lights acceptable, but that's enough to get a charge in the first place.
OTOH, 'suspicion' is a very low standard, juridically.
What's the state of play in the UK WRT habeas corpus? I was taught that it was the jewel in the crown of Anglo-American jurisprudence, and in the US it is still a big deal.
The law I know is US law, so I'm not trolling....
London Irish
Well-known member
Blair has lost 
Scotty Mac
New member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 24,405
London Irish said:Blair has lost
he is losing it, although they are now voting on compromise of 60 or 28 days
Last edited:
Dandyman
In London village.
London Irish said:Blair has lost
(From BBC)
Blair defeated over terror laws
Mr Blair has refused to back down on the 90-day detention plans
Prime Minister Tony Blair has lost the key House of Commons vote on plans to allow police to hold terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days.
MPs rejected the proposals by 322 votes to 291. They are now voting on whether to accept a compromise detention limit.
The defeat came despite Mr Blair saying MPs had a "duty" to give police the powers they needed to tackle terrorism.
The vote - the government's first Commons defeat - will be seen as a blow to the prime minister's authority.
But it does not mean he will have to stand down as prime minister - something he has said he will do before the next election.
'No police state'
The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers said the 90-day plans went too far.
Civil liberties groups compared the proposal to internment - a charge rejected by ministers.
In his final plea for MPs to back the plans, Mr Blair urged MPs to take the advice of the police who had foiled two terrorist plots since the 7 July attacks in London.
In heated exchanges at prime minister's questions, Mr Blair said: "We are not living in a police state but we are living in a country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism."
Ministers tried to reassure waverers by promising that the new laws would expire unless MPs renewed them in a year's time.
Conservative leader Michael Howard warned that the detention plans could alienate ethnic minority communities.
Shuttle diplomacy?
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said the measure would almost certainly be defeated in the House of Lords, where two ex-law lords had called it "intolerable".
The prime minister admitted he could lose the vote but argued: "Sometimes it is better to lose and do the right thing than to win and do the wrong thing."
In a sign of the importance given to the vote, Chancellor Gordon Brown was called back within minutes of arriving in Israel for a high profile visit.
And Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also flew back early from EU-Russia talks in Moscow.
MPs will now vote on whether to accept a compromise detention time limit of 60 days or 28 days.
Mr Banana
Tedious chump
Uncle Spielberg said:
Shut up you mong. Bringing the dead of the London bombings into this veers your drunken-old-uncle-at-the-Christmas-table rantings from the ridiculous into the distasteful.
Your view isn't audacious, and i would enjoy it were it to possess any hint of intelligent, reasoned argument or thought rather than brainless mutterings informed by the front page of The Sun. The only one here who won't accept other people's points of view is you, demonstrated by the typical "have a nice day" ending to your post, psychologically indicative of the fact that not only do you consider your view definitive and the final say on anything you feel you can comment on, but also that you don't have the guts to carry on the argument.
Not that i give a shit as Blair has lost
London Irish
Well-known member
Benny Zamora said:
Sorry Gareth, he's nailed you there
Life After Bobby
New member
RexCathedra said:
A high court judge would interrogate the evidence every seven days.
The suspect would have the right to challenge the evidence at that hearing and have their lawyer argue for the extension to be refused. The suspect would be entitled to know the grounds on which the application for an extension was being made.
Judges would only be allowed to extend detention if they were satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that further detention was justified, and that the investigation was being conducted efficiently. Judges would not grant continuing extensions just because the police were still looking for evidence.
The judge could set conditions on any extension. 7 days would be the maximum period a judge could extend for without a new application