90, 42, 28 or 14 Days?

[R2B2]

How long should the Police have to question and research suspected terrorists? The Police want 90 days to effectively conduct they're investigation - and the Human Rights people are howling at this.

Blair is having trouble getting this through, but it should be remembered that it's the Police and anti terror forces that are asking for this, not just the PM. It wouldn't simply be 90 days straight off. The 90 day period would be subject to a 7 daily Judicial Endorsement, so the Police would have to report progress to a judge weekly, who would then decide if they can continue.

With this in mind my view is that the human rights of the general public of this country take far more priority than that of a suspected terrorist, so I'll be voting for 90 days.

The Libs want it the same at 14 days, the Cons want 28. Charles Clarke has hinted at a compromise of 42 - 60.

What say you...........?

 

[Punchy]

On the face of it I agree 90 days....

however it is open to abuse by the police. Whats to stop them arresting you on some feckin pretext and effectively jailing you for 3 months? and before you say they cant do that just think back to the labour party conference when that 82 year old man was dragged out of the auditorium for voicing decent and then not allowed back in under the anti terrorism laws.


.

 

[Coggy]

You could just be going to the chemist for some acetone to get your nail polish off and peroxide to dye your hair and....

:violin:
Never heard of again....well for three months anyway
c7u8

 

[R2B2]

On the face of it I agree 90 days....

however it is open to abuse by the police. Whats to stop them arresting you on some feckin pretext and effectively jailing you for 3 months?

That was my first reaction as well, that's why I included the bit about the 7 day report to the judge. That is supposed to safeguard against that as the judge will have to be satisfied that the investigation is justified?

 

[Jaws]

Its a bit like the biy who cried wolf ( but only a bit )

I would agree with the 90 day thing but we have seen the fascists in the police force use other anti terrorist laws against all sorts of folk including peaceful protestors..

I am actually frightened they could arrest me and bang me up for 90 days without trial for any reason they may consider is terrorism..

For instance, I am fairly out spoken when it comes to B. Liar.. That could be construed as subversive.. 90 days in the hole will soon sort that one out !

If the police had not abused the laws given them in the past then I would trust them a whole lot more than I do now ....
No doubt Roxxo will be along in a minute to condemn all of the above. :k :}

 

[ianrobbo1]

That was my first reaction as well, that's why I included the bit about the 7 day report to the judge. That is supposed to safeguard against that as the judge will have to be satisfied that the investigation is justified?

is this "judge" going to be the usual political coward or straight from the planet ZOG like the rest of the "over the hill" mob that allow kiddie fiddlers out after 3 months and jail a speeder for the same time??

 

[Wolfie]

hello Peeps how are we all tonight????

Human rights are for all humans, not just the ones that shit feckin govs. and their weak minded supportors decide, so please pray tell me who made blair god to decide this????

who made blair and his cronies better than all the rest of the humans??

are you 100% sure that not one innocent person will be detained???

are you really???

are you sure????

when do you bring back the death penalty then??

 

[Duck n Dive]

I think it should not be changed at all.

Removal of an individuals liberty should never be done without evidence of breaking the law.

The common purpose of those who do these things is not 'cause they think we'll roll over and be nice to them or do what they want 'cause we're scared. It's to actually influence and change our laws and system of government. It's not new this approach has been around for many years. The "state" is coerced/persuaded into activating draconian measures and limited rights/liberties for some percieved/actual threat. Eventually these become established "norms". Having achieved this you can then either try and take over the state and enjoy the controls or you can rail against the unfair capitalist/communist/religious state etc. in order to achieve regime change or achieve influence etc.


The other problem I have with this is that we have ample examples in this country of miscarriages of justice where a judge and jury were involved and convicted folk only to have them released years later and declared innocent (I'm not talking here about "technical" releases).

If that can happen with a judge and jury surely it's much more likely that we'll get false imprisonment with what's been asked for 90 days is one hell of a time to be locked up for.... it also turns the justice system around on it's head..... you're assumed to be guilty until you can prove you're innocence.

I always thought that a central premise of our system of law was that firm evidence of guilt had to be established before someone can be detained/arrested. A police officer "arrests" someone on the basis that they have evidence of a law being broken (or in some cases about to be broken). Not 'cause they think "they're a bad 'un guv". The arrest by a police officer is a temporary detention which can only continue with additional authority being given. It is not allowed for someone to remain arrested once it's known that they have not commited any offence.

We already have the prevention of terroism act which gave additional powers and were a subject (and still are) of great debate.

I firmly believe that some sort of evidence must exist before you remove a persons liberty. To allow such an extended period of detention smacks of fishing expeditions. Haul someone in and then find the evidence - it should be the other way around surely?

One of the reasons I feel so strongly relates to a work colleague of mine some years ago at Heathrow Airport. His staff car park pass was stolen form his vehicle (a soft top MGB). He reported it and it was replaced. Three weeks later two plain clothes police officers turned up at work while he was on duty and arrested him "on suspicion of theft". They refused to tell him any more and hauled him off. His girlfriend who also worked with us and lived with him was distraught. We/she tried ringing the airport police station but they refused to even say if he was there. This went on for an entire early shift (9hrs).
Eventually the company got it's legal team to take action and threatend immediate court proceedings. He was released tot he company solicitor who had gone to the police station - the police told the solicitor he had never been arrested but was "helping with enquiries". We all (8 peeps) heard the arrest take place!!

And the reason for all this: the previous day the police came across some scroats stealing from cars in the car park, they gave chase but failed to catch them. One of them dropped a small tool box which had our friends stolen car park pass in it. The police had come to the conclusion that therfore it must have been out friend who was running from them!!

Lastly, this chap was of a very, very nervous nature. He later told us he very nearly agreed that he had done it 'cause they had told him (after 7 hours when he was in a real panic & worried about his girlfriend) that once he'd confessed they'd process and release him. He thought the whole thing was so stupid that once he'd got out and been able to get a solicitor working on it he'd be cleared.
So what do you think his chances would have been in court if he'd confessed?

So let the police detain someone for 90 days, how reliable is anything then?

OK soapbox is free now.......

ps... almost forgot - "prevention of terroism act will only be used where it is required to deal with serious acts of terroism being planned or carried out" - Hmm... are our memories so short that we forget it's also applied when an old codger heckels at a labour party conference.

 

[derek kelly]

There are arguments both for and against, the wheels of justice take time to turn, to gather evidence against someone for anti terrorism offences would require amongst other things witness statements, people are often frightened to speak out for fear of reprisals, and through lack of confidence in the british judicial system, lets say you overheard a conversation whereby someone was planning to blow up a school/government building/shopping precinct, could be anything, you vaguely knew one of the plotters, so you contact the police and they say "thanks for the info we will bring them in and question them but we only have 14 days and then we have to let them go" would you still be so forthcoming with your evidence knowing that in two weeks time they could be free and coming after you?

 

[Duck n Dive]

Our legal system is still based on the need for evidence, no matter how horrible the crime.

So you're neigbour tells the police you're a bad chap and he's heard you planning something - you'd be happy for them to hold you as long as they want (3 mnths) while they look around for evidence. And at the end of that time release you without charge!!

Meantime you've lost your home, your job and your family..?

Why not stick to the old tried and trusted method of using the tip off to help you target the evidence gathering to enable an arrest to be made?

Just how many of the many publicised (suspected terroist) arrests in the last year or so have resulted in charges being brought? Wouldn't be at all surprised to find that for every 20 arrested maybe one gets to court.

We all of course know of one that didn't. The old codger arrested under the POT act to prevent entering the labour conf. centre. He got a televised apology from Tony - so just what was the evidence there to justify the arrest?

Being arrested does not make someone guilty.... being convicted in court does that.

 

[derek kelly]

I did say there are arguments both for and against, and I am not saying I agree with either, innocent people do get arrested, innocent people even go to prison after a (supposedly) fair trial these people have often lost their families/homes/jobs etc and they don't always get compensated, innocent people in prison often don't get early release as they (rightly) refuse to do the courses that will supposedly make them good honest upright citizens, so are not seen to be progressing and learning to be better people. yet a paedophile with a string of convictions can go to prison complete all his course work and be released before his sentence is halfway through.

 

[Duck n Dive]

I did say there are arguments both for and against, and I am not saying I agree with either

OK M8... just happens to be a bit of a sore point with me I guess.:k

I'll leave the soapbox alone on this one now!! :beer:

 

[derek kelly]

OK M8... just happens to be a bit of a sore point with me I guess.:k

I'll leave the soapbox alone on this one now!! :beer:

A mate of mine is in limbo at the moment, he was arrested in April (we don't know why) he was not charged but told to report weekly to his local police station, a number of times when he reported he was locked up for a couple of hours at a time in a police cell, he was escorted from work and suspended, he was told that he would find out in August whether or not he was to be charged, he reported to the police station in August only to be told that the Officer dealing with his case was put on anti terrorist duties, and that he had to report back in November when he would find out his fate, he reported back to the police station last week, locked in a police station for three hours, his solicitor told him it looked like he was going to be charged, and when being interviewed to reply "no reply" they unlocked him and said that they had taken their evidence to the CPS and the CPS wanted to see all the statements and evidence before making a decision, so now he has to go back next month, He has never been in trouble with the law previous to this, he states that he didn't know that what allegedly he has done was against the law, and if he had done it the previous year it was not against the law, this man has over thirty years service to the crown (Army & prison service) he has an exemplary record. I don't know what the alleged offence is but it has the potential to ruin his life.

 

[R2B2]

Haul someone in and then find the evidence - it should be the other way around surely?

And in the meantime they go off and set a bomb somewhere and blow up a load of innocent people, before the Police come back for them ?? Maybe next time it will be a crowded supermarket near you, or a cross channel ferry, ie.

Relax.... I'm not trying to put up an argument for it, just highlighting one of the reasons why they want to bring this in?

There was a debate on this on the radio this afternoon, the old boy in the Labour Party conference was brought up several times on there too - but he was never gonna be put in custody of course.

 

[nitehawk]

If the justice system in this country was not so flawed then it would work ok but given the fact that an 80 year old can be arrested under P of T for heckling then I'd have to say that I'd be very wary of such a law. It may just be used against the public to intimidate people into not protesting against the state/government, who says whether or not something is terrorism ? I bet it would be used on the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

 

[ianrobbo1]

it would certainly help a few "neighbourhood" disputes though wouldn't it?? if for instance I was having a row with my next door neighbour, all I had to do was accuse him of some heinous plot to overthrow the government I had overheard, and thats him shagged for 90, and as he would possibly lose his job, his reputation "cos shit sticks" whether true or not, chances are his marriage and house would go too!! so it would certainly sort that argument out!!
plus the coppers would have free hand to "do" anyone they felt like, say a "speeder" gets caught, complains about "the effing" government Nazis, and whoosh he's locked up as a "possible" terrorist as he has expressed anti government views!!
the list goes on, keep it as it is as far as innocent untill proven guilty, however it could be a "ristricted" freedom ithe said "suspects" should be 1 watched, 2 made to stay away from "sensitive" areas like meetings of large gatherings of potential victims, 3 not comunicate with individuals outside the country, and 4 have a strict time limit on the above conditions, and stop plod abusing the new law and have then enforce the existing ones properly!!
which in my opinion is half the trouble, weve already got anti this that and the other type laws it's just the buggers dont use/enforce them!! :dunno:
a "law" can say what it damn well wants if it's not enforced what use is it??? :dunno:

 

[roXXo]

No doubt Roxxo will be along in a minute to condemn all of the above. :k :}

Wrong!

Well a little bit :}
I would like to think that there are checks and safeguards in place that would minimise the miscarriage of justice. Mistakes will happen of course, the Police and the Judiciary are human after all. Yes really

Why do the authorities have to detain you while they are gathering evidence?
After 14 days cannot the Police apply for extensions?

Ordinary law abiding citizens such as Jaws and myself have nothing to fear from the changes.

What's a few extra days in a hotel, with free meals, sports and passtimes availabe?

On balance I think that in order to do their job properly in these changing times, if those in the know who have to deal daily with obstacles preventing them from conluding their work are asking for these changes then they may well be justified.

So, they aren't gonna come after you Jaws and lock you up. Although it may take "them" 90 days to root around the back of your settee trying to find your TV licence.
Some of the muppet junior cops couldn't find "planted evidence" when theyve been told where it is.

90 days. There's no smoke without fire. Go get'em

:beer:

 

[derek kelly]

I agree in sentiment Roxxo, but being only human the police and Judiciary are not infallible, would it give more scope for rigging evidence? I don't have the answers, we all want a better legal system, we all agree it is not perfect, but can it be improved? or is this as good as it gets?

 

[roXXo]

Ian

keep it as it is as far as innocent untill proven guilty, however it could be a "ristricted" freedom ithe said "suspects" should be 1 watched, 2 made to stay away from "sensitive" areas like meetings of large gatherings of potential victims, 3 not comunicate with individuals outside the country, and 4 have a strict time limit on the above conditions, and stop plod abusing the new law and have then enforce the existing ones properly!!
which in my opinion is half the trouble, weve already got anti this that and the other type laws it's just the buggers dont use/enforce them!! :dunno:

So why "lock somebody up" for 14 days if they are innocent? Why lock them up at all? Why restrict an innocent person's freedom?

Do you want more of your money spent on monitoring, watching, following suspects or have them in 1 place where they cannot get up to "no good".

The buggers have difficulty in using/enforcing the laws because of whinging, do gooders bleating on about human rights and plod abusing the law Ian.

 

[Centaur]

Go for it Roxxo

Ian

keep it as it is as far as innocent untill proven guilty, however it could be a "ristricted" freedom ithe said "suspects" should be 1 watched, 2 made to stay away from "sensitive" areas like meetings of large gatherings of potential victims, 3 not comunicate with individuals outside the country, and 4 have a strict time limit on the above conditions, and stop plod abusing the new law and have then enforce the existing ones properly!!
which in my opinion is half the trouble, weve already got anti this that and the other type laws it's just the buggers dont use/enforce them!! :dunno:

So why "lock somebody up" for 14 days if they are innocent? Why lock them up at all? Why restrict an innocent person's freedom?

Do you want more of your money spent on monitoring, watching, following suspects or have them in 1 place where they cannot get up to "no good".

The buggers have difficulty in using/enforcing the laws because of whinging, do gooders bleating on about human rights and plod abusing the law Ian.

I'm with you...the police aren't perfect but they are all we've got between us and anarchy so if they reckon they need 90 days then give it to them. How would you like to be living in France just now?