Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

JDnCoke wrote: In Labour's list of top 50 achievements, they've got "Human Rights' Act", but to implement such policies are a direct violation.

It's time to remove the Statists.

Thats seconded.

[bob.appleyard]

This IS the same police which tried to cover up the fact that they'd made a horrendous bungle and killed an innocent Brazilian in the process.

The Police are not incompetent, but they're not infallible. Asking them to make mistakes is not the way to improve their effectiveness.

I remember watching Question Time, and there was Sir Ian Blair on, and he gave a reason for why the 90 day detention should be brought in. Something along the lines of "the information which they may be storing about their organisation, plans etc. may be held in encrypted digital form, and it could take several months to decrypt."

David Davis' response was "make it a crime to withold encryption keys".

I believe there may be similar ways around other problems highlighted.

The real issue here is resources and people on the ground. The big recruitment drives in both the police and intelligence services should be seen in this light.

Restricting the liberties of the individual (that means each and every one of us) is not necessarily the most effective way to go about it. It may even be counterproductive. Never mind the fact that it undermines our liberties. Whether or not it's "unconstitutional" is difficult to say with the British constitution. We don't really have rights, we are not citizens.

The writ of Habeas Corpus ("you have the body") is much older than the act you refer to, but it was rendered obsolete with an act of the 70s, I think. Under that police have 24 hours to charge you. Under the bill that passed the Commons, they can take 28 days before they charge you, but only under certain circumstances (they do need court supervision, I think).

So it's not quite a police state.

[angusrae]

This is what Alex Salmond Leader of the SNP said about the Bill and I fully support his stance on this issue.

ALEX SALMOND

THE threat of terrorism is real and the impact of any attack devastating. That is the clear lesson of the strike on London in July and the lingering lesson of the 9/11 attacks. It is why, today, MPs are discussing a range of new anti-terror measures. There isn't a single serious politician who does not want to give our police sufficient powers to identify, track and disrupt the terror networks. But that does not mean we must accept, without question, the most extreme measures now insisted upon by the Prime Minister.

I certainly see sense in some parts of the current terror bill, but others push the boundaries of civil liberties too far with too little return in the fight against the men of hate. The Prime Minister is now fixated on forcing through the proposed 90-day detention without trial. Echoing the build-up to war in Iraq, Tony Blair is again prepared to bend the truth and manipulate public opinion to get his way.


He claimed this was a measure requested by the police and security services, but the Home Secretary quashed this by saying the security services "aren't committed to a 90-day figure". It seems that left to his own devices, the Home Secretary would not be adopting the Prime Minister's position.

Undaunted, Mr Blair stepped up the arm-twisting and pressure, deploying senior police officers to brief on behalf of the detention plan. It seems the government is now relying on a single argument: if the police want it, the police must get it.

The view of the police is important, but it is up to MPs to see the whole equation. That includes the impact on communities of having their sons taken and held without trial or proper legal protection for 90 days. The last time a UK government tried this, with internment in Northern Ireland, it rebounded with tragic consequences, delivering new recruits to the terror cause.

Mr Blair places his faith in a so-called "sunset clause" to give MPs a second chance, 12 months from now, to vote on the 90-day limit. A couple of days ago, his own spokesperson said such a clause would weaken the bill and jeopardise security! It is a phrase I've heard many times from the No10 spin machine to smear opposition parties, the unthinking, knee-jerk reaction of the government to almost every alternative proposal.

I am as determined as anyone to give police sufficient powers to prevent the next terror attack but won't back such ill-thought plans. The SNP supports doubling pre-charge detention periods and has repeatedly called for more resources for the intelligence community where the fight against terrorism will be won. To coin a phrase, we must be tough on terror, tough on the causes of terror. That means allowing courts to use phone tap evidence, a sensible measure blocked by ministers because it opens them up to judicial scrutiny. It also means getting serious about withdrawal from Iraq. It was government intelligence experts who concluded: "Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK."

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=2215132005

[JDnCoke]

"Anti-terrorism" laws are utter rubbish, just a chance for the empowered to doubleplusempowerise.

Murder is murder, if terrorists blow people up, charge them with murder. Simple. After all, what is YOUR definition of a terrorist? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? ACLU? Greenpeace?

All this rubbish of "national interest", what's safest for the "state" is nothing more than jingoism. It's REALLY starting to piss me off that people who I've never met are threatening my civil liberties. I think we should remove all right's of the government to interfere with civil liberties. Let them stick to macroeconomics and public services.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: I think we should remove all right's of the government to interfere with civil liberties. Let them stick to macroeconomics and public services.

Or we could be coherent and remove goverment from everything but it's legitimate role - that of justice (combatting force or fraud).

[Lord Hargreaves]

JDnCoke wrote: "Anti-terrorism" laws are utter rubbish, just a chance for the empowered to doubleplusempowerise.

Murder is murder, if terrorists blow people up, charge them with murder. Simple. After all, what is YOUR definition of a terrorist? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? ACLU? Greenpeace?

All this rubbish of "national interest", what's safest for the "state" is nothing more than jingoism. It's REALLY starting to piss me off that people who I've never met are threatening my civil liberties. I think we should remove all right's of the government to interfere with civil liberties. Let them stick to macroeconomics and public services.

Well murder is murder, but only after the act. Its hardly an adequate solution to confront terrorism to merely state we have murder on the statute books - especially since most of the terrorist attacks are carried out by suicide bombings.

Secondly no one is threatening your civil liberties, they are "threatening" the civil liberties of suspects and potential terrorists. This bill does not really concern you personally, it concerns mainly the muslim population - and my rejection of 90 days stem from a belief even "legitimate" suspects deserve access to the full rights of law well before 90 days rather than the belief that the government will haul little ol' me to jail.

[JDnCoke]

Services like education and health are too vunerable to be left to the whims of the free market, and if the Civil Service mentality of "job for life" was cleansed it'd be more efficient.

[Lord Hargreaves]

JDnCoke wrote: Services like education and health are too vunerable to be left to the whims of the free market, and if the Civil Service mentality of "job for life" was cleansed it'd be more efficient.

Spoken like a "true liberal" :lol:

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Well murder is murder, but only after the act. Its hardly an adequate solution to confront terrorism to merely state we have murder on the statute books - especially since most of the terrorist attacks are carried out by suicide bombings.

Secondly no one is threatening your civil liberties, they are "threatening" the civil liberties of suspects and potential terrorists. This bill does not really concern you personally, it concerns mainly the muslim population - and my rejection of 90 days stem from a belief even "legitimate" suspects deserve access to the full rights of law well before 90 days rather than the belief that the government will haul little ol' me to jail.

You're denying that blowing people up is murder?

Wacking terrorism on the front of an Act does nothing to change the fact that its just another piece of bureacracy in which power-hungry and more accurately ambitious politicians can further their careers. Stabbing is murder, beating someone to death is murder, blowing someone to pieces is murder, whether is be suicide bombing or not, it's still murder.

Our prior policies have been adequate enough for the past 3 decades, nothing much has changed except the utter abuse of 9/11 to further careers. You can't "eliminate" bad people, whatever policies you think are clever and intricate enough, otherwie murderers and rapists would have be 'fixed' since humanity began.

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Spoken like a "true liberal" :lol:

The US spends 15% of its GDP on Healthcare, and yet 40 million are not even covered.

Free-market efficiency for you. :x

[Lord Hargreaves]

JDnCoke wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Well murder is murder, but only after the act. Its hardly an adequate solution to confront terrorism to merely state we have murder on the statute books - especially since most of the terrorist attacks are carried out by suicide bombings.

Secondly no one is threatening your civil liberties, they are "threatening" the civil liberties of suspects and potential terrorists. This bill does not really concern you personally, it concerns mainly the muslim population - and my rejection of 90 days stem from a belief even "legitimate" suspects deserve access to the full rights of law well before 90 days rather than the belief that the government will haul little ol' me to jail.

You're denying that blowing people up is murder?

What?!?!? How in the world did you get that from what I said? I merely stating that murder is on the statute books to provide justice to the perpertrator - it does not stop the act. The debate is how we stop terrorists from killing not how we bring them to justice after they have already killed.

JDnCoke wrote: Wacking terrorism on the front of an Act does nothing to change the fact that its just another piece of bureacracy in which power-hungry and more accurately ambitious politicians can further their careers. Stabbing is murder, beating someone to death is murder, blowing someone to pieces is murder, whether is be suicide bombing or not, it's still murder.

Now stabbing an old granny in the street for her purse is the same as 9/11. Dream on.

JDnCoke wrote: Our prior policies have been adequate enough for the past 3 decades, nothing much has changed except the utter abuse of 9/11 to further careers. You can't "eliminate" bad people, whatever policies you think are clever and intricate enough, otherwie murderers and rapists would have be 'fixed' since humanity began.

The world has changed, I am perplexed as to how you cannot have realised this. Plus we are not trying to "eliminate" bad people, merely do our best to frustrate their murderous plans

[Lord Hargreaves]

JDnCoke wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Spoken like a "true liberal" :lol:

The US spends 15% of its GDP on Healthcare, and yet 40 million are not even covered.

Free-market efficiency for you. :x

Sure, and giving bid daddy institution more power will make it all better :roll:

In your view does freedom only mean you are free in your trival pursuits of pleasure? This freedom does not include the things that matter - health, education, financial ownership and private property? You remind me of what Janet Daley calls a "pocket money liberal" - the state provides everything you need, only you're free to spend your pocket money on whatever you like and do whatever you like in the sand pit without mummy and daddy telling you off.

Awwww, we love freedom we do :)

[Robin Hood]

Quote: The US spends 15% of its GDP on Healthcare, and yet 40 million are not even covered.

THe US also regulates healthcate to an extreme level, raising costs just like it's ban on the import of pharmaceuticals. Another facet of this would be the law suits that have pushed medical insurance premiums up.

By law anyone in an emergency can not be turned away from a hospital anyway, so everyone is covered for emergencies. Meanwhile the US has superior healthcare to places like Britain and Canada, they don't have the waiting times, the dirty wards or the rationing. (The Barbarian Invasions is a verry funny French-Canadian film that highlights the Canadian predicament.)

Meanwhile most of mainland Europe operates an insurance system that paid for by the goverment in effect simulating the free market anyway.

[MoscowMatt]

Regarding the 90 days detention vote. Becasue of the limited time police can hold suspects it will make it very difficult for them to gather evidence for a trial. Terrorists are very good at covering their tracks believe it or not!!

Once again the civil liberty groups have got their way and continue to threaten this country's security with their drivel.
:evil:

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Once again the civil liberty groups have got their way and continue to threaten this country's security with their drivel.

There are countries in the world where civil liberty groups get away with nothing: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan etc. Just imagine what the UK would be like without all that 'drivel'........
Quote:
Regarding the 90 days detention vote. Becasue of the limited time police can hold suspects it will make it very difficult for them to gather evidence for a trial. Terrorists are very good at covering their tracks believe it or not!!

Of course the 90 days will only be used for terrorists, I mean if they had evidence that they were holding terrorists they couldn't possibly prosecute them! Other countries who we seem to want to emulate are listed above.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Terrorist is nothing more than a polticaly loaded term, these men are murderes nothing more nothing less and untill a man has committed a crime and been conviteded by a jury of his peers HE CANNOT AND MUST NOT BE DENIED HIS RIGHTS, i have direclty quoted from British consitutional documents why this 90 day (or any holding peroid without charge or trial) is illegal.

Its as simple as that, these proposals are unconsitutional and illegal.

[MoscowMatt]

Quote: There are countries in the world where civil liberty groups get away with nothing: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan etc. Just imagine what the UK would be like without all that 'drivel'

Oh get real, this country needs to move forward with common sense, I'm not saying we should go to the other extreme, but as usual the likes of you get all excited and think this is what would happen!!!! :lol:

Quote: Terrorist is nothing more than a polticaly loaded term, these men are murderes nothing more nothing less and untill a man has committed a crime and been conviteded by a jury of his peers HE CANNOT AND MUST NOT BE DENIED HIS RIGHTS, i have direclty quoted from British consitutional documents why this 90 day (or any holding peroid without charge or trial) is illegal.

Its as simple as that, these proposals are unconsitutional and illegal

Yes that's why they were voting to make it LEGAL!!! :roll:

Common sense (which is what this country needs) says if you reckon someone is involved in terrorism which has the capability for MASS murder then these people need to be kept away from society. In otherwords I'd rather see the government explaining how they accidentally locked up a few innocent people for 90 days then explaining to bereaved families why their loved ones are dead because they could not make lwas to protect them, thanks to the civil liberty groups!

[Robin Hood]

Quote:
Oh get real, this country needs to move forward with common sense, I'm not saying we should go to the other extreme, but as usual the likes of you get all excited and think this is what would happen!!!

Really...did you know that in Saudi Arabia you aren't supposed to be held for 90 days without a trial/confession.

Your logic is that you trust the police, so let's just scrap trials and just have the police. The common sense runs like this......for every 50 people the goverment's of the world killed in the last century, only 1 was killed by other actors.

That suggests that there is something institutionally dangerous about goverment, so let's not make it absurdly powerful. Being able to throw someone in jail for three months with no evidence and no trial is a great deal of power is it not?

Quote: Yes that's why they were voting to make it LEGAL!!!

Changing the constitution is not a matter of a simple majority in the house of commons on one vote. There's good reason why our ancestors fought Prince John to get the Magna Carta, why they fought James the second to estabilish the glorious revolution and why Habeas Corpus was fought for numerous times.

There's no coincidence between those struggles and our position as one of the free-est, safest and wealthiest countries in the world.

Quote: Common sense (which is what this country needs) says if you reckon someone is involved in terrorism which has the capability for MASS murder then these people need to be kept away from society.

Who reckons? How about I make the decision? I decide that you are extremely dangerous to my safety and my friends safety, can I lock you up for 90 days? These points in our constitution that are being changed are the reason why we have so much security and wealth today, as opposed to those other countries which have no history of liberty. If we start deleting our history then we'll end just like them.

Quote: In otherwords I'd rather see the government explaining how they accidentally locked up a few innocent people for 90 days then explaining to bereaved families why their loved ones are dead because they could not make lwas to protect them, thanks to the civil liberty groups!

I'd rather see a free and prosperous Britain than one wallowing in tyranny.

From Magna Carta the exact quote is: “...no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land.”

Aren't you glad that such words were written? Why do you want to undo them and undermine our hundreds of years of liberty and safety?

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. Thomas Jefferson

History has answered Jefferson and supported him. The countries I listed before didn't heed his advice, Britain did. Look at the difference. Now you won't to undo the difference because of your blind trust of the police?

[bob.appleyard]

The Glorious Revolution was neither glorious nor a revolution. It was a simple enough dynastic conquest. And you missed the strongest card in our deck, in the same century (in my opinion at least).

The people of Britain have a proud history of fights for freedom, but the government's is much more patchy.

In a police state it's easy for the police to do their job -- that's the point.

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Sure, and giving bid daddy institution more power will make it all better :roll:

In your view does freedom only mean you are free in your trival pursuits of pleasure? This freedom does not include the things that matter - health, education, financial ownership and private property? You remind me of what Janet Daley calls a "pocket money liberal" - the state provides everything you need, only you're free to spend your pocket money on whatever you like and do whatever you like in the sand pit without mummy and daddy telling you off.

Awwww, we love freedom we do :)

:rotf:

If only this forum had sound! That is such a rich post, coming from you, Mr. Freedom, but only as long as you go to YOUR Church, live with YOUR definition of marriage, as long as you intergrate into YOUR morals and values and live the way YOU say, right?

Yeah the Tories are the small-government-freedom party, as long as you accept YOUR definition of freedom? Gimme a break. You Tories are more than ever like the adage says "knows what they're against but not what they're for", a prime example of ideological contradictions. Conservatives attempting to take the original Liberal stance, but it just doesn't fit with your repressive holier-than-thou attitudes.