Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

Quote: Today’s Populus poll for The Times found that 64 per cent of people backed the 90-day plan with only 32 per cent against. This includes a majority of every social, age and party group, including 71 per cent of Labour voters, and even 52 per cent of Liberal Democrats.

The Times

I find this to be strange because all the people I know in on my politics classes oppose this. I don't get this apparent divide in opinion, and I am quite surprised that the detentions have cross-party endorsements.

Also it is likely polls like these will fuel a possible Tory backbench rebellion against the whip which opposes anything over 28 days. From a selfish perspective disunity is not what the party needs right now :think:

[thundertaker]

Civil Liberties are too important to be subject to the whim of popular opinion. This isn't a mobocracy.......

[Chymical]

thundertaker wrote: Civil Liberties are too important to be subject to the whim of popular opinion. This isn't a mobocracy.......

Unless this is the Mob of course...



Seriously, who do the effin SUN and TIMES think they are kidding? They can stick that poll right in the brown stuff, cause it's total propagandic BS

And there was some horrible old Bat Woman Labour MP who got the honour of an approved question to TB...She was shouting out like a little nazi how she had recieved no letters of discontent of concern with the law, and how people were frothing at the mouth for it!

Scandelous... She'll be second against the wall come the revolution, straight after her evil master Blair.

[antonio62]

thundertaker wrote: Civil Liberties are too important to be subject to the whim of popular opinion. This isn't a mobocracy.......

Well said.

In my opinion we shouldn't have any law like this let alone 90 days.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Guess what gang looks like our favorite stalinists arnt going to be able to build the ministry of love after all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4422086.stm

From the number of votes, that is 322 votes to 291, it appears even the majority of socalists and tories had their heads far enough out of their asses to realise this was a bad thing.

[antonio62]

Its been rejected.

:dance:

[Lord Hargreaves]

So Tony Blair has been undermined, and there are calls for him to resign! :dance:

Then we'd get Gordon Brown! :dance:

no..........

wait......... f**k........... what have we done?!? :shifty: :shock:

:gdgf:

[johnz]

i like Charles Kennedy's reaction.

"Mr Blair would be seen as a "lame duck" leader unless he realised he could not behave in a "quasi-dictatorial way".

[Windy]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Quote: Today’s Populus poll for The Times found that 64 per cent of people backed the 90-day plan with only 32 per cent against. This includes a majority of every social, age and party group, including 71 per cent of Labour voters, and even 52 per cent of Liberal Democrats.

The Times

I find this to be strange because all the people I know in on my politics classes oppose this. I don't get this apparent divide in opinion, and I am quite surprised that the detentions have cross-party endorsements.

Also it is likely polls like these will fuel a possible Tory backbench rebellion against the whip which opposes anything over 28 days. From a selfish perspective disunity is not what the party needs right now :think:

I assume the question was something like "In light of July 7th Do you support locking up terrorists for 90 days without trial?"
Mentioning nothing of the fact the police are bloody useless and 90% of the people they lock up without trial now are innocent.

[Snow Patrol]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Guess what gang looks like our favorite stalinists arnt going to be able to build the ministry of love after all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4422086.stm

From the number of votes, that is 322 votes to 291, it appears even the majority of socalists and tories had their heads far enough out of their asses to realise this was a bad thing.
Whey.

[bury]

Excuse me but the Police are not useless. they've foiled two terrorist plots since july 7 so they must be doing something right.

if the police say they need to hold suspects for 90 days i believe them.

Now is not the time to be limp wristed on anti terrorism Law. that means you Tories

[Windy]

bury wrote: Excuse me but the Police are not useless. they've foiled two terrorist plots since july 7 so they must be doing something right.

if the police say they need to hold suspects for 90 days i believe them.

Now is not the time to be limp wristed on anti terrorism Law. that means you Tories

Says who exactly?
Do they count the one when the bombs fail to bomb up or when they shot the innocent man in the head?

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Excuse me but the Police are not useless. they've foiled two terrorist plots since july 7 so they must be doing something right.


Of course they have, Jean De Menezes, for example. The classic(ally inane) line 'you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' could have been changed to: 'Don't worry you'll only get a 3 month prison sentence if you have nothing to hide'.

Quote: if the police say they need to hold suspects for 90 days i believe them.

No need to think for oneself, eh? Why bother? Just have faith.......

Quote: Now is not the time to be limp wristed on anti terrorism Law. that means you Tories

No it's not and whilst we're at it why don't we extend anti-terrorist laws to other undesirables....

The Government will bring forward legislation in the New Year giving police new powers to disrupt the activities of human traffickers as well as "vicious" drug and gun gangs such as the Jamaican "Yardies." Mr Blair would like to see some of the powers now being proposed for use against terrorist suspects being available in the fight against such criminals. This could include greater use of phone-tapping, and suspects being held without charge for longer than the current 48-hour maximum.

I feel off balance almost as if Britain is slipping down a slope...

[Lord Hargreaves]

bury wrote: Excuse me but the Police are not useless. they've foiled two terrorist plots since july 7 so they must be doing something right.

if the police say they need to hold suspects for 90 days i believe them.

Now is not the time to be limp wristed on anti terrorism Law. that means you Tories

I'm the last guy who needs convincing that the world changed since 9/11. Whoever 28 days is quite enough thank you.

[antonio62]

bury wrote: Excuse me but the Police are not useless. they've foiled two terrorist plots since july 7 so they must be doing something right.

if the police say they need to hold suspects for 90 days i believe them.

Now is not the time to be limp wristed on anti terrorism Law. that means you Tories

Or maybe its because they cant charge them because they have done nothing.

[JDnCoke]

Thank God, hopefully now Tony will be replaced, and Gordon will do a Cabinet reshuffle, sooner we get Clarke and Prescott out the better!

[Lord Hargreaves]

JDnCoke wrote: Thank God, hopefully now Tony will be replaced, and Gordon will do a Cabinet reshuffle, sooner we get Clarke and Prescott out the better!

Only the Blairites understand Middle England does not share traditional Labour values. Purge them from Labour and the party is doomed

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Only the Blairites understand Middle England does not share traditional Labour values. Purge them from Labour and the party is doomed

Even better. :twisted:

[thefranzkafkafront]

Any detention without charge is in direct violation of the magna carta.


Article 39 Of The Magna Carta wrote: No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

Article 40 of The Magna Carta wrote: To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

Also during this detention there is no doubt these people would be denied their right to habas corpas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679

Hadeas Corpus Act wrote:
Habeas Corpus Act
1679

An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas.

WHEREAS great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody, any of the King's subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King's subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation.

II. For the prevention whereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters; (2) be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority thereof. That whensoever any person or persons shall bring any habeas corpus directed unto any sheriff or sheriffs, gaoler, minister or other person whatsoever, for any person in his or their custody, and the said writ shall be served upon the said officer, or left at the gaol or prison with any of the under-officers, under-keepers or deputy of the said officers or keepers, that the said officer or officers, his or their under-officers, under-keepers or deputies, shall within three days after the service thereof as aforesaid (unless the commitment aforesaid were for treason or felony, plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment) upon payment or tender of the charges of bringing the said prisoner, to be ascertained by the judge or court that awarded the same, and endorsed upon the said writ, not exceeding twelve pence per mile, and upon security given by his own bond to pay the charges of carrying back the prisoner, if he shall be remanded by the court or judge to which he shall be brought according to the true intent of this present act, and that he will not make any escape by the way, make return of such writ; (3) and bring or cause to be brought the body of the party so committed or restrained, unto or before the lord chancellor, or lord keeper of the great seal of England for the time being, or the judges or barons of the said court from which the said writ shall issue, or unto and before such other person or persons before whom the said writ is made returnable, according to the command thereof; (4) and shall then likewise certify the true causes of his detainer or imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in any place beyond the distance of twenty miles from the place or places where such court or person is or shall be residing; and if beyond the distance of twenty miles, and not above one hundred miles, then within the space of ten days, and if beyond the distance of one hundred miles, then within the space of twenty days, after such delivery aforesaid, and not longer.

III. And to the intent that no sheriff, gaoler or other officer may pretend ignorance of the import of such writ. (2) be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all such writs shall be marked in this manner, Per statutum tricesimo primo Caroli secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the person that awards the same; (3) and if any person or persons shall be or stand committed or detained as aforesaid, for any crime, unless for felony or treason plainly expressed in the warrant of commitment, in the vacation-time, and out of term, it shall and may be lawful to and for the person or persons so committed or detained (other than persons convict or in execution of legal process) or any one on his or their behalf, to appeal or complain to the lord chancellor or lord keeper, or any one of his Majesty's justices, either of the one bench or of the other, or the barons of the exchequer of the degree of the coif; (4) and the said lord chancellor, lord keeper, justices or barons or any of them, upon view of the copy or copies of the warrant or warrants of commitment and detainer, or otherwise upon oath made that such copy or copies were denied to be given by such person or persons in whose custody the prisoner or prisoners is or are detained, are hereby authorized and required, upon request made in writing by such person or persons, or any on his, her, or their behalf, attested and subscribed by two witnesses who were present at the delivery of the same, to award and grant an habeas corpus under the seal of such court whereof he shall then be one of the judges, (5) to be directed to the officer or officers in whose custody the party so committed or detained shall be, returnable immediate before the said lord chancellor or lord keeper or such justice, baron or any other justice or baron of the degree of the coif of any of the said courts; (6) and upon service thereof as aforesaid, the officer or officers, his or their under-officer or under-officers, under-keeper or under-keepers, or their deputy in whose custody the party is so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively before limited, bring such prisoner or prisoners before the said lord chancellor or lord keeper, or such justices, barons or one of them, before whom the said writ is made returnable, and in case of his absence before any other of them, with the return of such writ, and the true causes of the commitment and detainer; (7) and thereupon within two days after the party shall be brought before them, the said lord chancellor or lord keeper, or such justice or baron before whom the prisoner shall be brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said prisoner from his imprisonment, taking his or their recognizance, with one or more surety or sureties, in any sum according to their discretions, having regard to the quality of the prisoner and nature of the offense, for his or their appearance in the court of the King's bench the term following, or at the next assizes, sessions or general gaol-delivery of and for such county, city or place where the commitment was, or where the offense was committed, or in such other court where the said offense is properly cognizable, as the case shall require, and then shall certify the said writ with the return thereof, and the said recognizance or recognizances unto the said court where such appearance is to be made; (8) unless it shall appear unto the said lord chancellor or lord keeper or justice or justices, or baron or barons, that the party so committed is detained upon a legal process, order or warrant, out of some court that hath jurisdiction of criminal matters, or by some warrant signed and sealed with the hand and seal of any of the said justices or barons, or some justice or justices of the peace, for such matters or offenses for the which by the law the prisoner is not bailable.

It's un-f***ing consitutional.

Also times have no changed one iota, We've been through this all before with the IRA, and no doubt we will go through it all again without someone completely diffrent.

[JDnCoke]

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.