Radio 1 just featured this news story on their shitty "Newsbeat" programme, and had some vox pops with people "in da street" about their opinion on whether suspected terrorists should be detainable for longer than 28 days.
Choice quote: "I think that until they're proven not guilty they should be able to detain them for as long as they need to create evidence."
What a cretin. "Innocent until proven guilty" really is going by the wayside, isn't it? The truly frightening thing here is that although Radio 1 only interviewed a couple of people, it's more than likely that the majority of people in the country either don't care enough about it or have the same viewpoint as that idiot.
Choice quote: "I think that until they're proven not guilty they should be able to detain them for as long as they need to create evidence."
What a cretin. "Innocent until proven guilty" really is going by the wayside, isn't it? The truly frightening thing here is that although Radio 1 only interviewed a couple of people, it's more than likely that the majority of people in the country either don't care enough about it or have the same viewpoint as that idiot.
The guy actually said 'create evidence'? Wow.
I discovered http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/ the other day which has choice quotes from idiots on the feedback sections of news websites and the complaints log of the BBC.
The idiocy on display never fails to amaze.
Not current affairs but my favourite
The idiocy on display never fails to amaze.
Not current affairs but my favourite
Quote:
DOCTOR WHO
“A good idea for a storyline would be if the Doctor finds an old record player in the Tardis and plays some old songs on vinyl.”
“A good idea for a storyline would be if the Doctor finds an old record player in the Tardis and plays some old songs on vinyl.”
Craster wrote:
The guy actually said 'create evidence'? Wow.
Yeah, I thought that was pretty stupid myself. I don't think he meant it in the way it sounded, but you never know do you?
Trousers wrote:
I discovered http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/ the other day which has choice quotes from idiots on the feedback sections of news websites and the complaints log of the BBC.
Man, that's my day wasted right there.
I'm still against holding them for 28 days. If it takes that long to come up with a reason for detaining someone, you shouldn't have arrested them in the first place.
Craster wrote:
Trousers wrote:
I discovered http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/ the other day which has choice quotes from idiots on the feedback sections of news websites and the complaints log of the BBC.
Man, that's my day wasted right there.
A friend and I used to post on the HYS topics under pseudonyms, ranting stuff as far right wing as we could without getting censored. We normally included the phrase "We didn't fight two world wars for this!" and regularly got on to the top page of recommended comments despite generally calling for the execution of anyone not middle class, white, and well behaved.
And whilst this limited internment is the most eye-catching part of the bill, there's other lovely stuff in it as well. There's a clause, for example, allowing the government to order cornoners' inquests to be held without a jury (even if a jury has already been summoned and the inquest is underway).
On the lunchtime news, the mother of someone killed in the 7/7 bombings was saying "people are saying 42 days like it's a lifetime, it's not a lifetime, it's six weeks - our [insert name here] has gone for a lifetime because of, basically, an oversight".
1: Lock her up for 42 days.
2: An oversight?
1: Lock her up for 42 days.
2: An oversight?
Grim... wrote:
On the lunchtime news, the mother of someone killed in the 7/7 bombings was saying "people are saying 42 days like it's a lifetime, it's not a lifetime, it's six weeks - our [insert name here] has gone for a lifetime because of, basically, an oversight".
1: Lock her up for 42 days.
2: An oversight?
1: Lock her up for 42 days.
2: An oversight?
Which is why you ignore the opinions of hysterical people who can't look at the situation objectively. Stop interviewing them, newspeople!
Pretty much preaching to the converted here, but don't these people ever stop to think about what would happen if someone they knew were imprisoned without trial? Or, indeed, why such antiquated doctrines of 'innocent before guilty' etc actually arose in the first place?
(Unless, of course, I've failed to notice the massed armies on our borders or the severe civil strife which might require limited emergency powers)
(Unless, of course, I've failed to notice the massed armies on our borders or the severe civil strife which might require limited emergency powers)
Grim... wrote:
On the lunchtime news, the mother of someone killed in the 7/7 bombings was saying "people are saying 42 days like it's a lifetime, it's not a lifetime, it's six weeks - our [insert name here] has gone for
Truly bonkers - I know you all know this, but just have to say it anyway; because of course, the July bombings were committed by people who had been arrested, were released and then realised they'd better get on with their heinous crimes before enough evidence was found. Or created.
Time to bring out the cretin stick and go a-bopping.
Did anyone read John Major's article in a paper [citation needed] over the weekend?
I've often thought that the Labour government have spent the last decade behaving like the pigs in 'Animal Farm', and Sir John's reasoned, moderate piece just rammed home to me about how things have changed. Sometimes, I want to weep.
I've often thought that the Labour government have spent the last decade behaving like the pigs in 'Animal Farm', and Sir John's reasoned, moderate piece just rammed home to me about how things have changed. Sometimes, I want to weep.
Worth pointing out that this only affects the British. If you're a foreign resident, or even just on holiday in Britain you can already be imprisoned FOR LIFE with no trial, charge or comeback.
I wonder why they need to keep the terrorists for so long without knowing what for? I bet they strap them in a chair in a darkened room and flash four lights but make them say there are five lights like in episode 6x10.
Yeah, and eat a slimey squid thing out of an egg... Gross 
Kern wrote:
Did anyone read John Major's article in a paper [citation needed] over the weekend?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4075503.ece
I watched Question Time on this subject last week.
The argument FOR extending is largely because with these latest round of prosecutions, they got to within a day or so of the current limit. They had to send investigators out to Pakistan to scour parts of the borders there, they had to interview a ton of people and they had to sift through something like 7 million files to make sure they didn't fuck up on a technicality. Since it's easy to have evidence that isn't fully admissable, or is enough to make you 'know' they did it, but not enough to 'prove' it, getting a water-tight case is very important, and this sometimes takes time.
Additionally, the 42 days is by no means a target, and the hope is that it will never be used, and that no case will ever go past the current 28 (or however many) days.
The argument AGAINST is largely based on the 'why the hell are you ruining my life by locking me up for two months without any real reason?' argument, which, let's face it, is a very, very strong point. The thing that someone brought up on QT (and which I think is a very salient point) is that the police are going to be liable to make the time stretch to whatever the limit is. I don't doubt that getting these prosecutions to stick to the guilty is going to be a hard job often enough, but if they have 42 days instead of 28, thecosp are hardly going to be busting their asses to get the evidence in by week three, when they've got another five to do it in.
Ultimately, whilst none of us wish to be blown up by evil terrorists, there's basically no demand or appetite for this extension other than the government wanting to seem like they're tough on terrorists. Create a bugbear and then destroy it... it's always the tactics of a government under pressure - but this time I think a lot of people can see right through it.
The argument FOR extending is largely because with these latest round of prosecutions, they got to within a day or so of the current limit. They had to send investigators out to Pakistan to scour parts of the borders there, they had to interview a ton of people and they had to sift through something like 7 million files to make sure they didn't fuck up on a technicality. Since it's easy to have evidence that isn't fully admissable, or is enough to make you 'know' they did it, but not enough to 'prove' it, getting a water-tight case is very important, and this sometimes takes time.
Additionally, the 42 days is by no means a target, and the hope is that it will never be used, and that no case will ever go past the current 28 (or however many) days.
The argument AGAINST is largely based on the 'why the hell are you ruining my life by locking me up for two months without any real reason?' argument, which, let's face it, is a very, very strong point. The thing that someone brought up on QT (and which I think is a very salient point) is that the police are going to be liable to make the time stretch to whatever the limit is. I don't doubt that getting these prosecutions to stick to the guilty is going to be a hard job often enough, but if they have 42 days instead of 28, thecosp are hardly going to be busting their asses to get the evidence in by week three, when they've got another five to do it in.
Ultimately, whilst none of us wish to be blown up by evil terrorists, there's basically no demand or appetite for this extension other than the government wanting to seem like they're tough on terrorists. Create a bugbear and then destroy it... it's always the tactics of a government under pressure - but this time I think a lot of people can see right through it.
Curiosity wrote:
I watched Question Time on this subject last week.
The argument FOR extending is largely because with these latest round of prosecutions, they got to within a day or so of the current limit. They had to send investigators out to Pakistan to scour parts of the borders there, they had to interview a ton of people and they had to sift through something like 7 million files to make sure they didn't fuck up on a technicality. Since it's easy to have evidence that isn't fully admissable, or is enough to make you 'know' they did it, but not enough to 'prove' it, getting a water-tight case is very important, and this sometimes takes time.
The argument FOR extending is largely because with these latest round of prosecutions, they got to within a day or so of the current limit. They had to send investigators out to Pakistan to scour parts of the borders there, they had to interview a ton of people and they had to sift through something like 7 million files to make sure they didn't fuck up on a technicality. Since it's easy to have evidence that isn't fully admissable, or is enough to make you 'know' they did it, but not enough to 'prove' it, getting a water-tight case is very important, and this sometimes takes time.
But virtually all of this can be done after charging someone.
How much evidence do you need to charge a person with, compared to actually prosecuting them? Can't we do all the fine trawling through computers after we've charged them?
John Major wrote:
No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity - but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk.
Good article - I wanted him to end it with "Also, when I sent troops into Iraq, I did it properly".
Did he?
Dudley wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
I watched Question Time on this subject last week.
The argument FOR extending is largely because with these latest round of prosecutions, they got to within a day or so of the current limit. They had to send investigators out to Pakistan to scour parts of the borders there, they had to interview a ton of people and they had to sift through something like 7 million files to make sure they didn't fuck up on a technicality. Since it's easy to have evidence that isn't fully admissable, or is enough to make you 'know' they did it, but not enough to 'prove' it, getting a water-tight case is very important, and this sometimes takes time.
The argument FOR extending is largely because with these latest round of prosecutions, they got to within a day or so of the current limit. They had to send investigators out to Pakistan to scour parts of the borders there, they had to interview a ton of people and they had to sift through something like 7 million files to make sure they didn't fuck up on a technicality. Since it's easy to have evidence that isn't fully admissable, or is enough to make you 'know' they did it, but not enough to 'prove' it, getting a water-tight case is very important, and this sometimes takes time.
But virtually all of this can be done after charging someone.
I didn't say I agreed with it!
No I know but I could hardly say that without quoting you
MrD wrote:
Did he?
Well yeah - they pretty much rocked in, fucked everyone up, and then left again.
Major is actually an incredibly interesting man. It's a real shame that his time in power was ruined by the Conservatives having already spent too much time in office.
As opposed to the current war, where they rocked in, fucked everyone up, and then stayed there getting shot at.
What if we detain them for as long as it takes, but detain them somewhere really nice? That wouldn't be so bad...
/edit Nice read there by Major, even considering when his tenure at the Carlyle group was.
/edit Nice read there by Major, even considering when his tenure at the Carlyle group was.
Interesting that the government won only because they strangely got the backing from the DUP MPs. I wonder what they promised them in return?
Anyway, the Lords will throw this right back into Parliament. I guarantee it.
Anyway, the Lords will throw this right back into Parliament. I guarantee it.
Super, we're now effectively governed by the DUP.
Sickening.
How long will it be before Brown calls for 56 days, because he wants to look 'tough' of the 'dire emergency'?
(I'll check the rolls tomorrow but I daresay my Labour MP - who's conception of an 'argument' tends to be a form letter from the Home Office addressing none of my points - waddled into the 42-day lobby, good boy that he is)
How long will it be before Brown calls for 56 days, because he wants to look 'tough' of the 'dire emergency'?
(I'll check the rolls tomorrow but I daresay my Labour MP - who's conception of an 'argument' tends to be a form letter from the Home Office addressing none of my points - waddled into the 42-day lobby, good boy that he is)
I'm sure I heard that a UKIP were influential in the vote too.
Bear in mind of course it was 14 days as recently as (iirc) 2004.
Curiosity wrote:
Additionally, the 42 days is by no means a target, and the hope is that it will never be used, and that no case will ever go past the current 28 (or however many) days.
Yes, they do always like to waft these vague assurances at us. We're told that nobody expects blah blah regular citizens blah blah, only to target terror and organized crime blah.
And then octogenarians are rough handled out of party conferences for heckling, and local councils are using anti terror laws to spy on parents suspected of cheating on school catchment areas.
Quote:
Ultimately, whilst none of us wish to be blown up by evil terrorists
Yes, but we've had terrorists for centuries, and hi-tech terrorists with easy access to deadly weapons for decades, and never had all these ridiculous fucknig laws before, and yet still manage to get away with fewer deaths from terrorist attacks than from collapsing shelves. If not having these laws will mean we get blown up, why the fuck are we still here? Maybe because the police are forced to use actual manpower and detective work instead of just locking all foreignors up until you can pin something on them?
I just hate these people who essentially say "the police/intelligence services are fucking up - let's give them more power!" It's like giving someone who can't shoot straight with a pistol a rocket launcher. FUCKING. STUPID.
And Blair/whoever the fat cunt in power is goin gon aobut how the polcie want more power. Firstly, it's the head of the service that you talk to, and you can bet he doesn't have a fucking clue what the police really need, and secondly, of course he's going to say that. "I don't want to have to do all this police work, Gordon. Give me the power to just lock anyone away and forget about them, eh? There's a pastie in it for you, lad." Gah.
The thing is, why do we need these laws now?
We had 30 years where terrorists attacked once a week and didn't need 42 days or ID cards or de-shoeing at the airport.
Now we've had 1 successful attack in a decade and we're now fucked?
We had 30 years where terrorists attacked once a week and didn't need 42 days or ID cards or de-shoeing at the airport.
Now we've had 1 successful attack in a decade and we're now fucked?
I guess it goes back to the New Labour coalition and the belief that in order win power they had to outflank the Conservatives wherever possible on law 'n' order matters. Of course, if something bad does happen, they can then say 'see, we needed that law - the soft and squishy Tories can't be trusted' despite it in all probability having no influence on behaviour at all.
Yeah it can be spun both ways.
Something happens - need stronger laws.
Nothing happens - See, our laws work...
In other news, these are the people who are officially awesome tonight.
Something happens - need stronger laws.
Nothing happens - See, our laws work...
In other news, these are the people who are officially awesome tonight.
Quote:
Diane Abbott
Richard Burden
Katy Clark
Harry Cohen
Frank Cook
Jeremy Corbyn
Jim Cousins
Andrew Dismore
Frank Dobson
David Drew
Paul Farrelly
Mark Fisher
Paul Flynn
Neil Gerrard
Ian Gibson
Roger Godsiff
John Grogan
Dai Havard
Kate Hoey
Kelvin Hopkins
Glenda Jackson
Lynne Jones
Peter Kilfoyle
Andrew MacKinlay
Bob Marshall-Andrews
John McDonnell
Michael Meacher
Julie Morgan
Chris Mullin
Douglas Naysmith
Gordon Prentice
Linda Riordan
Alan Simpson
Emily Thornberry
David Winnick
Mike Wood
Richard Burden
Katy Clark
Harry Cohen
Frank Cook
Jeremy Corbyn
Jim Cousins
Andrew Dismore
Frank Dobson
David Drew
Paul Farrelly
Mark Fisher
Paul Flynn
Neil Gerrard
Ian Gibson
Roger Godsiff
John Grogan
Dai Havard
Kate Hoey
Kelvin Hopkins
Glenda Jackson
Lynne Jones
Peter Kilfoyle
Andrew MacKinlay
Bob Marshall-Andrews
John McDonnell
Michael Meacher
Julie Morgan
Chris Mullin
Douglas Naysmith
Gordon Prentice
Linda Riordan
Alan Simpson
Emily Thornberry
David Winnick
Mike Wood
Come on, House of Lords!
Grim... wrote:
Come on, House of Lords!
On Question Time last week, Douglas Hurd laughed and said that there's no way in hell it would get past the Lords.
And BTW, to people quoting me - I hope you understand that I was playing Devil's Advocate, as evidenced by saying I didn't agree with what I wrote!
The house of lords only have so much power though, ultimately over time the commons can force it through.
Dudley wrote:
The house of lords only have so much power though, ultimately over time the commons can force it through.
Indeed, but look how long it took the fox hunting crap to get through. It's got to be passed three times by Parliament before it can bypass the Lords, and by then (at least another year) I fully expect there to have been some changes in government 'policy'.
Namely the presence of that stupid fat bastard at the top of said
Dudley wrote:
Namely the presence of that stupid fat bastard at the top of said
*crosses fingers*
Kern wrote:
I guess it goes back to the New Labour coalition and the belief that in order win power they had to outflank the Conservatives wherever possible on law 'n' order matters. Of course, if something bad does happen, they can then say 'see, we needed that law - the soft and squishy Tories can't be trusted' despite it in all probability having no influence on behaviour at all.
If anything major ever happens again the reasons for this law will be proven a lie* since they can now** just arrest anyone on the slightest whiff and hold them for 42 days while they try and uncover some real evidence.
* It's another small step towards a true police state/surveillance society a la 1984/THX1138.
** Hansard should be entertaining. I desperately hope so, anyway.
It would appear that David Davies is of the 'money where your mouth is' school of politics.
I thought Tony Benn's quote was bang on the money, too: "I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed", adding that it was largely labourers who fought for the rules Labour's now merrily discarding.
This law is unbelievably fucked up. I can't believe how many people in the UK are happy to sleepwalk into a dictatorial police state. I'm just waiting for the microchips in babies (to ensure you don't get sent home with the wrong one, obviously) thing to come up again. Tie that into NatPop (a la The Last Enemy) and Labour's 'work' is done.
Politically, I really never thought I'd see the day when sane people in the UK were truly hoping for a Tory government and when the unelected Lords were the only real hope of retaining civil liberties worth a damn.
This law is unbelievably fucked up. I can't believe how many people in the UK are happy to sleepwalk into a dictatorial police state. I'm just waiting for the microchips in babies (to ensure you don't get sent home with the wrong one, obviously) thing to come up again. Tie that into NatPop (a la The Last Enemy) and Labour's 'work' is done.
Politically, I really never thought I'd see the day when sane people in the UK were truly hoping for a Tory government and when the unelected Lords were the only real hope of retaining civil liberties worth a damn.
Reading the "Have Your Say" comments on the BBC website about the law being voted for is depressing. Truly depressing.
CraigGrannell wrote:
I thought Tony Benn's quote was bang on the money, too: "I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed", adding that it was largely labourers who fought for the rules Labour's now merrily discarding.
This law is unbelievably fucked up. I can't believe how many people in the UK are happy to sleepwalk into a dictatorial police state. I'm just waiting for the microchips in babies (to ensure you don't get sent home with the wrong one, obviously) thing to come up again. Tie that into NatPop (a la The Last Enemy) and Labour's 'work' is done.
Politically, I really never thought I'd see the day when sane people in the UK were truly hoping for a Tory government and when the unelected Lords were the only real hope of retaining civil liberties worth a damn.
This law is unbelievably fucked up. I can't believe how many people in the UK are happy to sleepwalk into a dictatorial police state. I'm just waiting for the microchips in babies (to ensure you don't get sent home with the wrong one, obviously) thing to come up again. Tie that into NatPop (a la The Last Enemy) and Labour's 'work' is done.
Politically, I really never thought I'd see the day when sane people in the UK were truly hoping for a Tory government and when the unelected Lords were the only real hope of retaining civil liberties worth a damn.
Just rushed to this thread whilst I've got a minute to voice my despair, and to 100% agree with CraigGrannell. I'm getting close to having to vote for the Tories (normally a hippy lib dem and that) in the next election because of how fucked up this is getting.
Like the GF said after watching Taking Liberties (watch it - it is very good) anything which Boris Johnson and Tony Benn agree on must be pretty fucking serious.
I mean a Tory has resigned over this (to force a bi-election) and not only do I agree with him but his speech is pretty fucking good.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450728.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450728.stm
GazChap wrote:
Reading the "Have Your Say" comments on the BBC website about the law being voted for is depressing. Truly depressing.
Judging by Have Your Say, if you masked a real authoritarian fascist party in the right lingo, "Common Sense" and "PC Brigades" and "political correctness gone mad" and "bleeding heart liberals" and "what about the human rights of normal folk" you'd win a landslide.
Page 1 of 3 [ 108 posts ]