90 days

[Chico]

I see the Indy has put together an assortment of hand wringers and terrorist appeasers to rebut the 90 day detention of terrorists.

The so called Independent

What is wrong with this country? Al Qaeda must be laughing. I say, if the police have just cause then they should lock up any suspects - if they are innocent, they will be proven so without much ado. How do they expect the police to prevent terrorism with two hands tied behind their backs?

[The Lone Gunman]

I see the Indy has put together an assortment of hand wringers and terrorist appeasers to rebut the 90 day detention of terrorists.

The so called Independent

What is wrong with this country? Al Qaeda must be laughing. I say, if the police have just cause then they should lock up any suspects - if they are innocent, they will be proven so without much ado. How do they expect the police to prevent terrorism with two hands tied behind their backs?

Dont be so stupid Chico. If the Police have just cause then they can present that evidence to a Judge who can then give them permission.
The Police record on this sort of legislation is to use it when they cant think of anything else to hold people who are a nuisance then apologise later.

[Lucifer Box]

What is wrong with this country? Al Qaeda must be laughing. I say, if the police have just cause then they should lock up any suspects - if they are innocent, they will be proven so without much ado.

Al Qaeda are certainly laughing with people like you around bent on handing over centuries of hard won freedoms and converting a free society into a police state. You are doing their job for them.

[Not So Wise]

if the police have just cause then they should lock up any suspects

Yes they should, problem here is Blair wants to give them powers to lock people up without "just cause", they want to lock them up for 3 months without "just cause", rather lock up first, find "just cause" later. Or as more commonly known, for 3 months at least guilty untill proven innocent

if they are innocent, they will be proven so without much ado.

Tell that to the multiple "IRA terrorists" who were later found to be innocent, after serving 10 plus years in jail.

[Lucifer Box]

if they are innocent, they will be proven so without much ado.

Hmmm, there was a similar person on the jury I sat on a couple of weeks ago who didn't believe in this "innocent until proven guilty nonsense". Like Chico, she felt that (despite the judge explaining how the legal system works very carefully to her), that accused people should have to prove their innocence, there's no smoke without fire, we're not here to judge the prosecution case, only God can decide whether people are truly free of guilt, etc.

[Rebecca Loos]

so Chico you think that if the police arrest someone and has got nothing on them for 30 days, they are likely to find something in the following 60 days?

Unlikely. Either they can put together a case or they can't. But if they can, surely 30 days are enough. This 90 days business is just a measure of their incompetence.

In fact they don't even need it. If they suspect someone, they can just shoot them. It's not as if they haven't done it before is it?

[WageSlave]

The real issue here isn't the right of terrorists. I don't give a damn about their rights and they can burn in hell for all I care, but I do care about my own rights and it troubles me that Blair is destroying centuries of English libertarian tradition. Has Blair ever heard of Magna Carta?? Wat Tyler??? Cromwell????

The problem with this country isn't its system of punishments; it's something rotten at the core of society. We have more laws and regulations now than in the 1950s, but is the country safer as a result? Increased legisation is a result of people not knowing how to behave properly in a certain situation.

As I've said before, we are only one wacko away from a ruined life. Let's imagine some situations...
Contractor Billy is going through a painful divorce from his wife. For whatever reason she has come to hate him and decides that the best way to win the case and settle the score is to claim he abused their son or to say that he enjoys child porn.
Contractor Simon is passionate about his religion, but some neighbours have taken a dislike to him because of this. They decide to play a trick on him and inform the police about his suspicious activities (could be the next David Khoresh).

[Mailman]

I would have a problem with legislation like this if we were living in an Eastern European of Middle East Dictatorship. However whether you like to admit it or not England does not have much of a history of police abusing their powers on a wide scale (much like Eastern Germany kind of thing).

Sure some of you cry babies will be able to point out the odd case of police abusing their powers but no matter how you dress it up those cases will be the exception, not the norm.

And anyway, the sooner England becomes a police state the sooner we get rid of thugs and chavs off the street

Mailman

[Chico]

Isn't the greatest civil liberty – the liberty to live!!! In normal circumstances 90 days will be unacceptable however in the context of suicide bombers, who cannot be prosecuted if successful, and then the onus shifts to prevention. If the professionals are saying they would need 90 days to break encrypted computers, unravel international terrorist links etc then what right to the hand wringers have to oppose this. It is the duty of the police to protect us and we should let them get on with it.

[The Lone Gunman]

Isn't the greatest civil liberty – the liberty to live!!! In normal circumstances 90 days will be unacceptable however in the context of suicide bombers, who cannot be prosecuted if successful, and then the onus shifts to prevention. If the professionals are saying they would need 90 days to break encrypted computers, unravel international terrorist links etc then what right to the hand wringers have to oppose this. It is the duty of the police to protect us and we should let them get on with it.

None of us have a problem with that, but what you are proposing is a Police state.

Listen very carefully: If the Police believe that a suspect may be a terrorist then they must have evidence to support that belief.
That evidence should have to be examined by some other authority like a single or panel of judges appointed for this purpose.
If said judge agrees there is enough evidence then allow the Police to go ahead.

Just what is your problem with that sceanrio? It protects our freedoms whilst protecting us from those who would do us harm.