What next?

[RVF500]

After the revelations that Blair and co have already signed over a major piece of our soveriegnty away by handing control of our borders to Brussels I asked myself 'what next?' Didn't have long to wait. Armed with the directives from the European court and the Lords stating that detention without trial was illegal and because it only included foriegn nationals, discriminatory. Charles Clarke has now announced he has given himself the power to detain any British citizen in their own home indefinitely, without charge and evidence may be held from the defence on grounds of security. Notably, France detains suspects without trial for up to 2 years, the French returnees from Guantanamo were immediately put in French prisons, where they remain.

Does anyone else out there find this disturbing? Ok, it is stated that it is to be used solely for the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately this govt is about as trustworthy as Michael Jackson at a kindergarten (allegedly). So when Clarke says it's ok I won't abuse the power nor will any other minister in the future. Forgive me for pulling a cynical face. It's also a bit of a joke given the open door policy on immigration and the fact that once here we can't eject unsavoury foriegn nationals because we no longer have control of the law.

Notably, France detains suspects without trial for up to 2 years, the French returnees from Guantanamo were immediately put in French prisons, where they remain.

Orwell was considered by many to be a visionary, he predicted a great many future events in his writings. He did get one thing wrong though. The title of the book should have been '2005' not '1984'. Bail applications have been rejected. Spain too holds suspects for up to 2 or 3 years before bringing them to trial.

What next?

[JohnS]

he can lock me in my house as long as he likes as long as the broadband is flooding in, the eleccy works and he doesnt take my pc

Shazam 3 bags of the blue fairy dust later "Heaven.............."

if i have to stay in the house i would of course expect a personal guard to see off the unwanted gaming disturbers (Jahova's witness, canvassers and general just as you get to the climax of the level Knock Knock types)

oh and the pizzas are on Liz

[Rave]

Yeah thanks Monkey. TBH if you haven't anything useful to contribute to Question Time then stay out.

RVF, I don't think you do your arguments any favours by flippant references to Michael Jackson or the 'open door policy on immigration' that clearly doesn't exist. Does the Home Secretary have any right to place a British Citizen under house arrest without charge though? He DOES NOT. THIS IS BRITAIN, NOT BURMA FFS!!!!

Sh1t, I don't support terrorism, but are we just going to let the government steal our freedoms from under our noses?

And as for the Daily Mail asking today why we can't kick Abu Hamza out. Ummmmm: it's because he's a British Citizen actually. Thanks, end of discussion, goodbye.

Rich :¬)

[RVF500]

Firstly. I reserve my right to free speech (while I still have it) to make flippant remarks. It's in my nature to do so. I don't care if you like it or not. I'm not going to change.

Secondly, due to the seemingly total lack of immigration control it seems very much as if an open door policy exists. Of course the govt has handed control to Brussels so can effectively claim not to be at fault as the EU sets policy now. I have no problem with genuine refugees or people who bring essential skills and are here to contribute at the same time as improving their own lot.

Thirdly, and more importantly, you're exactly right. We are not a totalitarian state, yet, such as Burma. However, is it just me or does this seem like just the latest in a string of events that are rapidly chipping away at our basic freedoms.

As for Hamza, didn't the home secretary revoke his passport? If so doesn't he revert to being an Egyptian citizen? If it's such a chore why don't we just extradite him to the states as we've been asked and wash our hands of him? If the govt are willing to incarcerate people in their own homes then they won't mind the flak from getting shot of a man who has proabaly broken every race law we have and who may well actively be recruiting individuals to harm our country.

[Betty_Swallocks]

And as for the Daily Mail asking today why we can't kick Abu Hamza out. Ummmmm: it's because he's a British Citizen actually. Thanks, end of discussion, goodbye.

Abu Hamza had his citizenship revoked in April 2003 (source: BBC News )

So no, not "end of discussion" actually. (Funny, I remember someone being criticised by Rave not long ago for ending a post with the words *end of story". Different rules apply I suppose)

Hamza should, in my opinion, have had his citizenship taken away long before that. He was granted it in 1981 when he married a British woman who divorced him five years later. Why does the law allow people to keep our citizenship after they divorce the person they married to get it?

If we give someone citizenship because they have married someone from this country then surely if they are no longer married then the reason for them having it no longer exists.

Hamza does not belong here, he is not British and by his actions demonstrates that he does not WANT to be British. He is just a parasiteof the worst kind. One that actively seeks to damage it's host.

Send him somewhere where he can't corrupt any more British Muslim youth. Preferably to the States where they are likely to take a less tolerant view of his scurrilous activities.

[0iD]

What wories me about our country is that i'm not sure if we're going to become America's stooge or Brussels's whipping boy.

[DaBeeeenster]

due to the seemingly total lack of immigration control it seems very much as if an open door policy exists. Of course the govt has handed control to Brussels so can effectively claim not to be at fault as the EU sets policy now. I have no problem with genuine refugees or people who bring essential skills and are here to contribute at the same time as improving their own lot.

To be honest, it sounds like someone has sucked down the Mail/Express agenda.
"Total lack of immigration control"? Have you actually ever spoken to someone trying to attain permanent residency in this country?

[Rave]

Abu Hamza had his citizenship revoked in April 2003 (source: BBC News )

Well, that's still subject to appeal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3749402.stm

Cheers.

[Galant]

To be honest I'm not too worried about the British goverment having too much power in this case, I'm more concerned about Europe having too much. What I want to know is why on Earth people miles away living in different nations and cultures get to dictate what happens in Britain. If they want to cooperate and work in harmony with Europe then lovely. Do so. There's a difference however between that and just letting Europe have control. Pardon me for saying but it seems to me that someone up there is making a power grab and trying to create a European superstate. Well forget the French and German governments and their ill-conceived desire for a European utopia. What wrong with the idea of individual nations retaining their individuality and working together?

Oh sorry, forgot, we're talking to the Borg here.

[JohnS]

[QUOTE=Rave]Yeah thanks Monkey. TBH if you haven't anything useful to contribute to Question Time then stay out. QUOTE]

What? wether you regard my opinion relevant or not doesnt interest me in the slightest, it was as it still is my honest opinion. Below is it re written especially for you.



I have no issue with House arrest and prefer it in comparison to being held in exactly the same way in a prison in a foriegn country being arrested is not pleasent at the best of times and should i have to choose between a cell or my own home its home every time especially if im being held without charge. (suit you better?)

next time you cant make sense of my posts dont make snyde comments try asking me what i mean.

"if you have nothing NICE to say then please say nothing at all" - by Thumper from the film/cartoon Bambi.

[Rave]

Well I was overly rude- apologies for that. Your original post didn't make much sense though.

[RVF500]

To be honest, it sounds like someone has sucked down the Mail/Express agenda.
"Total lack of immigration control"? Have you actually ever spoken to someone trying to attain permanent residency in this country?

Firstly I don't read the Express or Mail. Frankly I prefer to make my own mind up based on experience, though occaisionally one has to go with the available information, rather than have it made up for me by a biased journalist. Your comments are patronizing and insulting.

Secondly, I work with a large number of immigrants. For example Nigerians. My last contract there were 4 out of a team of 8, this contract there are 3 out of a team of 6 and on numerous other short contracts I have worked with people on professional immigration programmes. Many cable contractors that I deal with are from Eastern Europe. I have worked with Croats, Bulgars, Albanians and Ukranians not to mention Australians, South Africans and New Zealanders to name a few. So my answer would have to be yes, I have spoken to such people. I have spoken with them regarding their movement to this country and other domestic issues as well professionally. Similarly I have had to deal with visas and permits to work in other countries myself. Such as India, Mexico, Brazil and Korea for example and have explored immigration myself. You could say I've seen it from both sides of the fence.

I still stand by my view that immigration controls in this country are a farce at best. I also stand by my statement that I have no problem with genuine people. Actually I welcome them. Having been exceedingly fortunate to have worked at one time or another on just about every continent across the globe, Eastern Europe still eludes me. I have had first hand experience of a multitude of cultures. As part of the local economy and not a tourist. I take a pride in the fact that I feel that I have contributed while I was there. I welcome those cultures here as I feel it adds to our own in a positive and colourful way.

I don't welcome 'shameless opportunists', to borrow a phrase. People who take advantage of our tolerance and system. Out of interest, have you ever spoken to policemen who have had to deal with this side of the immigration failures? You may find it of interest if you haven't. I won't patronise you and assume you haven't.

Now, can we get back to the original point which is the powers that the home secretary has announced in conjunction with other issues that seem to be eroding our basic freedoms?

[JohnS]

Well I was overly rude- apologies for that. Your original post didn't make much sense though.

nps fella

hehe

now on topic here we go:

You asked at the beginning of the thread what next well heres my 2 pence for you ( in english for Mr. Rave ), as before i would rather be held captive in my own home by the government than in any cell, however i do also agree that to hold anyone, even if you think hes the mass murdering terrorist your looking for the killer of 600 innocents, without charge let alone without evidence is outrageous. I agree that something needs to be done to counter terrorism but that doesnt mean you have to do this in an unlawful and immoral way. lets run this one as an example. i get robbed and think it was done by the local drug addict who has a history of theft, i see him walking up my street a week later and invite him into the house, locking him under my stairs. I tell him im keeping him here while i look into a theft that took place in my house. I then investigate the mans house place of work, friends, friends houses, shops hes known for selling his stolen goods in and find nothing substantial but i keep him under the stairs yet longer while i continue to look into it. < this is a bad thing

thats my analogy of what the americans did to "Suspected" terrorists whom were more or less just in the wrong place at the wrong time (talking of wrong i may also be wrong these are just my thoughts as with the americans i have no evidence one way or the other)

getting to the point it seems to me the English are saying "thats bad but we have a better idea well lock him in the bathroom (his own house)"

What next:
it appears the governments are coming together to create a collection of superstates who have large chunks of the map small countries are bonding and grouping to become bigger and have a larger say in the world when they have succeeded they will most likely join to create larger groups and eventually the goal a world government.
Since the dawn of time man has thrust to control fellow man to have vast empires history speaks this loud empire after crushed empire, but to take the whole world wow man to single handedly (the president of the world government for example) control the globe thats big and possibly most politicians dream i think thats where were headed.

As for Mr Orwell the man was a visionary who understood government and the way it would grow and the paranoid twist that would come with it.


Shazam 6 bags of the kiwi fairy dust