Rave disagrees with Tony Blair shock

[Zak33]

but to be able to arrest people on the potential of what someone believes might be what they might do.....and then lock em up....for an almost indefinable amount of time.

corr....horrible.

Imagine the 1 in a million chance of being in the wrong place at the wrongtime.

Watford for example!!!

I was in a pub in Watford when I was 19 (ok...long ago, I'm 33 now) and there was a small "arrangement" for a lockin for the punters in at closing, inc me and the bloke I was with...which was nice for the slightly drunk peeps, me inc.

and at 11:40 I was asked to make a contribuition to the IRA!!!

When half of the pub starts talking about the Rep's and then does a whip round that is suggested should start with a tenner minimum per person....ya get scared too.

NOW...if I was in prison now for something like that...I'd be mighty pi$$ed off.

err...this isn't a Zak imagninig.......I reember his breath...I remember being more scared than I'd been in my short life.

Now THAT MUST COUNT AS POTENTIAL TERRORISM....and if so, I'd be in nick now.

Innocently too .No right to a court either by all accounts.

[Rave]

EDIT - Did you just call me a cowardy-custard, Rave? You rotter sir!

I know how to fight dirty.

There is no human right greater than the right to life,

Agreed.

no liberty more sacred than your own personal safety. Above all, we all have the right to life, the right to live safely, the right to go about our daily lives without fear of attack. If you disagree, feel free to 'come back' on me, as it were.

No, I don't disagree.

As for the Ben Franklin quote, I do not give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, members of my family (as I'm sure have yours) have fought and died in 2 world wars to protect our freedom and liberty, but also to ensure our safety. They did not give up anything, they simply would rather sacrifice the enemy than themselves, to remain safe.

I disagree. Had we allowed Hitler to invade the country unopposed in the 1940s it's likely that there would have been no bloodshed at all. We went to war precisely because we thought that risking death for the sake of freedom was prefereable to living under a dictatorship.

'The point is not to die for your country, but to make the other person die for his'.

Yeah, but I don't think even Patton saw war as merely a means to kill people.

Same deal here - I wish to remain free to walk the streets, and if to do so, suspects must be retained without trial, then so be it. If it is passed, then it will be legal.

The point is that if these laws are passed, the government would have the right to arbitrarily take away your right to walk the streets without having to present their evidence to a judge.

Why would I object to legal messures taken to ensure my safty, my loved one's safety? The saftey of my (as yet non-exsistant) children?

Because those 'legal' measures can be abused. If history is any guide, they more than likely will be.

The point is that (being realistic) the terrorists that these measures are designed to thwart are fundamentalist islamists, who would like to see a world run under strict Sharia law. They would like to see the religious police take people away for thought crime, they would like us all to bow down to the proclamations of religious leaders, they despise freedom and democracy. And so, apparently, the best way to combat these people is to give our politicians the right to take away people's freedom without judicial scrutiny? Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

Rich :¬)

[Stewart]

The point is that (being realistic) the terrorists that these measures are designed to thwart are fundamentalist islamists, who would like to see a world run under strict Sharia law. They would like to see the religious police take people away for thought crime, they would like us all to bow down to the proclamations of religious leaders, they despise freedom and democracy. And so, apparently, the best way to combat these people is to give our politicians the right to take away people's freedom without judicial scrutiny? Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

Sounds like locking up those who would plot and plan to do us harm, before they do so to me. I'm all for it.

[Rave]

Yeah, now answer the rest of it.

[Kumagoro]

Getting an extention to holding people as was normal is reasonable. For an indefinate
amount of time though ... it should be reviewed regularly.

I do think the problem has been over hyped if they really wanted to do something they
easily could.

[headbrace]

The thing is, how do you know some one is planning to do something until you have some hard and fast evidence. If you have the evidence, the fair enough, lock 'em. You obviously have enough evidence to put it through the correct legal channels and let the juries decide.

We could find ourselves in the same position as in the 70's when lots of people of Irish backgrounds were arrested purely for being near somewhere where there was a disturbance of some form.

Surely the main standing of our justice system is that it is worse for someone to be imprisoned for a crime they did not, or in this case, did not perhaps think of possibly doing, than for a guilty person to go free.

Anyone in the mood for some thought crime?

[malfunction]

Indeed ^^^

Basically, as I understand it, it isn't super hard for the police to investigate or monitor a person's activities if they are suspected of committing / plotting / planning / supporting serious criminal acts... I.e. they have the power to monitor someone and COLLECT PROOF... So what's wrong with that? As opposed to removing the proper legal process? It's worth pointing out that even if a police officer was standing with a video camera watching you commit a serious crime (speeding, etc not counted) then the only thing they can do (aside from attempt to stop you) is arrest you ON SUSPISCION of committing a crime and then subsequently CHARGE YOU with committing that crime... They cannot and should not be able to CONVICT YOU... No-one should be able to do that other than the courts - as it is - despite it's faults - a proper public process and LESS SUBJECT to ABUSE than any short-cut system... These issues are as old as society - read some PLATO FFS - any government that can act this way outside of a state of emergency ought to have anyone with a brain worried!

[Ravens Nest]

I myself am very worry about these latest developments, also if i remember rightly the US had a similiar law go through pretty much unchallenged??

I hate to imagine a law passed that can have me arrested indefinetly with no proof i did anything, just because someone has a hunch.

Also anyone hear Tony Blair on the radio defending the new law, when he is shouting at nearly a scream he sounds like he's lecturing as all (Like a school master) and not debating the pro's and con's and allow the house of commons to vote for it.

A lot of his own party are not backing him up on this decision, but he's going to put it through anyway (What is this a dictatorship)

[Zedmeister]

Sounds like locking up those who would plot and plan to do us harm, before they do so to me. I'm all for it.

So is everyone else. But the problem is making sure the Innocent are not mistaken for the Guilty which is what these new shambolic new measures allow.

[Gunbuster]

I'm not against anti-terrorism legislation, because frankly I quite like being alive and the in general the rest of the British population. However Mr Blair makes it sound as if one piece of frankly wrong piece of legislation is the only piece of law able to protect the British people. I'm sorry but that is absolute rubbish. Also introducing dodgy legislation like this as far as my simple legal mind can understand would provide ammo for those defending themselves that would otherwise be legally convicted.

It puts me in mind of a program I saw on crashes and how safety features are a balance of risk. Like how airbags in cars can hurt drivers, but most of the time save lives or safety glass in trains allow exit if the carriages are on fire, but also allow people to fall out if the carriage is sliding on its side. Personally I like the safety feature of innocent until proven guilty, it may have the rare backfire of people getting away with things that can't be proven, but it protects us more often than not.

[RVF500]

This legislation is calling for us to place out trust in the discretion of a politician. I'd rather allow a junkyard pitbull to babysit my kids. I agree with rave that the legislation is open to abuse and is more likely to be abused than not. The human rights act seems to have had the effect of removing or at least detrimentally affecting the human rights of the majority in favour of the minority.

One question begs an answer. If we know who these people are why let them in in the first place? Once caught why don't we return them to their port of immigration. You can't get on a flight to the US without a return ticket so anyone (it's a basic check/filter) turning up with a one way should be put on the next flight back.....regardless. Those who are 'undesirables' should simply be returned to the destination on the return ticket on the next available flight. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't this law originally applied to non-Britons? One of the reasons detention without trial was recently overturned. Which returns us to the 'why let them in in the first place' point. Failing that, deport them to their country of origin regardless of whatever fate awaits them. I would rather they get strung up by their own people, if it came to that, than set off an atrocity in my country. If they are genuine asylum seekers then they won't be here plotting said atrocity. In fact they would be wanting to live their lives peacefully. Fair enough, no argument there.

Personally I think that the terrorist threat is overstated. Deliberately so. It is being used cynicallly to scare people into allowing more power to the politicians. We had more of a threat in the period 1970 - 1990 (ish) than we do now and such measures were not thought of as necessary. And yes, the IRA did blow up the centre of London. So it's been done before. And no we didn't see the need to live in a totalitarian state as a result.

As for the tories being champions of civil liberties, well let's not forget that some of the most oppressive societies in the world have been socialist.