So are they???

[HRHQoQ]

OK we all know that most of our MP's are completely out of touch with public opinion but do you agree with this article where Blair accuses them of being out of touch with public opinion on the terror threat?

For me - I think (for once) the MP's have got it right.

Quite, Peacedove. I remember the outcry when they wanted to increase it to 7 days. And your points back up the Gareth Pierce article.

At the risk of being accused of being "anti-police" it seems to me that we're being asked to abolish our civil liberties because the police aren't expected to have the same level of competence in doing their jobs as most other organisations have. If I knew that they were competent people who had done everything they could to get on with the job in hand but that they needed more time because in spite of all their work, they needed it, I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of extending the period you could keep a suspect without charging them. But the Gareth Pierce piece makes it perfectly clear that the first thing they need to do, is get their house in order. Once they've done that, they might find they can do their job in the time alloted to them. And if they can't, those of us who are against our civil liberties being eroded in this hysterical fashion, might be more sympathetic to their arguments.

And one other point. Does anyone think this is just going to be restricted to terrorism suspects? Once you've got the principle that you're allowed to keep one innocent man for 28 days, and it's been happening for three or four years, it doesn't seem quite so bad if you suggest keeping someone suspected of robbery, or receiving stolen goods for fourteen days, does it?

There was a very good analysis of the survey on Radio 4 a few days ago explaining in detail why it was such a bad survey as the questions did not give you any choice but to support the bill, in the way they were worded. You can make a survey say anything you like with a bit of work...

I may be wrong, but I really don't think that this would extend to other crimes. Robbery and terrorism aren't exactly in the same league. A lot more harm could be done if a genuine terrorist was set free without charge compared to a robber.

LETS imagine,
my dh, of bengalis origin, but born and brought up in this country. goes on the tubes with a rucksack. for whatever reaosn, they think he is acting suspiciously. they hold him in jail for three months.
he loses his job, his reputation. no one will want to do business wityh him ever.
i stuck with three kids at home. in three months time, we will lose the house, the cars, everything we have worked for. not to mention the kids constantly asking where is daddy. getting dirty looks etc at s chool coz dh is terror suspect.
three months later, they let him out. saying, sorry we got the wrong guy.

wtf are we supposed to do? might as well go live in some other terrorist regime, africa? latin america? i dont think saddam would be so bad.

but more harm to whom Shannen? Surely not to the people who are being robbed and attacked and terrorised by the robber released?

And what of the harm to the innocent suspected terrorist and his/her family?

I think you have to weigh up the positives against the negatives. I've got to pick up DD1 now, good points though Stitch, but would they really hold someone just for having a rucksack if they could find no link to terrorist activity??? But you are right, if an innocent was held the effect on his or her life would be huge. But how many genuine terroists would they be releasing to disappear into the night that do have something to hide????

I'd like to know if they are going to compensate people they hold for 28 days and then don't charge.

Because even with just 28 days, you'd lose your job, wouldn't you?

shannen: how many genuine terrorists would they be releasing to disappear into the night that do have something to hide??

Look at how many the US has "processed" and are still under detention, and how many they have charged to be brought up before a military court.

The fact is that once civil liberties are eroded, there is little looking back until the damge to society has been tremendous, and communities have gathered a lot of hatred for each other.

For this particular legislation there wasn't enough thought and analysis from its proponents before being brought in. TB just wanted it. The point was simply thsat we think it is necessary, and if you don't agree, you are not patriotic or at least not sensible enough. I have read that he is short on details, and just makes up his mind. I tend to agree with that.

If you want the satisfaction of putting some people with the religious or ethnic background that is today being associated with terrorism, locked up and their lives destroyed, that is different, but if you want to minimise the risk of terror, you have to be more human, not less. And you have to understand what the problems are.

Look at the French problems. It is not religious in nature, yet the first reaction was "oh, it is Msulims again".

As an aside, the Tories jumped on this bandwagon in order to defeat Blair. So, what will they do when the Education bill comes up before parliament? They've already said that they agree with it so how are they going to get round that in order to defeat Blair agaain?

Mt DH is black and drives a nice car he is stopped from time to time (a lot more than anyone on here is) the last time I was with him it was because he was driving too slow, whenever he gets his ticket to explain why he is stopped the police have ticked the terrorism box. We find this funny not offensive because we both believe that maybe one day when they do it they will stop a real terrorist and save 100's of lives so a little inconvenience to us is no problem.

Now IF DH was ever to be taken in for terrorism I would want to know the full facts and have the police prove that they had reason to detain for any amount of time let alone 90 days, this would be done by applying to the courts for an extension that would then be open for review throught out the detention. If the police went to court and proved to the court (just as they have to do for a 24hr extension) that there was enough reason to detain him then I would begin to be concerned.

I have to agree that an innocent family should not have to go through the nightmare of being wrongly accused but I personally and I may be wrong to have this opinion believe in what is good for the many and not what is good for the individual.

I just wonder how many of you, if you lost a loved one due to terrorism would still hold the same opinion.

I'm not so sure about holding suspects for 90 days. Would the persons have access to their families, and legal help?? Would the person end up with some kind of record pertaining to their detention even if they turned out to be innocent would their file be destroyed or kept after the individual was found to be innocent???

I guess it worries me as it is pretty close to home for me.
Shortly after the tube bombings my brother in law was approached by armed police (all in uniform thankfully), and lead off the tube platform...He was held for questioning for about half a day and finally let go. His only crime was that he had been standing on the tube platform, with a shouulder bag and is of Middle Eastern appearance.
Lucky for him, his boss is nice and was totally shocked by the occurrance and he got to keep his job even though he had missed half a days worth of work without notice....

We all use the tube and as far as I am concerned my family and I are as much at risk as the next person from the effects of terrorism, more so because those who should be protecting us are trargetting us.

this makes interesting reading - note number of charges versus number arrested.

From what we know of the London Bombers, 2 were "known" to the police - but only for disordely behaviour, and suspected shoplifting - hardly stuff to get them arrested under the anti terrorism act. The others weren't known to the police at all - yet they managed to carry out their attack.

That article was written before July 7th, and of the 700 people arrested not one appears (that we know of) to be linked to the actual terrorist attack that took place.

PeaceDove

What do you know about encryption? I do believe that the 90 day rule is to ensure Intelligence Agencies have enough time to gather/decrypt/monitor communications related to the suspects/detainees (and their contacts) and I do think Politicans got it very wrong

actually forget those figures just found the most recent figures from the Home Office webiste. 895 arrested up to the end of September this year

Of these 895:

• 23 were convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act
• 138 charged under the Act, 62 of these were also charged with offences under other legislation
• 156 were charged under other legislation. This includes charges for terrorist offences that are already covered in general criminal law such as murder, grievous bodily harm and use firearms or explosives.
• 63 transferred to Immigration Authorities
• 20 on bail to return
• 11 cautioned
• 1 received a final warning for non-TACT offences
• 8 dealt with under mental health legislation
• 1 dealt with under extradition legislation
• 1 returned to Prison Service custody
• 1 transferred to PSNI custody
• 496 released without charge

I wonder how many of the 496 might have been charged if they were held for longer in order to gather further evidence thoough?

If the police have nothing on you then its highly unlikely that you will be held for 90 days?? Its not like this applies to every person, its not a mandatory 90 day imprisonment, regardless of evidence...........

Shannen, surely the issue is that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. No matter how long someone is held, if there is no evidence, then there is no evidence.

Fuzzywuzzys BIL was arrested simply becasue he looked like he could be a terrorist - he looks middle eastern. So are you saying he should be held for 90 days??? or that the police should have that right, INCASE someone contacts him??

Obviously they won't hold you for 90 days, but you asked how many of the 496 would have been charged if the police COULD have held them longer. I doubt ANY of them.

Stitch you posted exactly what I was thinking. 90 days incarceration is going to have a major impact on somebody's life.

Crunchie - Of course I wasn't implying it would have been OK for FW bil to be locked up for 90 days!!

And you can't possibly say that ANY of them wouldn't have been charged. How do you know that?!?

What can the police gain by wanting this extention?? Except to be able to do their job properly and protect our country?

The police shot someone dead with no evidence. why is it such a stretch to imagine they might start banging people up for 90 days on the same (lack of) evidence?
Also, as Gareth Pierce points out, most 'terrorist suspects' are simply held - not interrogated, just held.
If the police did find evidence on the 900 released men, they can re-arrest them. You don't need to have someone in a cell to make checks on them! It's a bit silly IMO to say, oh, they let them go but if they could have had them in a cell they could have found evidence. How???

The police do not rule this country. It is not - yet - a police state.

Why can't I say that none of them would have been charged if they had been held longer? Like Aloha says, evidence is there whether they are locked up or not. Surely if they were out there is more chance they will be trying to contact others anyway and it would be better to watch them, rather than lock them up.

I like Aloha, am worried the way things are going, I am so glad the LibDems won this one.