U.K. 42 day detention plan

[SFG75]

I hadn't heard about this before reading the U.K Times and John Major's article on the matter.

The Government's legislation to permit 42 days pre-charge detention brings to the fore the wider question of civil liberties. In their response to the security threat ministers have dragged us ever closer to a society in which ancient rights are seriously damaged. I doubt this is the Government's intention, but it is the effect. It began with Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was justified by overegging the threat of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction - perhaps that error was genuine.

But the case for war was embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York - for which there is not one shred of evidence. As we moved towards war, that misinformation was compounded by the implication that Saddam's Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, which plainly it was not.

 

[ylris611203]

What about the public's civil liberties; to be allowed to walk the streets without getting blown to bits?

 

[Sybarite]

Anyone who trusts government when government makes such proposals is a fool.

 

[Stewart]

What about the public's civil liberties; to be allowed to walk the streets without getting blown to bits?

How Daily Mail.

 

[ylris611203]

How Daily Mail.

??

 

[Zolipara]

Anyone who trusts government when government makes such proposals is a fool.

Just when i thought we were nearing the end of that particular epidemic, it seems the disease is spreading again.

 

[Litany]

What about the public's civil liberties; to be allowed to walk the streets without getting blown to bits?

How many times have you been blown to bits then?

 

[Sybarite]

How many times have you been blown to bits then?

Not enough, clearly.

The right to walk down a street without being "blown to bits" is not a civil right, as Chris suggests. It would be classed as a human right – to go about one's business in safety.

Fortunately, Chris's wholehearted supported for human rights legislation in the UK is assured, just as he would be supportive of a proper, written constitution (and real citizenship), proper privacy laws (this also extends into the terrain of human rights) and limits on the amount of information that government can amass on individuals (new story here).

No case has yet been made for increasing detention – let alone to why 42 days is some sort of magic figure. According to home secretary Jacqui Smith, MI5 has not asked for an extension to the amount of time a suspect can be detained without being charged. If, as Smith claims, 42 days "would allow suspects 'through the criminal justice system in the most effective way'," then one wonders why the government is not proposing it for all crime. Indeed, let's take this to its logical conclusion and just have detention without trial (as per Guantanamo Bay) for all and every crime. If you have evidence to try people of any crime, be it a terrorist offence or otherwise, then try them. That's why we have a judiciary and the rule of law.

We have already seen so-called anti-terrorist legislation used to curtail speech (an elderly member of the Labour Party thrown out of the Labour Party conference for heckling a few years ago, for instance. And there have been other cases).

The 'War on Terror' is apparently about protecting 'our' way of life. It seems ironic that people who – presumably – believe in that idea are apparently also so ready to change that same way of life in the process. Not to protect it, but to abandon it with glee.

 

[SFG75]

??

I would guess that Stewart's remark is that the comment you made would be the kind of sensational headlines the U.K. Daily Mail would run.

Perhaps Rupert Murdoch owns it?

 

[ylris611203]

How many times have you been blown to bits then?

Not me............but these folk have

BBC NEWS | UK | London bombings toll rises to 37

 

[ylris611203]

I would guess that Stewart's remark is that the comment you made would be the kind of sensational headlines the U.K. Daily Mail would run.

Perhaps Rupert Murdoch owns it?

.......................are you suggesting that our most respected paper prints sensational headlines?

You will need to supply proof if you make an allegation like that.

 

[SFG75]

.......................are you suggesting that our most respected paper prints sensational headlines?

You will need to supply proof if you make an allegation like that.

Just guessing from appearances-the U.K. Times appears to be your "newspaper of record" with the Guardian being a respectable publication as well. The Daily Mail reminds me of our own FOX News in America. The prominent display of news regarding celebrities and the like lets on to me that they specialize in conservative viewpoints and superficialty, though the two can be said to be one in the same. By "sensational," it could be material that was often run unchallenged in our own media-Iraq was the largest threat in the world at the time, that we should invade Iran, drivel, drivel, drivel, etc.

 

[Litany]

We coped well enough without 42 day detention when it was the IRA bombing us.

The government is supposed to serve us, not control us.

 

[ylris611203]

Just guessing from appearances-the U.K. Times appears to be your "newspaper of record" with the Guardian being a respectable publication as well. The Daily Mail reminds me of our own FOX News in America. The prominent display of news regarding celebrities and the like lets on to me that they specialize in conservative viewpoints and superficialty, though the two can be said to be one in the same. By "sensational," it could be material that was often run unchallenged in our own media-Iraq was the largest threat in the world at the time, that we should invade Iran, drivel, drivel, drivel, etc.

You are not correct.

 

[ylris611203]

We coped well enough without 42 day detention when it was the IRA bombing us.

The ira were not suicide bombers.

The government is supposed to serve us, not control us.

Unless you are a terrorist or associate with them I don't think you have much to worry about.

 

[Zolipara]

No case has yet been made for increasing detention – let alone to why 42 days is some sort of magic figure.

They have ofcourse consulted the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy to get this number.

 

[Litany]

Unless you are a terrorist or associate with them I don't think you have much to worry about.

And will you be first in line for an ID card too?

You're right, the IRA weren't suicide bombers. Can you tell me why we need more time to interrogate terrorists that are already dead than we needed for the IRA who were still alive?

SFG75 was pretty much spot on with his analysis of the Mail. Written by bigots for bigots.

 

[Sybarite]

Just guessing from appearances-the U.K. Times appears to be your "newspaper of record" with the Guardian being a respectable publication as well. The Daily Mail reminds me of our own FOX News in America. The prominent display of news regarding celebrities and the like lets on to me that they specialize in conservative viewpoints and superficialty, though the two can be said to be one in the same. By "sensational," it could be material that was often run unchallenged in our own media-Iraq was the largest threat in the world at the time, that we should invade Iran, drivel, drivel, drivel, etc.

The Times used to be the newspaper of record, but it's been the Independent for some time now.

Generally, though, all the broadsheets (Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian and Financial Times are pretty respectable, regardless of their particular political slant.

The Mail (christened the Daily Wail by Private Eye) has long worked on the editorial basis that was laid down for it by Lord Rothermere, that the readers need a daily dose of copy to shock and scandalise them – in that sense, it's very similar to Fox.

It's hilarious, though, to see Chris suddenly supporting the Labour government.

And will you be first in line for an ID card too?

You're right, the IRA weren't suicide bombers. Can you tell me why we need more time to interrogate terrorists that are already dead than we needed for the IRA who were still alive?

SFG75 was pretty much spot on with his analysis of the Mail. Written by bigots for bigots.

Nail, head, on, hit.

 

[ylris611203]

And will you be first in line for an ID card too?

You are using the same tactic Sybarite uses, weak argument, change the subject.

You're right, the IRA weren't suicide bombers. Can you tell me why we need more time to interrogate terrorists that are already dead than we needed for the IRA who were still alive?

We need more time to gather enough evidence to convict them, rather than let them go because time has run out.

SFG75 was pretty much spot on with his analysis of the Mail. Written by bigots for bigots.

SFG75.......This is a typical guardian reader; words like 'bigot' are ten a penny to them and are slotted into most of their sentences

 

[Litany]

We need more time to gather enough evidence to convict them, rather than let them go because time has run out.

How are you going to convict a corpse?

And nope, I don't read the Guardian. Would you like to try again?

ID cards are the same issue, no misdirection here. It's all supposed to protect us from The Terrorists, or did you not get the memo? Apparently there's no terrorism in countries with ID cards. You know, apart from all the ones that have ID cards and terrorism.

Smoke and mirrors, and you're falling for it.