Page 1 of Government wants to detain people indefinitely without trial

I don`t get how so many Labour MPs are going to continue to allow this government to move closer towards a fascist police state.

Having lived in London all my life, growing up with terrorist threats from the IRA on our capital, I still cannot understand how things have changed so much that we need to force someone to be detained at their home, without contact of friends or relatives, or a laywer, or use of the phone, or to even know what they have been charged with...

...all on the say so of a home secretary who has been told it is necessary by the secret service or police, both of whom have a track record of being completely wrong in some cases, such as the Birgmingham 6 or WMDs in Iraq.

And even if this government doesn`t abuse this power, because they are terrified that any attrocity may lose them power, can they guarantee that the few ones after won`t?

With the current police powers, the only terrorist attack in recent times has been the nail bomber, who was a white racist homophobic teenager. Every terrorist arrest in recent times has resulted in no charges, or completely unrelated charges (such as minor theft) being brought against the suspects.

Considering our reputation abroad has been hurt very badly by the Iraq war, do we really need to make things worse by locking up innocent muslims without charge?


Editor
DVD REVIEWER

"The Green Belt policy is a Labour Policy, and we intend to Build on it"
John Prescott

This item was edited on Monday, 28th February 2005, 14:21

Quote.."Every terrorist arrest in recent times has resulted in no charges, or completely unrelated charges (such as minor theft) being brought against the suspects."

Well, not quite...

See here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4304223.stm

I do however agree with most of your other points.

This item was edited on Monday, 28th February 2005, 14:37

It`s the `politicians to decide` angle that`s the scariest here. Now, I`m not extolling the virtues and impartiality of British Judges but at least they proclaim to be objective...if this goes through, it`s a sad day for democracy and freedom. Fear is a great tool for politicians and this smacks of McCarthy era cold war tactics... :(

Okay, you got me, one was actually charged with terrorist offences. :)

Still makes it less than 5% of detained suspects at the last count though, which is worrying.

Editor
DVD REVIEWER

"The Green Belt policy is a Labour Policy, and we intend to Build on it"
John Prescott

Seems Eric Arthur Blair was right after all. :/

If we are not careful we will all end up living in a police state.

An extract of the Human Rights Act - (C) HMSO
" 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
.....
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.



"

Appears to me that removing the right to trial is not compatable with this act.

It may be that trail by jury is not appropriate. If this is the case then at least use three independently selected judges to hear the case!

How many steps will it be from this to locking up anyone who disagrees with the govt of the time!

This item was edited on Monday, 28th February 2005, 15:31

EDITED by fuming wife, who read this:

My wife told me to remove my statement, or I would get no tea.

She`s the BOSS :/

This item was edited on Monday, 28th February 2005, 19:26

I`m not yet convinced by the above, although I`m sure that there are loads of Conspiracy nuts who would agree with you.

Going to RJS` initial point, why wouldn`t Labour MPs vote for this measure? Regardless of whether it`s the right thing to do or not, the Labour majority has eased through a large amount of legislation or rulings in order to support the Government and presumably either *rse lick the leadership or save their seats. If you look long and hard at all the events that have occurred over two terms of a Labour government then the one thing you can be sure of is that they don`t have the country`s interests at heart. If they did, then Blair would have been out of Office a long time ago.

These are the same Labour MPs who, having witnessed the biggest anti-war rally and public outcry ever, voted with the Government to go to war. What`s changed?

-------------

News Editor and Reviewer
www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk

Go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way, turn...

And those who dance will spin and turn,
And those who wait will wait no more,
And those who talk will hear the words,
And those who see will fade and die,
And those who laugh will surely fall,
And those who know will always feel their backs against the thin wall...

[Quote]EDITED by fuming wife, who read this:

My wife told me to remove my statement, or I would get no tea.

She`s the BOSS[Quote]

...How are Cherie & the kids?

This item was edited on Tuesday, 1st March 2005, 08:39

A little off topic, but.......

A short while ago I said I would vote Kilroy-Slik to annoy the other party`s at the next election....

I`m a confirmed labour voter, and as much as I think the Tories are a bunch of plokers, I find myself actually considering voting for them to get rid of Blair. I thought no one could ever come close to their corruption over the big gun scandal (ministers to protect their carers were prepared to let three Innocent men go to jail here in the UK, only for the womanizing MP Alan Clarke to do the right thing and drop them all in it by telling the true when asked), or money for questions (several Tory`s resigned rather than go before Parliaments ethics committee). But they never went as far as Blair, who is blatantly corrupt, and just thinks if he says he is not enough times, he will get away with it.

The warnings were there when he became PM. One was the party mag, I was a member then. The monthly party mag had a letters page which always had letters complaining about this or that policy of Tony Blair. I didn`t agree with one thing any of them wrote, but they were members, and entitled to express an opinion. So the mag was revamped into a glossy government advert with no letters page, those who wanted to disagree were told to go to their local meeting and do it their. The link between members around the country with similar views was broken. Within months of office the party had become the Tony Blair Party, no longer the labour party, so I left.

I think now, that TB is really from the Hard Right of Thatcher, and that he only joined labour because his boss (later to be Lord Irvin*) was a member, and of course the girl he was after wanted to be a labour MP. But he soon put her in her place, if one of them was to became an mp, it would be him. So it was all about getting up the greasy work pole, and getting into a girls pants.

*wrong spelling ,I know.

This item was edited on Tuesday, 1st March 2005, 09:25

When i was at uni i worked parttime in a supermarket, filling the shelves at night. We were a 24hr store, and there was this 1 regular guy that came in, and he was obviously a shoplifter. Everybody who worked at the store knew this, and as soon as he walked in the door he would be followed around by the security guys, or by one of us, to make sure he never nicked anything. Unfortunately he was a pro and he did, on occasion get stuff without us being able to spot it. A couple of times we called the cops, but he would stash the stuff before they got to him so when they searched him he was always `clean`.

There is no way that a judge / court would have sent him to prison - we had no evidence that he was stealing, but his behaviour was consistant with that of a shoplifter, and it was a case that you knew he was stealing, but could not prove it. If you had asked my manager, he would have locked him up, and saved ours and most likely other local shops hundreds of pounds in lost goods.

Now to be frank nobody cares that the guy got away with a few bottles of whiskey and some razor blades, but what if he had been a suicide bomber reccying the supermarket to find a good spot to blow it up killing all those around him because they didn`t share his fanatical ideals?

Loss os civil liberty my @arse. I have a `right` to be able to go out without running the risk of being killed by terrorists. Who will protect my rights when the terrorists are laughing at us for letting them all go? I fully support the bill, and i for one would sleep better knowing that these people lose their freedom in order to protect mine. :¦



...look into my eyes

This item was edited on Tuesday, 1st March 2005, 09:57