Civil liberties

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by OldRedCap, Oct 9, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Monday, the lunatics go back to the asylum. They will be debating ID cards and detention up to 90 days. Both likely to be opposed on grounds of civil liberties. ID cards not compulsary to get, carry or present on demand. The safeguards will be got around. Those who have stolen identities will get ID cards in those names. So - seems to be rubbish. However, 90 days + is a request from the police. To deny them would be like sending our PCs onto the street without radio, cuffs and baton. How can we demand they protect us from scum if we do not allow them the tools for the job? Anyone care to say what use ID cards might be and exactly what permanent harm might come to anyone detained for 90+ days on suspicion of being a baddy terrorist.
     
  2. Considering what the Filth did at the Liarbour conference, illegally using Section 44 to hold people (but it was ok because they apologised after the national press and TV raised a storm???), can anyone honestly believe that Plod will not abuse this power?

    So I am walking down Oxford Street doing a bit of shopping and wearing with pride my t shirt showing that Tony is complete cnut and some little gestapo hitlerite "takes offence" and bangs me up for 90 days. 3 months later I get released with no charges, but then what? How about my job and family?

    Now fair enough this cannot happen to me (I currently enjoy diplomatic immunity). But what happens to normal people who do not have this privaledge?
     
  3. Grow up. The police are asking for an extension to hold people on suspicion of terrorist offences with judicial oversight at regular intervals to ensure proportionality. If you want to wander down the road with a T-shirt with the word "C.U.N.T." written on it then you royally deserve to get nicked. It won't be under the Terrorism Act, though.

    Ask the 52 families of the dead from July 7th what they think of your puerile hyperbole.

    V!
     
  4. Ok, V, yes it was over-egged, but if I had stated before the labour conference that the police would detain an octegenarian under anti-terrorist laws you would have called me unhinged.

    So 52 people died in London. So what? You think we should surrender rights earned (and fought for) from the last 900 years? How many people died to give us those checks and balances of power and rights? How come we have never needed this against the IRA and other Irish terrorists?

    Perhaps you can also explain why 100% of people extradited to the USA (ok, it is only 4 people so far!) under anti-terrorist legislation were in fact bankers/accountants involved in a financial activity that is not illegal in the UK, but became illegal in the USA in 2002, and had no links to terrorism? New Labour legislation is so appallingly drafted that it applies to all walks of life. The police and the courts apply the law as it is written (often stupidly, but that is the fault of Parliament). I do not trust the executive, nor the courts or plod to apply the law with any "common sense". Evidence everyday in the papers prove that it doesnt exist and the police have lost their ability (thanks to CPS?) to apply discretion.

    A serious question: you are a copper. Do you not already have the laws already needed and this latest round of panic legislation a panic response? Would we need these new laws if the HRA was repealed?


    And btw Dzerzhinskiey, if I tried the 'funny handshake', and the rozzer/judge who received it was also a Mason, then I would probably face an even harsher penalty. Strictly against Lodge rules to abuse the honour of being a Mason.
     
  5. The 90 days seems reasonable - to allow time for forensics etc. But I wonder is there anyway we could have a countercheck on the police? Perhaps require the police to get a court order before detaining someone past the current 14-day limit. As well as regular check-ups from an independent body, maybe the IPCC?


    Dread has a good point regarding the Labour Conference - it was appalling seeing that old guy kicked out. Never mind the physical force used but to use ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS????? Appalling, and playing into the hands of civil liberterians.

    Tricam.
     
  6. This bit is simple enogh - because forensic investigations are now much more complicated? Seems reasonable to me...

    Tricam
     
  7. I'm not a massive fan of this government. If a police force misuses s.44 to nick a harmless eighty-year-old then I fully support him if he sues their asses.

    Come on, FFS. PIRA gave codewords. PIRA had clearly understood political objectives. PIRA ASUs didn't want to get caught. Mass Casualty Terrorism with suicide operatives is a whole new ball game. I can't actually believe I'm having to explain this to you.

    This applies to all governments. Dangerous Dogs, anyone? Politicians legislate to keep newspaper editors happy, not much I can do about that.

    Wrong. English & Welsh common and statute law are ever-evolving depending on stated cases. Therefore the police and the courts apply the law as it is interpreted in light of current circumstances. This isn't pedantry, it's an important fact.

    Not trusting anybody in authority is perfectly healthy, as long as you give the benefit of the doubt now and then. Do you think that the police want these laws simply to nick more people? Get a life. It's about protecting lives. Period. New Labour is a bizarre political dichotomy I struggle to understand but I honestly think that they want to keep voters alive. I don't like their authoritarian streak, but on this one I'm with them.

    Elements of the package seem to me to be more trouble than they're worth and, yes, New Labour has tied itself up in knots with the introduction of the HRA 1998 which needs looking at very seriously in my humble (in case you're wondering, BTW, no-one is listening to the likes of me). What this has to do with the hyperbole of your original post is lost on me, though.

    A Government's primary duty, above all others, is to protect the people from threats both foreign and domestic in line with the policy of the day. This government, for all it's (numerous) faults, is attempting to do that. Albeit ham-fistedly. They have my (cautious) support. I am a professional regular policeman. I apply the laws as given and carry out policy as instructed. That's my job. Most of the military on this forum I suspect would recognise that whether they agree or not.

    V!
     


  8. My argument is that the security forces have always had the tools to prevent terrorist acts. While the current 'Islamic' terrorists are willing/want to die, the main reason for their success is lack of intelligence. MI5 et al have very few sources within the muslim community (if various broadsheet interviews are to be believed). This is a failure that will not be improved by legislation. These people are not a "new ball game". It is a paradigm change, but it is the same game. People want to commit murder, security forces must alter their techniques. btw, the PIRA, INLA, RIRA etc did not always give passwords. Birmingham, Droppin Well Bar at Ballykelly, Enniskillen, Shankill Road, and Omagh ring a bell (to name a few)?

    I brought in the HRA because of my ignorance (as per most non-coppers or lawyers). Before the law existed there were islamic terrorists in the world (indeed, Britain was home to many of them) and Britain seemed to counter them. Also, Police could stop-and-check people without filing paperwork (again, please correct if I am wrong). From reading newspapers (not the Daily Mail!) it appears that the main purpose of the HRA and controls brought in as a result of the Macphearson report was to castrate the police and the security forces.

    Blair, while obviously trying to protect life, presides over a bunch of inhuman animals who are so far removed from reality and the responsibility of their positions (they just enjoy the privaleges and seek to hold onto them). Why this cynical approach? Because on the day that 3,000 people died (and about a hundred Brits) a member of their inner circle sent out the note that "today is a good day to bury bad news". Though only the sender was forced to resign, the fact that she felt confident enough to send this out speaks volumes about the attitude of this government (and it has got worse, not better since 2001, but maybe this isnt the forum to discuss this).

    Thanks for your response though: you were correct that my first one was ott, but my cynical belief is that this government issues new decrees to appease the mob and then does little about the real problem.
     
  9. The real problem is that if (and may it never happen) X gets arrested for 90 days and released without charge:

    1) X's employer will probably have fired him (let's be perfectly frank - would you keep paying someone who didn't turn up for three months?). Goodbye income, but not goodbye bills, probably including the mortgage. So goodbye house, unless the bank is in a forgiving mood.

    2) How, precisely is X going to get a new job and start rebuilding his life? Explaining to any prospective employer that he spent 90 days in a cell without charge is going to cause problems - not least because most people will look at the "90 days" and forget the "without charge" bit.

    3) Assuming that all of this happens, how does X go about recovering from a blow that I suspect most of us would have trouble dealing with? Sue the Government? How - the detention would have been perfectly legal. Sue the police? Same problem - the police wouldn't have broken the law either.


    What I'd suggest is this:

    Initial detention: Days 1-14. At the end of this period, the police must either release without charge, charge or apply to a magistrate for an extension, providing grounds for reasonable suspicion that X had broken the anti-terror laws.

    Second phase: Days 15-30. By end of day 30, police must again either charge, release without charge or go to the High Court for a further extension. To get this, they must convince the judge that the investigation has made progress and that X is still under reasonable suspicion.

    Third phase: Days 31-60: As per the second phase, but further extension must come from the Court of Appeal.

    Final phase: Days 61-90: Police must either release without charge, or charge.

    In the event that X is released without charge, HMG must compensate for each day of detention. This compensation is worked out as being the average daily earnings of X (as determined by Inland Revenue records), multiplied by the number of days detained and is to be paid within two weeks of X's release. Also, nobody may repossess anything belonging to X while he is detained or for three weeks after his release. Finally, should X have been dismissed from employment while under detention, HMG must continue payment of compensation until X finds work, 100,000 pounds is paid in total compensation (including the lump sum upon release) or one year passes from the date of release. In addition, HMG must provide reference to an employer making it explicitly clear that X was released without charge, that he is innocent in the eyes of the law and that anyone what thinks otherwise will be in deep themselves...
     
  10. mmm starts to sound like my old home 'back in the day' ID books and detention without trial(and evidence)...aahh the old South Africa, not nice.Although we do still have the ID books.

    That said I am all for the ID cards, and as long as the police have evidence hold that bastards for as long as they need
     
  11. So every person on remand in HM Prisons who gets found not guilty at court also needs compensating? Are are we only compensating terrorist suspects? Wonder where they'll be ploughing the dough back into? Duh. There is already adequate, and widely-used provision for taking legal remedy if a person feels there arrest and/ or detention was unfair. And the ninety day proposal (which I don't think will get through in any case) hinges on regular, independent judicial review (as I posted originally, try reading the entire thread).

    V!
     
  12. It is likely that the proposed 90 day detention and the "glorifying terrorism" legislation will never reach the statute book. The legislation may pass the Commons initially but will be thrown out by the Lords. The Parliament Act cannot be legitimately used as neither proposal was a manifesto committment, and to do so would create a grave constitutional breach. These clauses would be unlikely to survive the repeated passage between the two houses, particularly as only 35 Liabour MPs need rebel. This is all before any legal challenge to any act arising out of these proposals - retired Law Lords have unequivocably stated that both proposals are illegal under European law.

    This is why it appears that the ridiculous "glorifying terrorism" proposal will be dropped and the 90-day detention proposal will be significantly watered down.

    Moreover, it is frequently argued that these laws would be used only in exceptional circumstances. There are three problems with this claim. Firstly, exceptional circumstances lead to bad legislation - the Dangerous Dogs Act and the ridiculous clause that criminalises protest in Parliament Square with the exception of the long-term protestor it was meant to deal with. Secondly, this has not been the case with s.44 of the Terrorism Act, which has been used to criminalise legitimate protest in Brighton and elsewhere. Indeed, Walter Wolfgang is now taking legal action against Sussex Police for their misuse of s.44, which they have acknowledged. So it would only be a matter of time before we would see "dissenters" such as anti-war protestors charged with "glorifying terrorism" or locked up for 90 days. Thirdly, these laws are unnecessary. There are other mechanisms which can be used to deal with incitement and, if the 90 day detention was to be used only exceptionally to gather evidence, then the resources of the security services and control orders could be used to monitor or constrain a suspected threat. Indeed, there are laws already on the statute book that would allow terrorist threats to be arrested and charged - how did we manage for 3 decades of the threat from republican terrorism? I firmly believe that the 90 day proposal is for administrative and budgetary convenience.

    Finally, the police will be convinced that they are taking the correct approach. However, it is not for the police to decide what legal freedoms they are granted. The police firmly believed that they had the Birmingham Six bang to rights based on their background and flawed forensic tests. They were wrong and will be wrong again; the legislative system of this country must protect against such miscarriages of justice.
     
  13. Very sensible Juvenal and therefore utterly impossible. I particularly like the compensation idea, any measure that dissuades the authorities from holding people "on spec" has got to be a good idea with such an abusable system.