It was only supposed to be for terrorists

#1
The new serious crime bill uses powers similar to those of the control orders given to suspected terrorists. The wedge that was terrorist control orders is now being forced into the idea of our civil liberties
 
#2
Not a huge surprise then, as we lurch further towards a police state; due to a combination of the media-encouraged requirement to be seen to 'talk tough' on crime (whilst actually only passing more & more legislation that tends to end up misused), and the inherent authoritianism of the current government (and the higher echelons of the police, who never turn down the possibility of more power).
 
#5
dont worry im sure that liabour will ensure that the 'peoples courts' wont use this bill to undermine the criminal justice system ... gee im so pleased that they care about my and others personal freedoms dont we all feel so much safer now.

liabour! please go DO one
 
#6
I don't really feel the urge to read this piece of legislation but I am interested to know if it erodes our rights any further than the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill which — if my layman's grasp on legal principles is anywhere near the mark — turned the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' on it's head years ago.
 
#7
Sven said:
The new serious crime bill uses powers similar to those of the control orders given to suspected terrorists. The wedge that was terrorist control orders is now being forced into the idea of our civil liberties
yes sven, but isn't that just a case of bringing in the right bill for the wrong reason, or something?
 
#8
SLRboy said:
Sven said:
The new serious crime bill uses powers similar to those of the control orders given to suspected terrorists. The wedge that was terrorist control orders is now being forced into the idea of our civil liberties
yes sven, but isn't that just a case of bringing in the right bill for the wrong reason, or something?
No

This is the wrong bill for the wrong reason. Just think if they carry it on to its logical conclusion. You might be given a control order for the kinds of posts You made.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#9
Sven said:
SLRboy said:
Sven said:
The new serious crime bill uses powers similar to those of the control orders given to suspected terrorists. The wedge that was terrorist control orders is now being forced into the idea of our civil liberties
yes sven, but isn't that just a case of bringing in the right bill for the wrong reason, or something?
No

This is the wrong bill for the wrong reason. Just think if they carry it on to its logical conclusion. You might be given a control order for the kinds of posts You made.
Use of internet is covered by control orders as I recall....is this a portent of doom for ARRSE ;)
 
#10
Sven said:
SLRboy said:
Sven said:
The new serious crime bill uses powers similar to those of the control orders given to suspected terrorists. The wedge that was terrorist control orders is now being forced into the idea of our civil liberties
yes sven, but isn't that just a case of bringing in the right bill for the wrong reason, or something?
No

This is the wrong bill for the wrong reason. Just think if they carry it on to its logical conclusion. You might be given a control order for the kinds of posts You made.
Or you could be nicked for supporting an illegal war.
 
#12
Sven said:
That, SLRboy is a fence we will have to face when we come to it.
I'm sorry mate... but I wont be facing that one will I?
 
#14
Not happy with the idea of HM Revenue and Customs having these powers, as is proposed.

Seen these clowns at work and not impressed.
 
#15
Sven said:
SLRboy said:
Sven said:
That, SLRboy is a fence we will have to face when we come to it.
I'm sorry mate... but I wont be facing that one will I?
Going on the recent past - neither will I
Oh yes you would - how does it go - Right War/Wrong Reason?
That's a nick right there. Try explaining that to a jury.
 
#16
Can someone explain to me what a 'Legal/illegal war' is?

This isn't a wah.

If a war is now 'illegal', how does that compare with the wars in the last 20 years?

There have been wars fought without UN majority votes on a few occasions recently.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#19
Howler said:
Can someone explain to me what a 'Legal/illegal war' is?

This isn't a wah.

If a war is now 'illegal', how does that compare with the wars in the last 20 years?

There have been wars fought without UN majority votes on a few occasions recently.
I think historically isn't a war, for all intents and purposes, 'legal' if you win? I think it used to be if you were the aggressor that played a part, but George and Tony tell me that's so last season....
 
#20
Some claim the Iraq war is illegal because a second resolution wasn't obtained from the UN security council. However examine the wording of the first resolution with that of the resolution oking the AFG war.

Then You have the Sierra Leone campaign or the Kosovo war - did they have the supposed necessary UN sanction
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top