The 90 day amendment fails in the commons

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by fastmedic, Nov 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. Well the government got gubbed by 31 votes. Therefore the police will now have to bow and scrape with available evidence to hold a terrorist suspect.
    What will it take to convince the 'do gooders' that we need all the help that we can get to fight terrorism in the future :? :?

    Any thoughts out there?
  2. So, if only the Police had 90 days we wouldn't have any terrorists or their bombs, sorry its crap. Its like ID cards, they don't stop criminals. Yes I agree interment worked (Op Motorman), but you have to go the whole hog to get results. There is a strong case to say that interment didn't work in the long run, because of all the resentment that built up, plus the huge propaganda value in the States. How do we defeat the home grown terrorist? We cannot, all we can do is fight and contain it with a police force (and I mean force) that gets stuck in. Where there is a will there is a way, without will there is no way. That will lead to mistakes and the wrong people being head jobbed, but that is a price worth paying. Its called getting stuck in, and not being ashamed of doing so. It also means telling the truth and why things where done that way. We have nothing to hide, we know our cause is just.
  3. If you could trust them only to use 90 day detention without trial (or charge) for the very serious and occasional terrorist who is a threat and there's noother way of gathering the evidence then I'd be fine with it.

    But that's not how they'd use it is it? Just think back to the Labour conference.... the pensioner (& Labour party member and supporter!) who was ejected forcfully from the hall was held by the police under the prevention of terrorisum act. Had it not been for the media outcry, if they had the powers they seek, they could have held him without charge for 90 days...... for what? Disagreeing with the home secretary!

    90 days, added to some of the very spongy grounds for being held as a terrorist or even glorifying terrorisum (write a book/poem/joke anyone?) and you get the option of locking anyone up you don't like, or who disagrees with you..... and that's dangerous with this lot in charge.
  4. You think motorman worked?

  5. Useing a quick google of "UK terror plot foiled by police", In the first 30 seconds I found 3 different Terrorist attacks foiled by police in the T.W.A.T.

    We know one has gotten through. So It looks like the current laws work.
  6. 90 days is a very long time to detain someone whilst you gather evidence. If you cannot get the evidence in the 14 days already allowed and then remand them in custody based on that evidence, are they going to say anymore if detained for 90 days (I think not).

    It does come across more like a means of detaining people who disagree with you and what they may do, rather than a means to obtain evidence of what they have done to lead to a criminal conviction. A typical New Labour Big plan with no practicle effect.
  7. Thank God for British democracy!

    The pressure to pass this disgraceful bill was unprecedented. The police have acted in a thoroughly disreputable manner, acting as Government lobbyists.

    There has been no convincing detailed case made for 90 days. At the very least, the Home Affairs Select Committee should have been briefed in private on the detailed evidence for such a law. Instead, senior police officers shamelessly acted as Government whips by spinning the case to backbenchers in an attempt to intimidate them. Why wasn't a detailed briefing made? Because it would have been unconvincing and threadbare?

    The police do not make the law and this should be a lesson to all, particularly the deluded and despotic incumbent of 10 Downing Street.

    A great day! :D
  8. Iain Blair said on the radio that he'd prefer FOUR months (dunno why, I thought he just had people shot for being a bit dodgy), I wondered why he didn't just ask for indefinate detention without trial and be honest about it. He also gave the impression that the police wanted 90 days because that would give them time to pretty much make something - anything - up.
  9. Why did the police suddenly develop an intense desire for such a law immediately after 7 July?

    If there was any evidence to support such a policy development, then the case would have been made independently of that attack which, it is acknowledged, would not have been prevented by such a measure. Moreover, recent news articles have indicated that the London bombers were under surveillance, but this was lifted for some reason.

    It sounds as if the police were trying to fill in a blank cheque on the back of a knee-jerk reaction.

    As to the despicable Bliar, what would he know? He was in the Caribbean for most of the summer, hardly in a position to talk to the police.

    The man's arrogance knows no bounds. He is now saying that the sovereign House of Commons was "wrong". He should be made to apologise by the Speaker for questioning their authority. I personally feel he should be impeached and taken to the Tower!

    This affair will be recorded as the moment the worm turned. There have been many "beginning of the end" moments for Blair, but this is the definitive one. He lost this vote because he has lied too often in the past. I have often thought that Bliar is the greatest constitutional danger this nation has faced since WW2, because of his delusional perception of himself as above politics, sovereignity and statute, and this defeat today greatly lessens the chance of any further constitutional subversions.
  10. lets face it the country has gone to the dogs cant trust politicans,police, and now we cant trust our general staff or officers, fire the rifle and go to jail or just dont sign it out of the armoury its safer that way......
  11. Yes I do, in the short term. All the time some one is locked up they can not commit a crime, like shooting a soldier or Peeler. My cause is just and I'm not ashamed to say so. There where some days when the Security Forces were afraid to go out. This was recognised, and something had to be done to reclaim the streets.
  12. I have read of the police penning people up in London for hours during a May Day protest because the police "thought some of them were going to cause damage". We have seen them use the terrorism laws to detain protesters in the Docklands during a military equipment exhibition. They have used these same laws to detain an 80 year old man during the Labour Party Conference. They have shot an innocent man and the Commisioner has witheld facts and tried to influence the investigation. The police used brutal force against protesters in Parliament Square during the rally against the hunting ban.
    How many more instances do we need to illustrate that some of the police will abuse the power they have now let alone the increased powers given them in the defeated part of the Bill?
    We were luck that some MPs had the courage to follow their own feelings and not follow the Party line for a change.
  13. The first bit of good news to come out of Westminster for years

    Blair is obvoiusly using Cromwell as his role model these days. Personally I think he has lost the plot completely.

    Its about time politicians figured out that their function is to serve us, not dictate to us. The function of goverment is to administer the country on our behalf.
  14. HERETIC !!!!

    lol :wink:
  15. well when they let the mayday rioters out of the pen they trashed shops on the way home .,But, apart from that glad it got binned 90days is too long