Three on control orders abscond

#1
Scotland Yard are hunting three men who are believed to have absconded from control orders imposed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Police say Lamine Adam, 26, his brother, Ibrahim, 20, and Cerie Bullivant, 24, have been missing for more than 24 hours and may be together.
Three Men do a Bunk
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion? Without trial?
 
#4
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion?
That is correct Sixty.

Before the courts decided it was illegal this government held people in prison without charge as well. It was because the lawlords decided against the government that control orders were brought out.
 
#5
Just ask around the council offices, theyve all probably been given free housing and extra benefits. Im quite suprised they havent been found a job gardening to enable them an easier chance to get hold of some fertilizer :wink: :wink:

If they do catch them I would get them to move in with Shami Chakrabarti

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said the control order regime compromised security and fairness.

"Innocent people are punished without trial and the potentially less innocent easily escape," she said.


Im sure he wouldnt mnd INNOCENT men moving in with him :twisted:
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
Sven said:
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion?
That is correct Sixty.

Before the courts decided it was illegal this government held people in prison without charge as well. It was because the lawlords decided against the government that control orders were brought out.

Jebus. That's scary. If they had grounds to subject them to control orders then taking them to court with their evidence would make sense then? (and the fact they might have fcuked off may have made that the sensible option). Either convict or not.
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
The_IRON said:
Just ask around the council offices, theyve all probably been given free housing and extra benefits. Im quite suprised they havent been found a job gardening to enable them an easier chance to get hold of some fertilizer :wink: :wink:

If they do catch them I would get them to move in with Shami Chakrabarti

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said the control order regime compromised security and fairness.

"Innocent people are punished without trial and the potentially less innocent easily escape," she said.


Im sure he wouldnt mnd INNOCENT men moving in with him :twisted:
Firstly Ms Chakrabati is a 'she'.

Secondly, she did point out (as quoted by you above) that one of the problems with the Control Order regime was that it would allow guilty people to escape.


Not her biggest fan, but it seems that she had a point.
 
#8
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion? Without trial?
Indeed. Makes you wonder who is the biggest threat to British society, its sense of values, and its chosen way of life. :x
 
#9
Sven said:
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion?[/quote]

That is correct Sixty.

Before the courts decided it was illegal this government held people in prison without charge as well. It was because the lawlords decided against the government that control orders were brought out.
My bold.
That's true, but not quite the whole truth.

This could be because the evidence against them has been collected by bugging the suspect - and is therefore inadmissible - or because using it could reveal intelligence sources.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4343081.stm
 
#10
Sixty said:
Sven said:
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion?
That is correct Sixty.

Before the courts decided it was illegal this government held people in prison without charge as well. It was because the lawlords decided against the government that control orders were brought out.

Jebus. That's scary. If they had grounds to subject them to control orders then taking them to court with their evidence would make sense then? (and the fact they might have fcuked off may have made that the sensible option). Either convict or not.
These arent law abiding citizens your talking about, they are suspect terrorists who have weasel lawyers. I hope you havent got your political head on tonight SVEN and going to stick up for this scum. :evil:
 
#12
RP578 said:
The_IRON said:
Just ask around the council offices, theyve all probably been given free housing and extra benefits. Im quite suprised they havent been found a job gardening to enable them an easier chance to get hold of some fertilizer :wink: :wink:

If they do catch them I would get them to move in with Shami Chakrabarti

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said the control order regime compromised security and fairness.

"Innocent people are punished without trial and the potentially less innocent easily escape," she said.


Im sure he wouldnt mnd INNOCENT men moving in with him :twisted:
Firstly Ms Chakrabati is a 'she'.

Secondly, she did point out (as quoted by you above) that one of the problems with the Control Order regime was that it would allow guilty people to escape.


Not her biggest fan, but it seems that she had a point.
sorry my bratty fingers slipped on the s :oops: I wonder if her views would change if she was a casualty of terrorism.
 
#13
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion? Without trial?
Er.... happens all the time mate... it's called being on bail! When on bail from police or more usually from a court, you're technically innocent (unconvicted - awaiting trial) and will have certain restrictions - Bail conditions- imposed upon you e.g. report to local certain times each day or on certain days (mon, wed, fri etc), must live and sleep each night at a specified address, abide by a curfew (1900-0700 or 2200 - 0600 especially good for burglars!) and/or wear a tag that alerts a security company when you breach these rules, who then tell the old bill who then come and nick you.

Great in theory, bag o balls in practice... tags dont work or constantly go off when not in breach, non tagged curfew subjuects have to be checked by police (ties up cops and people just disappear)

Prison is far far more secure.
 
#14
dubversion said:
whitecity said:
Indeed. Makes you wonder who is the biggest threat to British society and its chosen way of life. :x
Easy one to answer, the terrorist and their supporters are the biggest threat.
Hi Dub, you're still not geting a fiver... :wink:
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
radioactiveman said:
Sven said:
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion?[/quote]

That is correct Sixty.

Before the courts decided it was illegal this government held people in prison without charge as well. It was because the lawlords decided against the government that control orders were brought out.
My bold.
That's true, but not quite the whole truth.

This could be because the evidence against them has been collected by bugging the suspect - and is therefore inadmissible - or because using it could reveal intelligence sources.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4343081.stm


True mate but it does seem somewhat contrary to natural justice. If the evidence exists, apart from that obtained by clandenstine methods, then go to court. You, know, like we've always done.
 
#16
radioactiveman said:
Sven said:
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion?[/quote]

That is correct Sixty.

Before the courts decided it was illegal this government held people in prison without charge as well. It was because the lawlords decided against the government that control orders were brought out.
My bold.
That's true, but not quite the whole truth.

This could be because the evidence against them has been collected by bugging the suspect - and is therefore inadmissible - or because using it could reveal intelligence sources.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4343081.stm
The first point could easily be countered by allowing the evidence gathered electronically to be used in court, the second regularly is and has been for the last thirty years.

We have a constitution where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. What we are doing smacks of the Soviet way of doing things that we denounced so catagorically
 
#17
Sixty,

I agree. Get them on trial ASP, in camera if need be and make taps admissible if authorised by a judge. I just wanted to point out that it isn't black and white.
BTW - it's not nearly as bad as Liarbour's attempt to get suspected terrorists 90 days detention without trial. I'm sure they're going to try that one on again.
 
#18
whitecity said:
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion? Without trial?
Indeed. Makes you wonder who is the biggest threat to British society, its sense of values, and its chosen way of life. :x
this i belive is why the law lords made such a fuss about the bloody control orders in the first place i have a question, how does the rest of Europe deal with this?

Surely we are now paying for the years of not takeing a harder stance against non domestic terrorism when the evidence was clearly there they where operating within our borders.!
 
#19
Sven said:
We have a constitution where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. What we are doing smacks of the Soviet way of doing things that we denounced so catagorically
Spot on Sven. This government certainly seems to want people guilty until proved innocent.
 
#20
hogspawn said:
Sixty said:
Am I reading this right? (apologies if not). People with no criminal convictions whatsoever can be required to report to a police station/monitoring company every day on the the basis of a suspicion? Without trial?
Er.... happens all the time mate... it's called being on bail! When on bail from police or more usually from a court, you're technically innocent (unconvicted - awaiting trial) and will have certain restrictions - Bail conditions- imposed upon you e.g. report to local certain times each day or on certain days (mon, wed, fri etc), must live and sleep each night at a specified address, abide by a curfew (1900-0700 or 2200 - 0600 especially good for burglars!) and/or wear a tag that alerts a security company when you breach these rules, who then tell the old bill who then come and nick you.

Great in theory, bag o balls in practice... tags dont work or constantly go off when not in breach, non tagged curfew subjuects have to be checked by police (ties up cops and people just disappear)

Prison is far far more secure.

What You fail to mention is that people on bail either get their day in court or their bail conditions are dropped. This doesn't happen with those on control orders.

Further - I would advert You to what happened the last time we locked up those suspected terrorists without attempting to try them. There was a huge national outcry, the suspects were freed and terrorist recruitment went up
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads