Treason proposal a non-runner

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by DozyBint, Aug 10, 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. [rant]
    Why the Hell not? If it's on the Statute Book, bloody use it! Seriously, if the idea has been mooted by the CPS then it has legal grounds to be used. I'm fed up with softly-softly: throw the book at a few of them and it may just cause others to consider their position.
  2. Dozy, if we didn't use it against the IRA, why should we use it now? The very use of the Treason laws implys a war between states. We are not at war with another state, and by charging them with Treason we are in a sense legitimising their "struggle". I think that Falconer is right, and that incitement to murder is more appropriate for these squalid, moral imbeciles.
  3. Looks like I need to dig out my info about Treason as I didn't think it applied only under a condition of war – I thought it was more far-reaching.
  4. I don't think it does, but the law was originally designed to deal with traitors serving a foreign government. All I am trying to say is that by using this law, which would probably be evry difficult anyway, we are imlpying that these people are serving a sovereign, and by implication, legitimate state.
  5. OK - point taken. I'm just sick & fed up with the whole 'enemy within' thing & want to force people to make a decision about where their allegiance lays.
  6. That cun* galloway should get done as well. What better way to show our stance than to prosecute an MP. Put the knob in colcherster for a couple of years.
  7. He was 'Flying a kite' in order to 'test the policitcal waters'

    It's the same old same old. Look like were really doing something (thanks to the medya) and then quietly drop it when no-ones looking.

    Blair has flip flopped from ' They won't change our way of life' to

    'The gamne has changed, we will take any steps we deem necessary'

    He changes his views with the change of the wind
  8. The wind being those little whispers in his ear at night.
  9. If we cannot re-instte the law of treason then the copper who got jail for murder should not have been convicted. The law that allowed him to be charged, convicted and jailed abroad was from 1861
  10. Or the sensuous text messages alistair sends him when cherie is off on a money making jaunt? :twisted:
  11. The treason law is too general, rather than specific, making it difficult to connect the evidence demonstrating the actions of the accused with any breach of the law.

    Any law that pre-dates the Treaty of Westphalia (which established the nature of the modern state free from external interference) and the establishment of the constitutional monarchy/parliamentary system is likely to conflict with the processes and rights that have evolved over the last 200 years.

    I would be very nervous about this government blowing the dust of such legislation. It would only be a short step to the mere questioning of the Celestial Navigator being made a criminal offence.
  12. I think this is also part of a p!ssing contest between the Lord Chancellor ant Attorney General, similar to factional splits in the Home Office and in government in general.

    This government are more concerned with internal battles than any serious proposals to deal with any threat. We get pronouncements from Bliar, from the safety of the Carribean, and his lackeys are clawing each others eyes to gain some advantage.

    I have zero confidence in this government's ability to deal effectively with any threat. They cannot even admit that 24hr drinking is likely to increase antisocial behaviour and alcoholism. They lie more often than tell the truth, whether it is with regard to WMD or lobbying on behalf of US casino owners.

    We are completely reliant on the efforts of middle-ranking and front-line police and security officers for protection.
  13. At the risk of (again) being accused of trolling, I question why the offence of treason is still on the books at all. I understand the "alliegance to country" bit and have no difficulty fitting it in. What I don't understand is why this alliegance is always one-way. Governments seem to accept/demand that we "owe" some sort of alliegance to the country, but see no reason for making it reciprocal. There are so many examples of how, particularly, disabled squaddies have been shat on that they can no longer be dismissed as "one-offs", or "exeptions to the rule". Why should we owe alliegance to a country in which we just happened to have been born, when it's quite obvious that the "country", generally in the form of the government, doesn't give a f***ing shite about us?

  14. The bond between citizenship and government has trust at its foundation.

    We have been lied to and deceived over so many things during the last 8 years, including that most serious of matters of going to war. That particular instance was probably based on Bliar's self-deception - he had a hunch which has cost many British lives and numerous Iraqi lives, and which has destabilised the world and increased the domestic terrorist threat.

    I will support the sacrifice efforts of the UK armed forces overseas, but this does not ential accepting the rationale for their deployment in the first place.

    I will support the efforts of police and security services to safeguard life, but I will not support any measures that will curtail essential freedoms that have been held for centuries.

    I will not support any government that does not have the interests of UK citizens at heart, and which lies in an attempt to bolster public support. We deserve to be told the truth.

    I therefore cannot profess unconditional loyalty to this government and, by extension, the state. Should we be marching behind Bliar with our sleeves rolled up in imitation of the famous World War 2 cartoon of of Winston Churchill?


    I think not, as we would be marching in the wrong direction for a start! Does this make me a traitor?
  15. This might be relevant in setting the pro and con. I reckon the answer would be to form a panel of the top judges and give them an instruction to come up with an answer - new law or one they will use. If they cannot, they must be crap judges and should be dis-robed. If they will not - same thing. Parliament must reinstute primacy.

    This from Standard on 10 Aug
    Howard warns judges over terror law
    10 August 2005

    Britain's judges must not undermine the fight against terrorism, Conservative leader Michael Howard has urged.

    They should not pick apart legislation designed to crack down on extremists, he said.

    Mr Howard warned that "aggressive judicial activism" could jeopardise the nation's security - and the very freedoms the judiciary seek to defend.

    Mr Howard's warning, in an article for The Daily Telegraph, echoes comments by Tony Blair at a Downing Street press conference last month, when the Prime Minister made clear he expected the judiciary to uphold new laws to combat terrorism.

    However, the Tory leader made it plain that he blames Mr Blair's government for bringing the judiciary further into the political arena, arguing that the 1998 Human Rights Act had given judges the authority to consider whether an Act of Parliament is proportionate to the intended objective.

    In so doing, it had drawn judges into areas of political controversy "through no fault of their own", Mr Howard maintained.

    He made his comments as politicians from all three major parties criticised the way ministers have set out the next steps to combat terror and the Lord Chancellor dismissed as "extraordinarily unlikely" that radical clerics could be charged with treason

    Lord Falconer said it was "not really necessary or appropriate" to use treason against firebrand clerics and insisted it had never been a serious option.

    He also denied the Government had any plans to introduce "secret trials" or internment as it was confirmed the Home Office is considering pre-trial hearings behind closed doors.

    In his article, Mr Howard recalled how in December last year the Law Lords delivered a stinging blow to the Government's emergency anti-terror measures by ruling that indefinite detention without trial contravened human rights laws.