detention of terrorists

beckenham

Just been watching Newsnight and have 2 comments:

1. Firstly I can't understand why the government want to detain alleged terrorists for 21 days or more; and

2. Who the hell is Jacqui Smith :shock: I have a degree in law and politics and like to think that i keep up with these things but she's the Home Secretary and I've never heard of her and had now idea who she when they showed a photo of her. I thought they had put up the wrong pic :?

rrsodl

I believe the 21 days is simple more time to investigate in other countries too - a request for information might take several days before they get a reply.


Rick

on the road

I think you've got your wires crossed somewhere, it's not 21 days more, (that would make it 49 days), it's 14 days more, making it 42 days.

Having a degree in law and politics is useless if you don't keep up

OffTheBackAdam

The Cabinet is full of incompetent non-entities, most are ex-lawyers or have been playing at politics since university days, trying to name one who's done an honest days work in their lives is very hard!
Anyway, with a Mickey-Mouse degree in Law & Politics, I'm not surprised you don't keep up to date with current affairs

ju5t1n

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

Ed Moses

One of the big challenges with terrorism arrests is the amount of information/evidence to be found on laptops/computers that have to be handled in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE Rules). If you have a couple of big drives that have to be decrypted and the data examined properly, this takes time.

For the detentions that took place in High Wycome last year (the liquid bombs to blow up airplanes plot) several dozen computers were taken into evidence. There was no way that there were going to be forensically examined in the normal amount of time available to the Police and Security Services.

spen666

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

Anonymous

spen666 wrote:

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?
It must be difficult being a smartarsed tw@t all the time,
Why not have a day off?

1892

What would you rather happen a few suspected terrorists locked up for doing nothing or people going about their normal lives being blown up on their way to work.

Big Red S

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?

The difference being that in general we take the judgement of an arresting officer to be less reliable than that of a court. It is common to imprison people on conviction, it's is less common to imprison them on suspicion.

Anonymous

Big Red S wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?

The difference being that in general we take the judgement of an arresting officer to be less reliable than that of a court. It is common to imprison people on conviction, it's is less common to imprison them on suspicion.

I've highlighted the relevant words as you seem to have difficulty with comprehension.

dunnnooo

sexybird wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?

The difference being that in general we take the judgement of an arresting officer to be less reliable than that of a court. It is common to imprison people on conviction, it's is less common to imprison them on suspicion.

I've highlighted the relevant words as you seem to have difficulty with comprehension.

Re-read your post einstein. It seems like you're trying to ignore the difference between suspicion and conviction. Not least as you're having a go at someone for rephrasing someone elses post which is, well, kinda retarded unless the original poster takes offence.

Anonymous

dunnnooo wrote:

sexybird wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?

The difference being that in general we take the judgement of an arresting officer to be less reliable than that of a court. It is common to imprison people on conviction, it's is less common to imprison them on suspicion.

I've highlighted the relevant words as you seem to have difficulty with comprehension.

Re-read your post einstein. It seems like you're trying to ignore the difference between suspicion and conviction. Not least as you're having a go at someone for rephrasing someone elses post which is, well, kinda retarded unless the original poster takes offence.

Rearrange these words: black,pot, calling,kettle, the, the.

dunnnooo

sexybird wrote:

[
It must be difficult being a smartarsed tw@t all the time,
Why not have a day off?

spen666

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?
It must be difficult being a smartarsed tw@t all the time,
Why not have a day off?

You can't understand the difference between being convicted of a criminal offence and merely being suspected of committing a crime?

Sadly the education system seems to be failling us

spen666

1892 wrote:

What would you rather happen a few suspected terrorists locked up for doing nothing or people going about their normal lives being blown up on their way to work.

Are you volunteering to be locked upin a police cell for 40+ days?

What do you mean you've not committed a crime? Neither have most people held under the Terrorism legislation.

Indeed of those held for 28days ( current maximum) only 1/2 have ever been charged with ANY offence. Notice that is charged - not convicted

Anonymous

spen666 wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?
It must be difficult being a smartarsed tw@t all the time,
Why not have a day off?

You can't understand the difference between being convicted of a criminal offence and merely being suspected of committing a crime?

Sadly the education system seems to be failling us

Your eyesight too apparently.
Or perhaps you just choose to ignore the comments you don't like.

oldwelshman

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

No I cannot, I dont recall a trial by a jury in Sudan?

spen666

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?
It must be difficult being a smartarsed tw@t all the time,
Why not have a day off?

You can't understand the difference between being convicted of a criminal offence and merely being suspected of committing a crime?

Sadly the education system seems to be failling us

Your eyesight too apparently.
Or perhaps you just choose to ignore the comments you don't like.

WTF are you going on about??????????????????????????????????????????????

spen666

oldwelshman wrote:

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

No I cannot, I dont recall a trial by a jury in Sudan?

An offence that gets someone 15 days in prison is unlikely to be dealt with bya jury in this country. Something like 85-90% of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates court- where there is no jury

Anonymous

spen666 wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?
It must be difficult being a smartarsed tw@t all the time,
Why not have a day off?

You can't understand the difference between being convicted of a criminal offence and merely being suspected of committing a crime?

Sadly the education system seems to be failling us

Your eyesight too apparently.
Or perhaps you just choose to ignore the comments you don't like.

WTF are you going on about??????????????????????????????????????????????

Pretending to be stupid to save face is a much worse failing than being inherently stupid.
Maybe you could get someone to explain that concept to you as I suspect you fall into the latter category.

spen666

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?
It must be difficult being a smartarsed tw@t all the time,
Why not have a day off?

I haven't got a clue WTF yopu are bleating on about- and I suspect from posts made by others neither have they





You can't understand the difference between being convicted of a criminal offence and merely being suspected of committing a crime?

Sadly the education system seems to be failling us

Your eyesight too apparently.
Or perhaps you just choose to ignore the comments you don't like.

WTF are you going on about??????????????????????????????????????????????

Pretending to be stupid to save face is a much worse failing than being inherently stupid.
Maybe you could get someone to explain that concept to you as I suspect you fall into the latter category.

Anonymous

spen666 wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

sexybird wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Its worse than that.


Woman was jailed for 15 days after being CONVICTED of a criminal offence


Our government want to hold people for42 days, not for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’., but on SUSPICION only

The difference being?
It must be difficult being a smartarsed tw@t all the time,
Why not have a day off?

I haven't got a clue WTF yopu are bleating on about- and I suspect from posts made by others neither have they





You can't understand the difference between being convicted of a criminal offence and merely being suspected of committing a crime?

Sadly the education system seems to be failling us

Your eyesight too apparently.
Or perhaps you just choose to ignore the comments you don't like.

WTF are you going on about??????????????????????????????????????????????

Pretending to be stupid to save face is a much worse failing than being inherently stupid.
Maybe you could get someone to explain that concept to you as I suspect you fall into the latter category.

Bit early for breakfast but thanks anyway.

oldwelshman

spen666 wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

No I cannot, I dont recall a trial by a jury in Sudan?

An offence that gets someone 15 days in prison is unlikely to be dealt with bya jury in this country. Something like 85-90% of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates court- where there is no jury

And the offence was?
Oh I remember letting a child name a teddy bear, obviously deserving of a custodial sentance in your opinion as you see it as a criminalk offence.
Maybe you could do us all a favour and move there?

spen666

oldwelshman wrote:

spen666 wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

ju5t1n wrote:

Last week our government was up in arms about a British citizen being tried and sentenced to 15 days in prison abroad. This week they’re campaigning to allow our own police force to detain foreign citizens for up to 45 days for ‘having a beard’ or ‘looking a bit dodgy’.

Can anyone else see the irony here?

No I cannot, I dont recall a trial by a jury in Sudan?

An offence that gets someone 15 days in prison is unlikely to be dealt with bya jury in this country. Something like 85-90% of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates court- where there is no jury

And the offence was?
Oh I remember letting a child name a teddy bear, obviously deserving of a custodial sentance in your opinion as you see it as a criminalk offence.
Maybe you could do us all a favour and move there?

It IS a criminal offence under the laws of Sudan.

Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you can ignore it.


In Sudannaming the Teddy Bear Mohammed is seen as blasphemy which is a criminal offence there. In England & Wales we also have laws regarding blasphemy


Perhaps you should open your mind and realise that someone explaining/telling what the law is does not equal supporting or agreeing with the law.

At no time have I expressed approval for what happened in Sudan

magibob

Remember folks. We aren't talking about detaining someone because they might rename a toy, or might commit a fraud, or even might commit a theft or single murder.There are people, part of a highly organized group, who are planning to kill as many people as possible. By for instance, bombing trains, bringing down planes, driving burning vehicles into crowded buildings, and blowing up the underground.

Extraordinary crimes justify extraordinary measures. In an Ideal world it would not be necessary, but it is.

Andy

spen666

Magibob wrote:

Remember folks. We aren't talking about detaining someone because they might rename a toy, or might commit a fraud, or even might commit a theft or single murder.There are people, part of a highly organized group, who are planning to kill as many people as possible. By for instance, bombing trains, bringing down planes, driving burning vehicles into crowded buildings, and blowing up the underground.

Extraordinary crimes justify extraordinary measures. In an Ideal world it would not be necessary, but it is.

Andy

No these are people who MIGHT do something or there again might not.

You are blindly being led into believing those arrested are guilty. They have in most cases not subsequently been convicted of anything.

Human Rights are Human Rights- end of

cee

I just want to see sexybird and spen666 quoting each other more....it's great

anyway.... tuppence worth.

If you go to a country to work, it is your responsibility to be aware of the law. Ignorance is not an excuse. Wehter I disagree with the sudan bear thing or not makes no difference. That is the law there. if I go there i would have to respect that.

Although I understand that investigations take time, I am made nervous by the holding of people for 42 days to gain evidence (a suggestion was from hard drives etc.). surely the evidence should be gathered before arrest.

I would not like to be arrested on suspicion of something with no evidence.

magibob

spen666 wrote:

Magibob wrote:

Remember folks. We aren't talking about detaining someone because they might rename a toy, or might commit a fraud, or even might commit a theft or single murder.There are people, part of a highly organized group, who are planning to kill as many people as possible. By for instance, bombing trains, bringing down planes, driving burning vehicles into crowded buildings, and blowing up the underground.

Extraordinary crimes justify extraordinary measures. In an Ideal world it would not be necessary, but it is.

Andy

No these are people who MIGHT do something or there again might not.


You are blindly being led into believing those arrested are guilty. They have in most cases not subsequently been convicted of anything.

Human Rights are Human Rights- end of

I absolutely don't think they are all guilty, and as I said, in an Ideal world it wouldn't happen, but it is necessary.

spen666 wrote:

Human Rights are Human Rights- end of

Absolutely. My teenage nieces should have the human right to travel to the capital of their country without coming within 100 yards of being blown to bits, seeing the aftermath, and still suffering nightmares over 2 years later. Or don't their human rights matter?

It's a question of balance. A few people lose an extra 14 days freedom, Hundreds of people don't get killed, maimed and mentally scarred. Much of the evidence the Police are having to study is encrypted on computers. It is not a 5 minute job to confirm or otherwise guilt. As I said, If the consequences of getting this wrong were not so mind blowingly severe, I wouldn't agree with these measures. But they are, and the measures are justified IMHO.

Andy

spen666

Magibob wrote:

Ii absolutely don't think they are all guilty, and as I said, in an Ideal world it wouldn't happen, but it is necessary.

spen666 wrote:

Human Rights are Human Rights- end of

Absolutely. My teenage nieces should have the human right to travel to the capital of their country without coming within 100 yards of being blown to bits, seeing the aftermath, and still suffering nightmares over 2 years later. Or don't their human rights matter?

It's a question of balance. Much of the evidence the Police are having to study is encrypted on computers. It is not a 5 minute job to confirm or otherwise guilt. As I said, If the consequences of getting this wrong were not so mind blowingly severe, I wouldn't agree with these measures. But they are, and the measures are justified IMHO.

Andy

So are you prepared to be locked up for the next 42 days then?

You are as guilty as most of those detained.

Then after being released, are you prepared to be rearrested again and held for another 42 days etc.

Terrorists may try to take away our freedom, but I'd rather that than people giving willingly away the freedonms we have fought long and hard for because they are too stupid to think through the consequences of surrendering those freedoms


I would rather be blown up and killed and risk having a life in a state where I can be subject to arbitrary arrest as a terrorist for - saying "nonsense" at a party conference or reading out a list of soldiers who have been killed "fighting for this country".

Both the above are real examples of the use of the terrorism act.

magibob

spen666 wrote:

You are as guilty as most of those detained.

I am also as "guilty" as the 52 killed and 700 injured in the London Bombings. I would rather not be in either group, but if i had to be, I know which group of people I would rather swap places with.

spen666 wrote:

I would rather be blown up and killed....

and I would rather be locked up for 42 days.

Fortunately we live in a country where we are allowed to openly express those preferences.

Andy