its here ,were a police state

[Guest sslatter]

It's a slippery slope for a supposedly left wing politician to take..

 

Who'd have thought it would be a socialist government that would bring us to this? They just can't call themselves as such anymore. Socialism is dead..

 

Vote Castro..

[Rockling]

Chesters is right, liberty has just left the UK, she exited, stage left, muttering something about a war.

Blair has got you all where he wants you, no Habeas Corpus, no Magna Carta, no rights to redress the knock on the door in the night, and your subsequent disappearance. Who was that Roman that started all this s**t in a civilised setting - remember Sulla and proscription.

Sulla Blair, the name suits him.

[Jim Gibbinson]

The Parliament Act doesn't apply in this case (it's to do with the length of time required from the notice of a proposed bill).

 

No Government - whether it be left, right or centre can win in this situation. If legislation is seen as impinging on civil liberties etc. there is an outcry from some quarters. Likewise, if an act of terrorism occurs and it subsequently emerges that those responsible were known to the authorities, there will be cries of, "Why wasn't something done?"

 

On balance, the Government have probably taken the least worst course - if I may be forgiven for using that awful expression.

[chesters1]

i have no problem with tough legislation my worries are abuse of it ,if the government had given more time to parliament to refine it then it would be tough but fair and its loopholes (and there will be plenty) closed,rather than giving the released prisoners a comfortable room and (unlike the brits) getting benefits for no reason ,deport the effing lot, close the borders tightand then start deporting the other 1/4 of a million also denied to live here and also living a nice life on benefits without reason (you get benifits over here for either "activly" seeking work or if you have a disability ,these spongers qualify without having to prove either)kick the effing lot out hopefully most will be killed in their own squalid country ,or line them up infront of my house and i'd top the lot for nowt

 

[ 12. March 2005, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[poledark]

I'm not going to get involved with any arguments here but what do you suggest that "the Gov't" do when they are advised by the Special branch/police that a person is known to be planning terrorism.

 

Where have these cases of abuse that you refer to to occurred?

 

Magna Carta??? this is 2005 and people get blown to pieces by these people (but it hasn't happened in Farnham yet, so there is nor real need to deal with these people is there.)

 

Chesters, I used to have to check under my car every morning when I worked in the Piccadily area of London in the 1970's.

 

I also witnessed at very close range the terror of a bomb blast in a letter box,I felt the blast, and saw people running for their lives.

 

The bomb squad attempting to blow the boot of my mates car (in Regent St) simply because it had been left there all night and was seen as a possible bomb.

 

I trust our police and security forces enough to let them deal with the situation.

 

Civil liberties?? what about MY liberty????

 

 

Den

 

[ 12. March 2005, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: poledark ]

[Tony 1]

I agree with Jim and Den on this. It is very easy to say that civil liberties is the bedrock of democracy, but all those who do not approve of these plans should consider that when the anti-terrorist forces have suspicions about individuals that would not stand up in court and these individuals then commit a major terrorist attack where would their position be then? Everyone then jumps on the bandwagon asking why nothing was done about it. It is a difficult choice but I, for one, believe that the government has taken the correct approach.

[chesters1]

as i said i have no problems with tough laws ,what i object to is the cosy life these "released" people will enjoy ,deport them ,deport all the 400 (the government spokesman in his reply said "theres not as many as a 1000" "suspects"" in an interveiw ,so there could be many more )suspects if their not british and lock up after a legal trial the british ones if their found guilty ,its not the first time we have this prison without trial it was caled the maze prison ,it didnt stop the ira bombing or kneecapping or terrorising and it rehappening over here wont either it will just give the terrorists more reasons to carry on.

stop all imigration ,bring the army back to the uk and stop messing with other countries squabling and use the army to guard the coast to stop the deportees getting back in ,a visa system will sort out the most blatent abusers and people with my veiws will stop the rest.

and guildford is just up the road Den and aldershot closer

its the security system that alledged saddam had WMD and fabricated and lied to "prove" it ,this resulted in an innocent mans life ,they poo poo the investigators and called the head of them a liar ,would you trust them not i nor anything they say ,a climate of fear is great for controlling the masses and the government extremly efficiant at producing one.

wheres all these police that blair boasts of ? no sign of any around here nor anywhere else i expect the greater number are looking out for anything nasty happening to blair and his cronies , not the people strangly its blair and his gang thats causing all the trouble in the first place

quote:

---

Where have these cases of abuse that you refer to to occurred?

---

err to be in house arrest you need a house or at least a room Den ,try getting your kid any help from the council when he wants to leave home and you will be laughed out of the place yet every single single person appearing at our ports is housed in someway by nightfall ,your kid will be under a cardboard box if he's lucky :mad: whats worse is johnie foreigner will have money as well your kid if he gets anything will have to wait a fortnight and the first 3 days not payed at all

how do i know i'v seen it with my son and worse its harder getting it for a couple one of which is disabled we were homeless for 10 months remember den with MORE rights than foreigners but second class citizens compared to them :mad:

yes theres plenty of abuse Den, against US the people ,these laws will ensure that anyone trying to get their lawfull rights could be conveniently spirited away and out of sight at the whim of a person elected to protect our rights,and the right to know why i've suddenly appeared in prison the basis of democracy we upheld untill now.

i'm desperatly not having an anti immigrant rant (honest mods) unfortunatly due to the attitude of the present governments lax policies has resulted in the laws that i posted about impinging on all our lives ,none of which would have occured if the afforementioned bad people had been deported as the law requires in the first instant ,imprisoning them as foreigners abused their "rights", to get round this the government removed the wrong doing by including ALL persons including ethnic and naturalised/given asylem brits.this makes a bad law effecting a few foreigner's into a bad law effecting everyone

 

[ 12. March 2005, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Guest sslatter]

Jim Gibbinson:

The Parliament Act doesn't apply in this case (it's to do with the length of time required from the notice of a proposed bill).

 

No Government - whether it be left, right or centre can win in this situation. If legislation is seen as impinging on civil liberties etc. there is an outcry from some quarters. Likewise, if an act of terrorism occurs and it subsequently emerges that those responsible were known to the authorities, there will be cries of, "Why wasn't something done?"

 

On balance, the Government have probably taken the least worst course - if I may be forgiven for using that awful expression.

I disagree. I think they've taken the worst possible course, and not on their own initiative, either: they're taking their lead from the present US administration.

 

If someone is a suspect in any crime, but cannot be proved to be committing an actual criminal act, that person should not be incarcerated. If the authorities have proof, they can use it. If they haven't, they should not have an arbitrary power of detention. End of story.

 

Jim Gibbinson:

I'm not going to get involved with any arguments here but what do you suggest that "the Gov't" do when they are advised by the Special branch/police that a person is known to be planning terrorism?

Planning a terrorist act is a criminal act. They can use the Law to arrest.

 

Jim Gibbinson:

Magna Carta??? this is 2005 and people get blown to pieces by these people (but it hasn't happened in Farnham yet, so there is nor real need to deal with these people is there.)

People have been being killed by "terrorists" since time immemorial. There is nothing new about that. Our Laws are supposedly there to protect the innocent from false imprisonment without trial. If we want to teach these people something, the example they are currently getting from our authorities will only serve to underline, in their minds, our own hypocrisy, and strengthen their own cause. If we want to bring true democracy to the world, we must be seen to be running a democratic ship, and that includes this basic right to civil liberty. What right do we have to criticise others on a civil rights basis, when we ourselves do not implement such rights?

 

Jim Gibbinson:

Chesters, I used to have to check under my car every morning when I worked in the Piccadily area of London in the 1970's.

 

I also witnessed at very close range the terror of a bomb blast in a letter box,I felt the blast, and saw people running for their lives.

 

The bomb squad attempting to blow the boot of my mates car (in Regent St) simply because it had been left there all night and was seen as a possible bomb.

So what?

 

Jim Gibbinson:

I trust our police and security forces enough to let them deal with the situation.

---

 

Well, I certainly don't trust any of them. That's why we had that law in the first place: to protect the innocent from persecution by authority.

[kleinboet]

The original draft called for the law to allow a MINISTER to order a person to be locked up as a terrorist without any recourse at all. There was such an outcry about this that they immediately said OK we'll get it "legalised" by a judge after the fact. Labour knew just what it was wanting to do and the other parties were desperately trying to stop them. Labour kept "giving ground", changing the minutia of the act until the others were literally worn down.

 

How is it that the Tories, the Lib-dems, the independants AND the Lords were ALL AGAINST this "anti-terrorist" act as Labour had presented it.

[chesters1]

because voting it through also allowed 230 (at last count friday before last) ammendments to the bill that no-one but the home secretary knew about ,you cant genuinly be happy with an act that isnt open to question or in the case of the amendments even open to veiw.

there was no need for labours outcry that it should be the home secretaries decision that would speed up detention the present laws (not the one being given up this weekend) give the police 14 days to "interveiw" a suspect anyway so plenty of time to hold them untill seen by a judge.

the "sunset clause" (the real sticking point) ensured that the law could be amended before its next implimentation in 12 months time ,without the "sunset" clause it would go straight through as it has now and no-one could stop it.the opposition is happy that although this "sunset" clause isnt in the bill the governments assurance that the law will be fully discussed allowed both sides to keep face.

i would have held out for the clause but the house of lords are composed of many old people who probably would have folded anyway due to sleep disorders

the whole thing was a government scam, 8 hours to discuss the whole bill in commons and 4 days in the lords ,just the existing clauses would take weeks to examine never mind the unknown ones,the government had months to put it before parliament but it left days to go through both houses ,the opposition said they were happy to allow the (then) existing law to carry on untill the bill had been fully scrutinised the government point blanketly refused they also refused an extra day using the oppositions "day" to discus it and forced the new bill through,i am sure many things not seen will be implemented with great speed most not good for anyone

being a carer for my mrs allowed me to watch all 8 hours in the commons on the parliament channel ,i was shocked at the attitude of the home secretary in his "i know better than you" stance ,parliament as a whole was rediculed in their office of scrutinisation of bills going through parliament the government road rough shod over the whole place and showed real scorn on the laws of the land it was elected to maintain and in the ways the laws are implemented in their role to care for the people, the people who elected them to this high office in the first place :mad:

 

[ 12. March 2005, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]