| New blow for PM on terror detention |
|
|
| Sunday, 18 November 2007 | |
|
Goldsmith left the government when Brown took over as prime minister, but is now conducting a review on citizenship. He is expected to say he remains committed to alternative courses such as the use of phone tap evidence and post-charge questioning. Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions, is likely to tell the committee at a separate evidence session that he has not been calling for an extension. Home Office ministers are working to find a compromise formula to put to the opposition parties next week at the earliest. Influential backbenchers believe Brown may need to back away from a planned extension to 56 days, or propose the legislation in a form that will require a further affirmative parliamentary vote before an extension could be introduced. The cabinet is largely behind the prime minister, but only so long as he continues to seek to make progress by consensus. Many cabinet members were unimpressed by Blair's aggressive approach. Brown has already seen the director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, twice informally to discuss the issue, including possible forms of judicial and parliamentary oversight. The home affairs select committee, due to report in mid-December, is not yet persuaded there is a case for an extension, and its recommendations will be influential with wavering backbenchers. The government is unlikely to publish its bill before the committee's report. The committee's chairman, Keith Vaz, said yesterday he welcomed "the approach the government has taken", adding it was very different from that of Blair. The committee has been told by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, that the police would like to see an extension to between 50 and 90 days. He told the committee that since July 2006, when 28-day detention was introduced, 204 people have been arrested under provisions of the Terrorism Act. Of those, 11 have been detained for 14 to 28 days, of whom eight were subsequently charged. He is arguing that new legislation is now needed on a precautionary basis. Committee members are looking to a closed-door meeting with the director of M15, Jonathan Evans, next Wednesday to see if the security services can provide instances in which detention beyond 28 days might have been needed. One MP said: "If there is a silver bullet, he has it". The committee did ask Evans to give evidence in private in parliament, but he has insisted the committee members meet him at M15 headquarters, partly to avoid a media scrum. In a speech to the Society of Editors on November 5, Evans warned the number of potential terrorists in Britain had grown to 2,000. By Patrick Wintour Source: The Guardian           Readers have left 19 comments.
RaviM:
Quote
You keep treating the idea of 56 days as if its mandatory whereas its precautionary. THey want the buffer of 56 days in case sometyhing comes up that requires it. So far no case has required it. Its just something in reserve if a complex case arises.
(1)
2007-11-18 08:31:45
Tahira:
Quote
You keep treating the idea of 56 days as if its mandatory whereas its precautionary. THey want the buffer of 56 days in case sometyhing comes up that requires it. So far no case has required it. Its just something in reserve if a complex case arises. — RaviMSupporters of a police state are SCARY! Why don't we suspend democracy just in case we have an emergency?? Governments already have provision for the necessary powers to cope in a genuine emergency - if we we faced such a catastrophic situation the government could declare a state of emergency. But please, let's not hand victory to the terrorists by chucking out liberty and having permanant emergency rule.
(2)
2007-11-18 10:03:32
Pete:
Quote
Makes you wonder why they are bothering to waste parliamentary time on this. Since when have the police needed laws to hold people as long as they wish?
Are there not sufficient mechanisms already in place to allow longer detentions if there is reasonable evidence that it's necessary? While I agree in theory that the police should have the option to hold for 90 days IF there is grounds to prevent a terrorist atrocity but I, a white non muslim brit, have absolutely no confidence the law will be used in the spirit in which it is intended. However I think this is all a red herring. There are much more pernicious laws in the system which we all have more cause to fear. This government is getting greedier in the way in which it extracts money from us. From bin fines to speed cameras it demands its pound of flesh and it is in the process of removing basic legal protection from their hired thugs. (See Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill) They are sowing the seeds of discontent and they will not tolerate those who cannot and will not pay and they will drive more and more people into debt and smash more families to extract their fare for the fiefdom. When we resist, that is when they will use their iron fist laws and we will still be prating on about a couple of anti terror laws affecting maybe a few dozen people, most of whom will not be entirely free of guilt.
(3)
2007-11-18 11:18:48
RaviM:
Quote
You keep treating the idea of 56 days as if its mandatory whereas its precautionary. THey want the buffer of 56 days in case sometyhing comes up that requires it. So far no case has required it. Its just something in reserve if a complex case arises. — TahiraSupporters of a police state are SCARY! Why don't we suspend democracy just in case we have an emergency?? Governments already have provision for the necessary powers to cope in a genuine emergency - if we we faced such a catastrophic situation the government could declare a state of emergency. But please, let's not hand victory to the terrorists by chucking out liberty and having permanant emergency rule. 56 days wouldn't be a victory for terrorists. (Changing Foreign Policy BECAUSE of terrorists would BTW). You can't bring in an emergency law to hold suspects for extra days based on a particular arrest as that would be prejudicial to any following court case. You must have the law in place before arrests. I think it will be up to 56 days with the protection that a judge must be given reasons every week why detention is necessary.
(4)
2007-11-18 12:15:21
RaviM:
Quote
You keep treating the idea of 56 days as if its mandatory whereas its precautionary. THey want the buffer of 56 days in case sometyhing comes up that requires it. So far no case has required it. Its just something in reserve if a complex case arises. — TahiraSupporters of a police state are SCARY! Why don't we suspend democracy just in case we have an emergency?? Governments already have provision for the necessary powers to cope in a genuine emergency - if we we faced such a catastrophic situation the government could declare a state of emergency. But please, let's not hand victory to the terrorists by chucking out liberty and having permanant emergency rule. Tahira, in no way would you be a supporter of Hamas then if you object to a 'police state'. Same with no support for Taliban or Saddam Hussein. We all hate Saudi so no need to ask you there.
(5)
2007-11-18 12:17:06
wendy mann:
Quote
You can't bring in an emergency law to hold suspects for extra days based on a particular arrest as that would be prejudicial to any following court case. You must have the law in place before arrests. the law already exists under the civil contingincy where a person can be detained for a further 30 days if required. the laws under this bill are even more far reaching in that they allow ministers to set laws without a parliamentary vote and suspend parliament. the fact is we already have control orders made without any trial . i keep wondering why we are complaining about burma or the saudis when we are in fact emulating them in an slow but assured manner. they (burma etc) have the army amd police to control the people explicitly - we have cctv and numerous laws that prevent ones liberty through financial means and of course the terror laws .. there are yet more laws (passed but) to be enacted in 2008 that will further curtail civil liberties ..
(6)
2007-11-18 13:25:51
Tahira:
Quote
You keep treating the idea of 56 days as if its mandatory whereas its precautionary. THey want the buffer of 56 days in case sometyhing comes up that requires it. So far no case has required it. Its just something in reserve if a complex case arises. — RaviMSupporters of a police state are SCARY! Why don't we suspend democracy just in case we have an emergency?? Governments already have provision for the necessary powers to cope in a genuine emergency - if we we faced such a catastrophic situation the government could declare a state of emergency. But please, let's not hand victory to the terrorists by chucking out liberty and having permanant emergency rule. Tahira, in no way would you be a supporter of Hamas then if you object to a 'police state'. Same with no support for Taliban or Saddam Hussein. We all hate Saudi so no need to ask you there. Why on earth would I support detention without charge by Saddam Hussein or the Taliban or Hamas??? (You're presuming that I would cos I'm Muslim right?!) Stop trying to hijack this conversation away from the topic of the article - Brown's imminant plans to advance the creeping infrastructure of a police state in our country!
(7)
2007-11-18 16:44:13
RaviM:
Quote
Tahira,
Its a legitimate question I ask you about double-standards. If you are against the mildest laws to protect all UK citizens, and call it a 'police state' then how close to the police states of Muslim countries are we? Are we like Hamas, the Saudi or Jordanian police, for example? I just want to calculate your moral temperature guage so that I can place your claim of a 'police state' into context - and then wonder at the double-standards.
(8)
2007-11-18 21:30:31
Tahira:
Quote
Tahira, — RaviMIts a legitimate question I ask you about double-standards. If you are against the mildest laws to protect all UK citizens, and call it a 'police state' then how close to the police states of Muslim countries are we? Are we like Hamas, the Saudi or Jordanian police, for example? I just want to calculate your moral temperature guage so that I can place your claim of a 'police state' into context - and then wonder at the double-standards. There are some pernicious assumptions beneath your line of questioning - namely that this is your country, not mine; that I must be blindly against The West and supportive to Muslims, regardless of how they behave. You may not care about British traditions like Habeus Corpus, enshrined in the Magna Carta - but I do!
(9)
2007-11-18 21:45:57
Islamic Torch:
Quote
Ian Blair wants an extension between 50-90 days, the question I need to ask is why not link that to all types of crime, why just terrorist suspects alone. The reality is if MI5 and other secret services follow and keep tabs on individuals for months on end - surely they would have the evidence of all their work to present it to the judicial system - why do we need to extend the detention.
I sincerely believe that if these sus laws and extensions are authorised - then its open to abuse and no one will be able to challenge or prove that the abuse of process is taking place. the Govt states that the threat is real and they have foiled so many attempts - well i guess come xmas they will need to step up a gear cos they better keep tabs on Santa - he's got a beard and he travels the country without the req'd papers - now everyone who reads this and thinks what torchy on about - well thats exactly my view of what is Brown nose Gordon on about ? I suggest he sticks to his calculator and his red brief case and leave running the country to someone else.
(10)
2007-11-19 07:49:08
Rob:
Quote
The boogey of terrorism is being used to scare us and take away ou rights,all laws being passed to use against terrorism will be applied to everyone slowly over time.
the example is that a elderly gentleman who stood up to make his point during the labour conference was jumped on using terror threat excuse and manhandled. we know what terrorism as we lived through nearly 30 years of it.
(11)
2007-11-19 12:27:12
Anti-zionist:
Quote
Tahira, — RaviMIts a legitimate question I ask you about double-standards. If you are against the mildest laws to protect all UK citizens, and call it a 'police state' then how close to the police states of Muslim countries are we? Are we like Hamas, the Saudi or Jordanian police, for example? I just want to calculate your moral temperature guage so that I can place your claim of a 'police state' into context - and then wonder at the double-standards. We are becoming like the Israeli defence Force, brutal and "don't really give a damn for Muslims"
(12)
2007-11-19 16:46:19
YossiB:
Quote
Ian Blair wants an extension between 50-90 days, the question I need to ask is why not link that to all types of crime, why just terrorist suspects alone. The reality is if MI5 and other secret services follow and keep tabs on individuals for months on end - surely they would have the evidence of all their work to present it to the judicial system - why do we need to extend the detention. — Islamic TorchI sincerely believe that if these sus laws and extensions are authorised - then its open to abuse and no one will be able to challenge or prove that the abuse of process is taking place. the Govt states that the threat is real and they have foiled so many attempts - well i guess come xmas they will need to step up a gear cos they better keep tabs on Santa - he's got a beard and he travels the country without the req'd papers - now everyone who reads this and thinks what torchy on about - well thats exactly my view of what is Brown nose Gordon on about ? I suggest he sticks to his calculator and his red brief case and leave running the country to someone else. Having read many arguments against extending 28 days here I want to explain why 56 days might be required. You are all thinking of a situation where one or two people are arrested on suspicion. I'd expect that could be concluded within a week, even allowing for some refusals to co-operate. Imagine that the police see fit to arrest ten or twenty people in a suspected plot. Suppose they all refuse to co-oeprate. Then you may need weeks of persuasion or discovery of incontravertable evidence to make your case. Imagine what resources you need to try and co-ordinate stories or alibis if offered. The number of possibilities rises exponentially for each additional suspect. 56 days is a contingency and not mandatory.
(13)
2007-11-19 17:18:09
Syed:
Quote
YossiB, why is it that other European countries - including those that have been victims of terrorism - have not felt the need to increase their own pre-charge detention period?
(14)
2007-11-19 17:31:19
YossiB:
Quote
YossiB, why is it that other European countries - including those that have been victims of terrorism - have not felt the need to increase their own pre-charge detention period? — SyedBecause they "have ways of making you talk" that we don't use in the UK.
(15)
2007-11-19 18:49:25
Akram:
Quote
Yossi,
you are talking absolute rubbish, if and buts and hypotheticals. People have suffered in order for us the have the legal protections we have, you on the other hand are quick to give away those same freedoms without considering why we had them in the first place.
(16)
2007-11-19 20:53:43
YossiB:
Quote
Yossi, — Akramyou are talking absolute rubbish, if and buts and hypotheticals. People have suffered in order for us the have the legal protections we have, you on the other hand are quick to give away those same freedoms without considering why we had them in the first place. We had them in the first place for people stealing horses, stealing money from the gold bullion carriages that crossed the country. The laws were to aprehend the highwayman and make sure you carried a bale of straw with your horse-drawn carriage. They weren't written to deal with international terrorism nets that cross countries, using mobile phones and PC's with encrypted communication and using foreign language dialects. They weren't written to deal with plots involving several suspects. See the point?
(17)
2007-11-20 13:25:26
shan:
Quote
No we do not see the point as you potray it,the reason being in britain we had to put up with 30 years of I.R.A bombings and shootings and we never had such laws then so why do we need them now.
the I.R.A bombed heathrow airport,they bombed 10 downing street and they nearly killed the whole of the british government when they blew up the hotel in brighton,if we never needed these laws then we do not need them now. The I.R.A used all the devices mentioned by you and they had support fromn all around the world. so as i said before do not patrionise us.
(18)
2007-11-21 17:10:47
Samson:
Quote
No we do not see the point as you potray it,the reason being in britain we had to put up with 30 years of I.R.A bombings and shootings and we never had such laws then so why do we need them now. — shanthe I.R.A bombed heathrow airport,they bombed 10 downing street and they nearly killed the whole of the british government when they blew up the hotel in brighton,if we never needed these laws then we do not need them now. The I.R.A used all the devices mentioned by you and they had support fromn all around the world. so as i said before do not patrionise us. Yes we put up with, as well as having INTERNMENT WITHOUT TRIAL and banning groups and people. OK then. You think it was OK 30 years ago, so who shall we INTERN and which organisations and people should we ban? The possibility might be banning MCB, MAB, Hizb Ut, MPAC UK, Dr Bari, Inayat, Asghar etc. That is the equivalent of 30 years ago. I somehow think your point is snookered.
(19)
2007-11-22 19:55:20
|
Gordon Brown's hopes of forging a political consensus over extending detention without charge beyond 28 days are expected to be dealt a heavy blow by the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith. In a meeting with the home affairs select committee next week, he is expected to say he has seen no evidence to justify the extension, and reveal that he was close to resignation when Tony Blair pushed for 90-day detention in 2005 before being thwarted by a backbench rebellion.
Search MPACUK.org
Latest Discussions
Recommended Books
