Oh those crazy liberals

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Texan

I'm not particularly familiar with UK law, but in the United States it is illegal to plan a crime. People often go to jail for planning crimes in the United States. I suspect the same is true in the United Kingdom.

If I was planning to murder someone in the United Kingdom, it would be rather stupid of the police to wait until I actually tried to kill the person before they arrested me.

Im pretty sure that the police might require some of that mytical evidence type stuff before arresting and imprisoning you or placing you under house arrest or indeed restricting your liberties and freedom.

At some point in the process I imagine they would at least have to tell you what you are being charged with, offer you a phone call and a lawyer and after a set period of time they have to release you without charge and gosh there may even be a possibility of bail or something.


Its all marvelously terrific in this make believe legal system.


/edit a radical idea just struck me, they might even (Now brace yourself) act with an assumption of innocence until you are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. MAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDD crazyliberalcommiepinkoislamoeuroterroristtrash ideas

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Im pretty sure that the police might require some of that mytical evidence type stuff before arresting and imprisoning you or placing you under house arrest or indeed restricting your liberties and freedom.

At some point in the process I imagine they would at least have to tell you what you are being charged with, offer you a phone call and a lawyer and after a set period of time they have to release you without charge and gosh there may even be a possibility of bail or something.


Its all marvelously terrific in this make believe legal system.

the nature of the beast

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Texan

I'm not particularly familiar with UK law, but in the United States it is illegal to plan a crime. People often go to jail for planning crimes in the United States. I suspect the same is true in the United Kingdom.

If I was planning to murder someone in the United Kingdom, it would be rather stupid of the police to wait until I actually tried to kill the person before they arrested me.

UK incohate offences

aid and abetting counselling and procuring - incitement
more than merely preparatory - attempt


'intending' not a crime

[Blixxard]

Well that was a marathon of 30 hours. I kept reasonably updated on the BBC Parliament channel.

The sunset isn’t really a sunset clause. Sunset means that the law will expire. What they passed for royal assent was the ability in a year’s time to review/replace/patch the bill.

The Lords is a fine chamber. The only improvement I would make is removing bishops/clergy and hereditary peers.

Also a note to all Conservative MP’s who are now due in Brighton for the tory conference.

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by BeeKiller

While I'm not claiming I can prove to you how many terrorists there are, or whether it extends as far as various governments claim it to, it's also rather presumptuous of you to say that you can quantify the spread of Al-Queda, these kind of groups operate on lies and secrets, and the majority of them will have done as much as the possibly can to hide any connection to the whicheve terrorist group they come from so they can try move around without being suspected or surveyed.
Also in my previous post, when i mentioned Osama Bin Laden, i didn't claim (or mean to claim) that the bill or those detained under it were only Al-Queda. However, the bill specifies that there is sufficient proof to justify the detention (even if it may not be possible to subtantiate a conviction with it) so to claim that "there is no evidence of these people being terrorists" (lets be general and use the term terrorists instead of Al-Queda) is bordering on being naivie and ignorant. I do not believe that this countries law enfourcement agencies would willingly and knowingly detain innocent people without substationaly evidence that implicated them in terrorist related activities.

I think you would be very suprised at some of the evidence that has been used against people who have been arrested for terrorism in the past. After the first terrorism act was introduced hundreds of people were arrested, most were released and i think only 2/3 were convicted (for holding extreme literature).

They are also talking about using 'intellegence'. Well this often comes from other countries, like America, and is obtained through torture or other forceful means. Obviously torture is not an accurate intellegence source but the British and american governments believe that it is enough to hold people etc. Others have been arrested because they have gone to 'dodgy' countries and have some questionable link to someone who is extreme. Most the people in Guantanemo bay are there simply because they were in Afghanistan during the war. Some of these people were kidnapped by the northern Alliance and SOLD to the Americans. The Barrister in charge of going through the cases in the terrorist act even quit because he thought some of the evidence was ridiculous. However, we are not allowed to see it, unless we are security cleared.

So i don't thin this is being naive, there have been NUMEROUS cases of the intellegence being extremely wrong. The point of having a court where you can face your accusers is to prove whether a person is guilty of a crime etc. There is also the question of how much proof is needed? How much evidence shows that a person is likely to become a terrorist in the future? How do you prove that? I realy don't think this is ignorance.

[Texan]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Britain hammered controversial anti-terrorism measures into law on Friday as eight foreign terrorist suspects, regarded by the government as among the most dangerous men in the country, walked free on bail.

As exhausted politicians left parliament, some of Britain's top terrorism suspects were leaving jail, where they had been held without charge or trial for up to three years under old anti-terrorism legislation ruled unlawful by judges last year.

Just hours after the new law was passed, the suspects could not be found by Home Office officials, who were ordered to impose "control orders," the central component of the legislation, on the eight men.

"We believe the eight fled to Syria in a SyrianAir flight from Heathrow to Aleppo," Home Secretary Charles Clarke said. "It is for this reason that it is important that we have the powers which are set out in the bill, and I stand by them."

snip

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by Texan

"We believe the eight fled to Syria in a SyrianAir flight from Heathrow to Aleppo," Home Secretary Charles Clarke said. "It is for this reason that it is important that we have the powers which are set out in the bill, and I stand by them."

snip

The home office are so definately incapable of doing anything right. Its only EIGHT men, could they not find 8 people to 'follow' them at least... David Blunkett is blind and he never lost any terror suspects.

[Ärketrollmannen]

imagine that they ARE innocent.

Wouldn't you run away as far as you can from the government who put you in jail for three years. Without trial.

It is more than you get for sexual abuse for christ sake.

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Texan

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Britain hammered controversial anti-terrorism measures into law on Friday as eight foreign terrorist suspects, regarded by the government as among the most dangerous men in the country, walked free on bail.

As exhausted politicians left parliament, some of Britain's top terrorism suspects were leaving jail, where they had been held without charge or trial for up to three years under old anti-terrorism legislation ruled unlawful by judges last year.

Just hours after the new law was passed, the suspects could not be found by Home Office officials, who were ordered to impose "control orders," the central component of the legislation, on the eight men.

"We believe the eight fled to Syria in a SyrianAir flight from Heathrow to Aleppo," Home Secretary Charles Clarke said. "It is for this reason that it is important that we have the powers which are set out in the bill, and I stand by them."

snip

Not Found
The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. Please inform the site administrator of the referring page.

There appears to be nothing about this on BBC news, CNN or Reuters.

Have you been misled or ,heaven forbid, making this up in an attempt to prove some vague point?

[pig]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...eut/index.html

there you go

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by pig

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...eut/index.html

there you go

That is a (similar but) different story, at least read it ffs.

Nothing about suspects going missing and fleeing to Syria.

[pig]

gd pnt

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by pig

gd pnt

mr vwls pls

[Super]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Every argument deserves equal consideration regardless of validity and/or rationality.

It is raining. It is not raining. Thus, God exists.

[BeeKiller]

Originally Posted by Super

It is raining. It is not raining. Thus, God exists.

So i was wrong!