Detention without charge poll - Page 5

andrewb · 14-07-2008, 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

But you haven't answered my question at all. What is it about some people that makes the police want to detain them? Are innocent people being victimised randomly? You are making it sound like the police randomly swoop on innocent people and detain them without any reason i.e. just plucking them off the street. What I want to know is why these people are plucked off the street in the first place - what makes the police think they are terrorists.

Do you have any case studies?

I don't. However I suspect its the same as any other crime. Wrong place wrong time. However normally people are just released quickly, under this legislation they can be detained for 42 days just in case some evidence appears. If they were guility and the police heavily suspected them of it, thats different because they would release them on the last day and then use survailence, but they simply have not done this in the innocent cases under the terrorism act.

steeljack · 14-07-2008, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Indeed, but 42 days is too much. The crown prosecution service themselves say that 28 days is easily enough. Thats why I don't back 42 days legislation, it is just being used to make the government look tough, while achieving nothing.

now you are just being silly , using the Crown prosecution Service as an example in anything requiring common sense , these are the clowns who prefer to prosecute and jail home owners for defending their property against thieves and burglars

andrewb · 14-07-2008, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loz

28 days is probably excessive in some cases but not enough in other cases.
Who is to say what length of time is long enough anyway?

The people who have to gather evidence and charge! The only ones guilty who have gone close to being detained for 28days have had their evidence found in 4 and 12 days respectively. That should be a clear indictator to say we dont need to extend it.

Loz · 14-07-2008, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

The people who have to gather evidence and charge! The only ones guilty who have gone close to being detained for 28days have had their evidence found in 4 and 12 days respectively. That should be a clear indictator to say we dont need to extend it.

Thats not to say that you won't ever need 28 or 42 days?
At least if its in place to detain people for upto 42 days then it can be used if needed.
I would rather be safe than sorry.

andrewb · 14-07-2008, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loz

Thats not to say that you won't ever need 28 or 42 days?
At least if its in place to detain people for upto 42 days then it can be used if needed.
I would rather be safe than sorry.

But then innocent people will be detained for even longer, when its not even necessary to have that many days to convict the guilty. Whats to stop them changing it to 100 days, 1000 days, just to be safe rather than sorry?

Benipete · 14-07-2008, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

The people who have to gather evidence and charge! The only ones guilty who have gone close to being detained for 28days have had their evidence found in 4 and 12 days respectively. That should be a clear indictator to say we dont need to extend it.

When is the Lords debate,only I'll need to get some cans in for the next andrewb show.

garinda · 14-07-2008, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

It doesn't help when you're here spreading ignorant views.

Di-dums.

If you can't stand the heat...

there's a nice cool cell over there.

andrewb · 14-07-2008, 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Di-dums.

If you can't stand the heat...

I only won't be able to stand the heat when you start arguing using relevant things.

Loz · 14-07-2008, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

But then innocent people will be detained for even longer, when its not even necessary to have that many days to convict the guilty. Whats to stop them changing it to 100 days, 1000 days, just to be safe rather than sorry?

Whats worth more?
Someones life being interrupted for 42 days or somebodies life?

Bonnyboy · 14-07-2008, 21:20

My views are the same as last time this poll was done, so I voted accordingly.

I can see shades of Mugabe and Zimbabwe here…did we get the last poll wrong ?

Royboy39 · 14-07-2008, 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loz

28 days is probably excessive in some cases but not enough in other cases.
Who is to say what length of time is long enough anyway?

I Have suggested this before: High Court Judges in the UK are paid a considerable amount of money to administer the interpretation of the law.
If extra time to question suspects is required, let them earn the money they receive from the public purse and adjudge yes or no to the extra detention.
There is no need to pen extra legislation for 42 day's...the legislation is already in place.

BERNADETTE · 14-07-2008, 21:23

[quote andrewb]they would release them on the last day and then use survailence, but they simply have not done this in the innocent cases under the terrorism act.[/quote] How do you know whether the police have had the people under surveillance or not? I am damn sure they don't inform us when they are going to keep their eye on somebody, so from where do you get your evidence??

accyman · 14-07-2008, 21:23

Quote:

when its not even necessary to have that many days to convict the guilty

poppycock investigations can lead to other avenues that need investigating and a suspect should be held until all avenues have been explored

are you sure your a tory because you sound like bleeding liberal to me

andrewb · 14-07-2008, 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

[quote andrewb]they would release them on the last day and then use survailence, but they simply have not done this in the innocent cases under the terrorism act.

How do you know whether the police have had the people under surveillance or not? I am damn sure they don't inform us when they are going to keep their eye on somebody, so from where do you get your evidence??[/quote]

David Davis has fully investigated it and nobody has come out to say hes fibbing!

andrewb · 14-07-2008, 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by accyman

poppycock investigations can lead to other avenues that need investigating and a suspect should be held until all avenues have been explored

are you sure your a tory because you sound like bleeding liberal to me

Every avenue should be explored. Every other civilized country manages to explore them without needing 42 days. In fact, we manage to do it within 28 days, so there is no need to extend.