new concession for terror bill.

[Benipete]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

times are changing .if it saves innocent lives im all forit . in king johns day when they persecuted you you probably ended up dead .if they arrest you now you you have a better survival rate than you did in those days

Just another thought.I would rather pay for a security service that was one step ahead than six weeks behind.

[derekgas]

I havnt voted yet, because I am not convinced that more information could be found during the extra days, 28 should be long enough, but on the other hand, if the suspect was guilty and had plans to attack, 42 days may be long enough to prevent the attack and 28 may not, Mmmm, more thinking to do!

[LYNX1]

I think that as far as terrorism is concerned they should be held for as long as it takes.......

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

28 days and even that is too long to be banged up without being charged.

The Police State is just around the corner.

I could have understood the opposition, if like you they thought it was wholly unfair. They don't. They believe civil liberties are only affected if a suspected terrorist is held for more than twenty eight days, which is what I find very odd.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

times are changing .if it saves innocent lives im all forit . in king johns day when they persecuted you you probably ended up dead .if they arrest you now you you have a better survival rate than you did in those days

You’re so right, times are a changing and so are our rights – for the worst.

In the not too distant future we are going to need permission from some bureaucrat in one of the many Quangos to go to the bog.

[jaysay]

Well there has been a lot of huffing and puffing on this subject, young Andrew has been berated on this, but for all the debate nobody has bothered to answer the question I asked in post 211, which was tell me who, under the present 28 day legislation, has had to be releast because the time ran out, and no one has menioned the fact that secret documents relating to terrorism was left on a train, its no use keeping people in jail 2 days without charge if documents of this natture are left in public places and could fall into the hands of those people that this legislation is aimed at. get the fundimentals right first then there maybe a case to answer.

[onlyme]

I've just voted on this. To be honest, I share Rindys view from a bit back, if theres ANYTHING we can do to stop the atrocities of London, or Manchester Or Warrington, or wherever, we should do it.

We have a police force where the majority of the time, they will only act on strong suspicion and not just arrest and detain any person that walks down the street. Yes there are have been some well publicised cock-ups but for the main, hey have been doing there job in ensuring that we are safe.

As far as I'm aware, the compensation scheme for wrongful detention under the terrorism act has never been used, implying that so far, everyone arrested and detained has been guilty of something.

If it stops loss of life, 42 days is nothing. In fact, putting it in the extreme, if you spoke to anyone here, and gave them the option of a number of people dying or becoming injured, or being locked up for 42 days, I'm sure they would voluntarily go into detention to save lives

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by garinda

I could have understood the opposition, if like you they thought it was wholly unfair. They don't. They believe civil liberties are only affected if a suspected terrorist is held for more than twenty eight days, which is what I find very odd.

Nothing odd about that.

It is our fundamental right to face our accuser and the evidence so that we can defend ourselves BEFORE being incarcerated for more than 48 hours.

Most people have come to accept 28 days because it is already in place and object to the extension. It used to be 14 days and before that 48 hours, I think it was, before the arrested person is either charged or released. However there has always been provision to extend the time on application to a magistrate. But the arresting officer had to have some evidence of a crime being committed or likely to be committed or the alleged criminal was likely to abscond before the case comes up before a lawful court, to gain a successful extension.

Today a person can be arrested on suspicion alone and then the police have 28 days to search for evidence by searching the suspect’s house for incriminating evidence. And now they want 42 days. It was originally 56 days but a compromise was reached.

The 14/28/42 days law was brought in to aid in counter terrorism and the fear is that it will progress to other ‘normal’ crimes. All it’s done is turn the UK into a small facsimile of Guantanamo Bay. Yet the government objected to Guantanamo Bay.

Today the terrorist – tomorrow the standard criminal – the day after anyone.

Do we want a “Judge Dredd” society where on the spot fines are dished out by the police. Oh! We already have one with on the spot fines and fixed penalty notices.

Whatever happened to the innocent until proven to be guilty and being tried by our peers so that we defend ourselves?

[cashman]

all well n good jim, nowt wrong wi that summary, but to me Terrorism crosses that line its beyond the pail, thats my view. ordinary people are criminals, these scumbags are not that.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Nothing odd about that.

It is our fundamental right to face our accuser and the evidence so that we can defend ourselves BEFORE being incarcerated for more than 48 hours.

Most people have come to accept 28 days because it is already in place and object to the extension. It used to be 14 days and before that 48 hours, I think it was, before the arrested person is either charged or released. However there has always been provision to extend the time on application to a magistrate. But the arresting officer had to have some evidence of a crime being committed or likely to be committed or the alleged criminal was likely to abscond before the case comes up before a lawful court, to gain a successful extension.

Today a person can be arrested on suspicion alone and then the police have 28 days to search for evidence by searching the suspect’s house for incriminating evidence. And now they want 42 days. It was originally 56 days but a compromise was reached.

The 14/28/42 days law was brought in to aid in counter terrorism and the fear is that it will progress to other ‘normal’ crimes. All it’s done is turn the UK into a small facsimile of Guantanamo Bay. Yet the government objected to Guantanamo Bay.

Today the terrorist – tomorrow the standard criminal – the day after anyone.

Do we want a “Judge Dredd” society where on the spot fines are dished out by the police. Oh! We already have one with on the spot fines and fixed penalty notices.

Whatever happened to the innocent until proven to be guilty and being tried by our peers so that we defend ourselves?

I think everyone must agree that because of the massive leap forward in technology since the 28 day holding time was brought in, new technology that has and is currently being used by terrorist cells to plan attacks on our civil liberties, there is definitely a case that more time 'might' be needed to gather evidence, which may prevent any more attacks in the future.

[DeShark]

I've just spent a good long while reading through this thread and have now just voted.

I have to say I disagree strongly with Garinda's point of view. As I see it the argument reads:

"Any denial of freedom which *might* save a life is justified."

Let's suppose that the police have reason to suspect (no evidence, so cannot charge) a man of terrorism. This man is a single parent, with two children. 6 weeks without a father is going to have serious repercussions on his children.

Let's assume the man is innocent.

Their father will most likely lose his job, his reputation, his friends etc. and then be in a poor position to support his children. Sure, this man has £42,000 compensation to support them with (42 - 28 times £3000), but this money cannot last forever! Eventually, he will lose his children. It will be for them as if their father had been locked up for life. But the man is innocent. How on earth is this justified?!

If there's *evidence* however, then the man may be charged. The evidence will be analysed by a jury and a fair decision will be made. If the man is sentenced to life, then his children will suffer. But this is the fault of the man in question, not the fault of the government which this nation has elected.

If you suspect a man of being guilty, then you should begin gathering evidence. This is common sense. You begin to analyse his behaviour, listen in on his phone calls, gain a warrant of entry to his house, etc. If you gain one shred of evidence that will see him convicted, then you attempt to convict the man.

If you have no evidence, the man should be assumed innocent. This is UK law 101. If you assume the opposite, you should arrest everyone until they can prove themselves innocent. Proving innocence is neigh on impossible, especially with terrorism. If there's no evidence, this man is just like you or me. Everyone's a suspect in a crime, but not everyone is guilty. It seems like everyone here is saying it's ok to treat someone as guilty based on suspicion. Locking someone up for 42 days is the same as calling someone guilty in my eyes. Guilty people are denied basic freedoms to protect innocent people or to punish the guilty people. 42 days is punishment; potentially punishment inflicted upon an innocent!

I must concede however that this black and white view is not practical. Once you have gained a warrant and searched someone's house, they know you're on to them. They'll begin to actively cover traces if they're guilty. So in some cases it is necessary to arrest someone to potentially prevent them from destroying evidence. So how long after their arrest do you need to gather all the evidence?

Well so far... if they're guilty, the longest it takes has been 12 days. However...

If the police are looking for evidence to prove me guilty of terrorism, it would take them more than 42 days, more than 90 days, more than a lifetime. No evidence exists. So if I were locked up, I would be in prison for 42 days, or 90 days, or however long the limit is set to.

This is exactly the problem with this bill. Innocent people cannot prove their innocence!

So, the longer this limit is set, the longer innocent people are locked up for. 12 days has been enough so far. Perhaps cases will be more convoluted in the future, but we have to draw a line. I'd draw this line at 24 days. Twice as complicated as the most complicated case so far.

*IF* a person is convicted and it takes this long to convict him, *THEN* maybe an extension is called for. If not, the increase does not help catch terrorists, it merely detains innocent people for longer!

[cashman]

thats a well thought out argument de-shark, but can i say that all the perpetrators of suicide bombing that i have seen, have left recordings to their wives n children/ families etc, none so far as i am aware have been single parents, i can see yer argument but disagree, if such a thing was to happen as you suggest thats tough, but its a damn site tougher fer families of folk who are blown to bits, which nobody seems to take on board.whilst not ideal, its the lesser of 2 evils to me.

[shakermaker]

I've read through 11 pages of the same arguments going round the houses and decided to fast forward to this page. Sorry if I missed any fresh ideas. I sincerely doubt I did though.

It pains me to say if but I agree with Tory boy. ( - Sorry mate)

Let's just get one thing clear; the single objective of terrorism is to cause fear. That's why it has it's name. This fear is shown in everyone who is in favour of the 42 day scheme. Well done Osama, you've won with 315-306. That evidence free fear is what leads people into stupid acts such as the war in Iraq.

Raising the time of detention when no suspect has required that long is absurd.
I would agree with the move for 42 days if just one terror suspect required longer than 28 days' detention - but none have.

42 days is unnecessary and only moves to increase terrorist's anger and point more bombs & guns towards us.

[DeShark]

Originally Posted by cashman

thats a well thought out argument de-shark, but can i say that all the perpetrators of suicide bombing that i have seen, have left recordings to their wives n children/ families etc, none so far as i am aware have been single parents, i can see yer argument but disagree, if such a thing was to happen as you suggest thats tough, but its a damn site tougher fer families of folk who are blown to bits, which nobody seems to take on board.whilst not ideal, its the lesser of 2 evils to me.

There have been 1,126 arrests of innocent people (they weren't convicted) under the terrorism act. 52 people died in 7/7. 1,126 people had their lives seriously destroyed, 52 people physically lost their lives. It's a tough call to make about the lesser of two evils in my opinion...

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by DeShark

There have been 1,126 arrests of innocent people (they weren't convicted) under the terrorism act. 52 people died in 7/7. 1,126 people had their lives seriously destroyed, 52 people physically lost their lives. It's a tough call to make about the lesser of two evils in my opinion...

It's never about lesser of two evils with regards to human life. No amount of human life is expendable.

The simple fact is that 42 days is not needed.