ChatterBank20 mins ago
Would this country be better run under a Conservative-Labour coalition government?
16 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/36rl868
Will these relaxations put the peoples of this country under more risk from the terrorists?
/// Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, said the orders must be scrapped completely. She said: “They combine the injustice of punishment without trial with the insecurity of allowing terror suspects to roam around communities or disappear.” ///
What is she actually saying, is it that the orders must be scrapped completely, even though it will allow terror suspects to roam around communities spreading their evil or to disappear without trace?
With Nick Clegg's increasing influence over certain matters such as this, would this country be better run under a Conservative-Labour coalition government?
Will these relaxations put the peoples of this country under more risk from the terrorists?
/// Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, said the orders must be scrapped completely. She said: “They combine the injustice of punishment without trial with the insecurity of allowing terror suspects to roam around communities or disappear.” ///
What is she actually saying, is it that the orders must be scrapped completely, even though it will allow terror suspects to roam around communities spreading their evil or to disappear without trace?
With Nick Clegg's increasing influence over certain matters such as this, would this country be better run under a Conservative-Labour coalition government?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/// suspects who cannot be brought to trial? Now why would that be? Not because they've got nothing whatever on them, surely? ///
No, but because of the enormous amount of support the criminal gets from the UK and European courts, which makes it more or less impossible to gain a conviction, even though they are almost caught 'red-handed'.
No, but because of the enormous amount of support the criminal gets from the UK and European courts, which makes it more or less impossible to gain a conviction, even though they are almost caught 'red-handed'.
"because of the enormous amount of support the criminal gets from the UK and European courts, which makes it more or less impossible to gain a conviction, even though they are almost caught 'red-handed'."
Eh? When has that happened???
Have there been cases where terror suspects have been released without charge because even though police have had overwhelming evidence, the European Courts have quashed convictions???
I can't recall any such cases - pleas furnish our memories. Not saying it HASN'T happened...just can't remember any noteworthy cases.
Eh? When has that happened???
Have there been cases where terror suspects have been released without charge because even though police have had overwhelming evidence, the European Courts have quashed convictions???
I can't recall any such cases - pleas furnish our memories. Not saying it HASN'T happened...just can't remember any noteworthy cases.
hmmm ... So, AOG, if I happened to go on line and look at, say, information about Semtex, or downloaded a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook I should be jailed for doing so ? Because that is what those two quashed "terrorist" links you gave amount to.
As far as I know it has never been an offence to think, ask questions, look up information, possess books or documents which are readily available to anyone who cares to look for them, write poetry, support organisations or hold views, extreme or otherwise.
As far as I know it has never been an offence to think, ask questions, look up information, possess books or documents which are readily available to anyone who cares to look for them, write poetry, support organisations or hold views, extreme or otherwise.
Thank you for the links...so these overturned convictions weren't for terrorist acts then. The people convicted were in possession of material which could be used in terrorist acts.
I fully appreciate that these could be viewed as very dodgy characters - but the law is quite clear on what terrorism is - and merely being in possession of information doesn't count.
If they had been in possession of the components required to construct home-made bombs, then I would understand and support the convictions...but you have to draw the line somewhere.
I fully appreciate that these could be viewed as very dodgy characters - but the law is quite clear on what terrorism is - and merely being in possession of information doesn't count.
If they had been in possession of the components required to construct home-made bombs, then I would understand and support the convictions...but you have to draw the line somewhere.
Huderon
/// As far as I know it has never been an offence to think, ask questions, look up information, possess books or documents which are readily available to anyone who cares to look for them, write poetry, support organisations or hold views, extreme or otherwise.///
Well obviously you are wrong since both examples had already been found guilty and sentenced under the Terrorist Act.
The first link concerning the student who had already been tried and jailed for eight years in 2007 for four offences under terrorism and breach of the peace laws, including distributing terrorist material via websites and had already completed 4 years of his sentence.
/// Samina Malik was the first woman to be convicted under the Terrorism Act after she was found guilty of collecting information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Malik was given a nine-month jail sentence suspended for 18 months at the Old Bailey last December.///
Both cases were later dismissed on technicalities by our weak judicial system, who have now released two more potential terrorists into the community.
Let us hope we will not regret it.
/// As far as I know it has never been an offence to think, ask questions, look up information, possess books or documents which are readily available to anyone who cares to look for them, write poetry, support organisations or hold views, extreme or otherwise.///
Well obviously you are wrong since both examples had already been found guilty and sentenced under the Terrorist Act.
The first link concerning the student who had already been tried and jailed for eight years in 2007 for four offences under terrorism and breach of the peace laws, including distributing terrorist material via websites and had already completed 4 years of his sentence.
/// Samina Malik was the first woman to be convicted under the Terrorism Act after she was found guilty of collecting information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Malik was given a nine-month jail sentence suspended for 18 months at the Old Bailey last December.///
Both cases were later dismissed on technicalities by our weak judicial system, who have now released two more potential terrorists into the community.
Let us hope we will not regret it.
Its seems par for the course from these wet Liberals. To let these terrorists roam the streets with minimal surveillance just adds to their policies on human rights which puts the terrorist's rights above the ordinary British citizen. You would think their short time in power where they experience the terrorist situation quite closely and coupled with the pleas from MI5 to keep the control orders would make them see sense.
They should call themselves the New Liberals as they are far to the left of the Labour Party. This makes your suggestion of coalising the Tory with the Labour Party more relevent in todays climate.
They should call themselves the New Liberals as they are far to the left of the Labour Party. This makes your suggestion of coalising the Tory with the Labour Party more relevent in todays climate.
AOG since when is a judge misdirecting a jury a technicality ? And in the case of the young lady, her case followed others who had also been freed after being convicted of terrorism offences for merely possessing certain materials - which sort of implies that possessing them is not in fact a crime.
Once upon a time governments didn't come up with knee jerk laws in response to headline grabbing stories in papers or on TV, but these days, in the world of instant everything, they try to appease public opinion (got to make sure we get back in at the next election) and rush through legislation which is full of holes, conflicts with other legislation and leaves the door wide open to appeals.
What they should be doing is thinking things through properly in the first place and getting good, watertight laws passed, but that won't satisfy the vociferous masses so we get leaky laws. Still it's not all bad ... gives plenty of people a whole lot of things to get outraged about.
Once upon a time governments didn't come up with knee jerk laws in response to headline grabbing stories in papers or on TV, but these days, in the world of instant everything, they try to appease public opinion (got to make sure we get back in at the next election) and rush through legislation which is full of holes, conflicts with other legislation and leaves the door wide open to appeals.
What they should be doing is thinking things through properly in the first place and getting good, watertight laws passed, but that won't satisfy the vociferous masses so we get leaky laws. Still it's not all bad ... gives plenty of people a whole lot of things to get outraged about.
Huderon
/// her case followed others who had also been freed after being convicted of terrorism offences for merely possessing certain materials - which sort of implies that possessing them is not in fact a crime.///
Oh so if a person is found entering a tube station with a bag filled with explosives, they cannot be arrested because possessing them is not in fact a crime?
/// her case followed others who had also been freed after being convicted of terrorism offences for merely possessing certain materials - which sort of implies that possessing them is not in fact a crime.///
Oh so if a person is found entering a tube station with a bag filled with explosives, they cannot be arrested because possessing them is not in fact a crime?
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles61 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles82 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles87 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
Home & Garden155 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.