ChatterBank0 min ago
Should 'control orders' be more stringent rather than less?
14 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/64jm2de
Was this watering down of the terrorist suspect “control order”, to appease the Lib-Dems?
/// And restrictions on use of computers and the internet are also to be eased.///
Would that be to organise fatwas against certain government officials?
www.Theresamayfatwa.com
Was this watering down of the terrorist suspect “control order”, to appease the Lib-Dems?
/// And restrictions on use of computers and the internet are also to be eased.///
Would that be to organise fatwas against certain government officials?
www.Theresamayfatwa.com
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
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.
-- answer removed --
For some unfathomed reason we give more respect to terrorists than even we give to protesters such as those against the education fees. Its quite noticeable if you protest a little too strongly you are likely to be hit with a truncheon or arrested. The terrorist on the other hand is treated with kid gloves and MPs such as Nick Clegg are saying they shouldn't be mistreated as its not a nice thing to do by locking them up or keeping them under surveillance.
Most people would say bugger their human rights and deport them to their country of origin at the same time relinquishing their rights to British sovereignity.
Most people would say bugger their human rights and deport them to their country of origin at the same time relinquishing their rights to British sovereignity.
//
anotheoldgit
Question Author
/// Most people would say bugger their human rights and deport them to their country of origin at the same time relinquishing their rights to British sovereignity.///
That would make an interesting poll. Here in the News we do seem have a preponderance
of Holy Joes who put the rights of the criminal before those of the victims.
However even if it was the opinion of // most people // it would be difficult to enforce as most of the rioters and criminals in this country were born here .
anotheoldgit
Question Author
/// Most people would say bugger their human rights and deport them to their country of origin at the same time relinquishing their rights to British sovereignity.///
That would make an interesting poll. Here in the News we do seem have a preponderance
of Holy Joes who put the rights of the criminal before those of the victims.
However even if it was the opinion of // most people // it would be difficult to enforce as most of the rioters and criminals in this country were born here .
Lord McDonald is a former director of public prosecutions.
He established the Counter Terrorism Division, the Organised Crime Division, the Special Crime Division and the Fraud Prosecution Service.
and has reviewed our counter terrorist powers
So he ought to know what he's talking about.
He says Britain over reacted in resopnse to 9/11 and 7/7 and some legislation went too far
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12283114
Of course the knock kneed brigade will always call for more and more draconian powers as their fears dictate and they don't see any 'cost' to them and governments can find it hard to resist them.
The cost of course is that we all end up as a restrictive frighted society cowering behind the sofa against a threat that over exagerated.
Hint - this is where you come in and say "you wouldn't say that if your child had been killed in 7/7" - and sit back thinking how clever you are.
Risks have to be taken in perspective - not from the viewpoint of a few people who've been on the recieving end of an incident like this
52 people died in 7/7 More than that die in a week in road accidents
He established the Counter Terrorism Division, the Organised Crime Division, the Special Crime Division and the Fraud Prosecution Service.
and has reviewed our counter terrorist powers
So he ought to know what he's talking about.
He says Britain over reacted in resopnse to 9/11 and 7/7 and some legislation went too far
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12283114
Of course the knock kneed brigade will always call for more and more draconian powers as their fears dictate and they don't see any 'cost' to them and governments can find it hard to resist them.
The cost of course is that we all end up as a restrictive frighted society cowering behind the sofa against a threat that over exagerated.
Hint - this is where you come in and say "you wouldn't say that if your child had been killed in 7/7" - and sit back thinking how clever you are.
Risks have to be taken in perspective - not from the viewpoint of a few people who've been on the recieving end of an incident like this
52 people died in 7/7 More than that die in a week in road accidents
jake ther peg I suppose it depends on how you measure it:
//Risks have to be taken in perspective - not from the viewpoint of a few people who've been on the recieving end of an incident like this //
I don't consider thousands 'a few ' .
Thousands have died and many more have been affected when you add in all the families.
I have experienced being treated as a terrorist in Egypt and as a suspect in Russia .
I was also in the Post Office tower and the World Trade Centre just before they were attacked
so I'm in favour of strong security.
As a matter of fact I felt safest in Russia in the 1980s because as foreigners we were closely watched. So I look upon security with greater favour than you appear too.
//Risks have to be taken in perspective - not from the viewpoint of a few people who've been on the recieving end of an incident like this //
I don't consider thousands 'a few ' .
Thousands have died and many more have been affected when you add in all the families.
I have experienced being treated as a terrorist in Egypt and as a suspect in Russia .
I was also in the Post Office tower and the World Trade Centre just before they were attacked
so I'm in favour of strong security.
As a matter of fact I felt safest in Russia in the 1980s because as foreigners we were closely watched. So I look upon security with greater favour than you appear too.
Sorry jake I'm not with you what has millions of road deaths to do with terrorist activity .?
Everything I quoted was because of terrorist activity. Isn't that what the Control Orders are used for.
So when you said only a few people were affected you were only referring to the 52 dead and 700 injured and all their families of 7/7. OK I understand your values now.
Everything I quoted was because of terrorist activity. Isn't that what the Control Orders are used for.
So when you said only a few people were affected you were only referring to the 52 dead and 700 injured and all their families of 7/7. OK I understand your values now.
So, let's see ...
You are arrested as a terrorist suspect. You know that you are not, and that, to the best of your knowledge, you have never had anything to do with anyone who is.
You name and photo get splashed all over the papers.
You go to trial, where, because the security services are scared that their methods of evidence gathering will see the light of day, you are not allowed to know the details of the charges against you.
Your lawyer is cleared to see to see the evidence against you, but is not permitted to discuss the details with you. Which means you cannot supply a proper defence, as a result of which you are made subject to a control order.
Meanwhile your family are seen as stupid for not spotting what you were up to (nothing) or as harbouring and supporting a potential terrorist.
And when, at some later time, the control order is lifted because the powers that be have finally decided that you had nothing to do with terrorists, you can bet the papers won't be making a big splash of that.
So, you apply for a job. The employer Googles your name and finds the reports of the arrest and conviction ... bang goes that job ...
I'm sure you can carry on with the scenario.
Now, I realise there are some around who think that's a fine way to run things, I'm not one of them. I f the state has evidence against someone, let them see it so that they can defend themselves properly. There are enough books, TV programmes and films around that a lot of people already have a good idea about the methods and means of gathering evidence, and if the state is unwilling to put the evidence in the open, they should not prosecute.
You are arrested as a terrorist suspect. You know that you are not, and that, to the best of your knowledge, you have never had anything to do with anyone who is.
You name and photo get splashed all over the papers.
You go to trial, where, because the security services are scared that their methods of evidence gathering will see the light of day, you are not allowed to know the details of the charges against you.
Your lawyer is cleared to see to see the evidence against you, but is not permitted to discuss the details with you. Which means you cannot supply a proper defence, as a result of which you are made subject to a control order.
Meanwhile your family are seen as stupid for not spotting what you were up to (nothing) or as harbouring and supporting a potential terrorist.
And when, at some later time, the control order is lifted because the powers that be have finally decided that you had nothing to do with terrorists, you can bet the papers won't be making a big splash of that.
So, you apply for a job. The employer Googles your name and finds the reports of the arrest and conviction ... bang goes that job ...
I'm sure you can carry on with the scenario.
Now, I realise there are some around who think that's a fine way to run things, I'm not one of them. I f the state has evidence against someone, let them see it so that they can defend themselves properly. There are enough books, TV programmes and films around that a lot of people already have a good idea about the methods and means of gathering evidence, and if the state is unwilling to put the evidence in the open, they should not prosecute.
Modeller, I think the point is this:
If you are going to lock people up because they MIGHT be terrorists and terrorists have been responsible for thousands of deaths, then perhaps you should lock people up because they MIGHT be bad drivers, and bad drivers are responsible for millions of deaths.
Control orders are not about terrorists, they are about SUSPECTED terrorists.
If you are going to lock people up because they MIGHT be terrorists and terrorists have been responsible for thousands of deaths, then perhaps you should lock people up because they MIGHT be bad drivers, and bad drivers are responsible for millions of deaths.
Control orders are not about terrorists, they are about SUSPECTED terrorists.
1 to 14 of 14
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.