NationStates Jolt Archive

Well okay this doesn't JUST go out to Brits, but it concerns the British more than anyone else because it was recently brought before parliment.

The new Bill was brought before her majesty's Parliment yesterday about increasing the amount of time a suspect terrorist can be held with charge.
If I get get this right.... Mr. Blair asked that it be increased from28 days to 90 days.

Well the labour back benchers seemed to have rebeled and the rest of parliment seemed to tag along as well as the Bill was defeated.

But what where your views on the Bill? I personally would have voted NO.

But what where your views on the Bill? I personally would have voted NO.
Ditto. Today, I laughed.

A poll, perchance?

EDIT: Isn't it currently 14 days, 28 was the compromise option.

Sorry to sound snotty Stevid but we've had two threads on this already today...

I would have voted yes.
90 is such a nice round number.

No also. Did anyone see The Sun's response? Hysterical, and not the funny kind either.

We did!!!!!

aww crap!!!

soz... must have missed those:(
I mucked the thread up and forgot to put up a poll before i submitted.....

We did!!!!!

aww crap!!!

soz... must have missed those:(
I mucked the thread up and forgot to put up a poll before i submitted.....

Never mind. I would have voted yes anyway... but Ive debated it enough today...

No also. Did anyone see The Sun's response? Hysterical, and not the funny kind either.

Yeah.... pretty good i thought.... the papers were pretty amusing today

Never mind. I would have voted yes anyway... but Ive debated it enough today...

Understood... but 90 days? Why? Isn't the current one enough, what do they do with all that time?

Understood... but 90 days? Why? Isn't the current one enough, what do they do with all that time?
100 days would have been better.

Understood... but 90 days? Why? Isn't the current one enough, what do they do with all that time?

This may sound narrow-minded but personally I don't care what they spend the 90 days doing. Remember they're not going to arrest you for no reason and theyre not going to hold you for 90 days if youre innocent...theyll release you when they work that out.

Remember they're not going to arrest you for no reason and theyre not going to hold you for 90 days if youre innocent.

Special branch can do whatever they like with little or no opposition. Since the 7/7 attacks- no one is going to complain if they arrest someone under the law. They'll claim it's in the interest of nation security.

Understood... but 90 days? Why? Isn't the current one enough, what do they do with all that time?
Investigate and stuff. I think that if they believe that a certain person is a big enough threat to be locked away without charge then they should at least have enough information to prevent an attack. I don't see how they can justify three months imprisonment without charge.

Investigate and stuff. I think that if they believe that a certain person is a big enough threat to be locked away without charge then they should at least have enough information to prevent an attack. I don't see how they can justify three months imprisonment without charge.

90 days though? Doesn't it seem even remotely too much. 28 would be a lot better. It never failed us in the past?

I would most definitely have voted no.

After the terrorist attack on London Blair said we would not change our way of life. Amazing what a hypocrite he is - not change our way of life, but throwing human rights and the entire concept of justice out the window. Liberate Iraq? He's trying to destroy our freedom, how can he bring freedom to another country?

And yes, they are going to detain you if you are innocent. Our justice system works on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. This requires no proof, no accountability, no real scrutiny, no safeguards at all. You are picked up (NOT arrested - just taken) and locked up. For 3 months. You can't appeal it. You can't fight it. You cannot prove your innocence (and since when has that been a necessity of our justice system?). You are just locked away.

Special branch can do whatever they like with little or no opposition. Since the 7/7 attacks- no one is going to complain if they arrest someone under the law. They'll claim it's in the interest of nation security.
They'll claim this probably because it is.

I would most definitely have voted no.

After the terrorist attack on London Blair said we would not change our way of life. Amazing what a hypocrite he is - not change our way of life, but throwing human rights and the entire concept of justice out the window. Liberate Iraq? He's trying to destroy our freedom, how can he bring freedom to another country?

Yeah i agree. I dunno why B-Liar is leader of the Labour Gov anyway. His ideals are all right wing anyway... might as well be Tory.

I guess that means you were like me? Against the war in Iraq....

28 works fine. In fact, if you were to hold someone 28 days without charge, I'd seriously question quite why he was brought in in the first place.

But I thought Blair's response was hilarious.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4423678.stm

Tony Blair has accused some MPs of being out of touch with the public and of failing to face the terror threat.

Mr Blair met his Cabinet after a vote on anti-terror plans brought his first Commons defeat as prime minister.

He told ministers there was a "worrying gap between parts of Parliament and the reality of the terrorist threat and public opinion".
I can just imagine the scene now.
Tony: Seriously you guys, everyone agrees with me. Right?
Britain: *Cold silence*
Tony: ... Guys?

Does anyone else find it worrying that The "We won it for Thatcher" Sun is supporting Blair.

*Shivers quietly in the corner*

Does anyone else find it worrying that The "We won it for Thatcher" Sun is supporting Blair.

*Shivers quietly in the corner*

Yeah, I love the whole TRAITORS thing

(0 days is way to long, Britian suffered from hundreds of attacks during the IRA years but we didn't need all these acts. Yet now we've had 1 attack suddenly we need all these mesures.

I'd have voted yes. People act as if everybody's civil liberties are going to be eroded by this. People aren't going to come and randomly lock you up for 90 days, so relax.

And the Tories have been completely opportunistic about this. Since when did they care about civil rights?

i'd have voted yes. And apparently the majority of the population IS behind Blair on this one. It wouldn't infringe on civil liberties, there'd have to be a hell of a lot of suspicion on you for you to be jailed like this. Considering how bad the July attacks were and how much more damage could have been wrought, I don't think there's a case for allowing such a thing to ever happen again in the name of 'civil liberties'. If you live within the law then there's no reason you'd arouse suspicion in the first place.

(0 days is way to long, Britian suffered from hundreds of attacks during the IRA years but we didn't need all these acts. Yet now we've had 1 attack suddenly we need all these mesures.

Exactly! Although to be honest, in my opinion Al-queda is abigger threat than the IRA ever was. The IRA were never willing to destory Canary Wharf (Possibly because it wasn't buildt then) but they never intended to something that large. Al-queda always think big.... very big.

But it doesn't mean hold people for 90 days!! Wasting Police time in my opinion.

Fourteen days is ample. In the last few months (arguably longer) we've seen this loathsome egomaniac try and push through several alarmingly illiberal bills that would do precisely nothing to protect the people of Britain from terrorist attacks (which, I might add, will take place largely because of his actions as Prime Minister). Not only that, but atrocious wording in said bills has left open the possibility of grotesque abuse of the powers being granted.

And as for his reaction to ignominious defeat... well, words escape me.

(0 days is way to long, Britian suffered from hundreds of attacks during the IRA years but we didn't need all these acts. Yet now we've had 1 attack suddenly we need all these mesures.Yeah, but remember the majority of attacks by the IRA were carried out here in Northern Ireland. Certainly, there were attacks on the 'mainland', but in comparison the the number of attacks here, the proportion there was pretty small. In other words, Great Britain did not face the same severity (and, in all probability, the same likelihood) of a threat from the IRA that they do from world terrorism today. And we were always a thorn in their side, so the measures put in place to 'protect' us were much milder than those Bliar wants to bring in now.

Having said all that, I am not in favour of what Bliar proposed per se. I do see the government's argument, but then again I see the argument of others. What if the people he was planning to lock up for 90 days were actually innocent? How do you compensate a three month prison sentence based on nothing but conjecture, and potentially a lifetime of stigma and labelling? Personally, I consider national security to be of the upmost importance, but at the same time, I would think it a vile abdication of political responsibility to ruin someone's life simply because you thought there might be a chance (s)he was a terrorist.

This may sound narrow-minded but personally I don't care what they spend the 90 days doing. Remember they're not going to arrest you for no reason and theyre not going to hold you for 90 days if youre innocent...theyll release you when they work that out.
Given that identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the UK it is more likely than ever that you could be arrested for no reason, and given that AFAIK you would not be allowed access to the information they arrested you on you would not know why you were there and would have no way to provide an alibi. if you support a family and pay a mortgage - kiss your job, house and life goodbye and hope your relatives can support your wife and kids for 3 months.

As an Aussie with similar laws before parliament, I think it's a gross over-reaction & a massive reduction in civil rights.

People who would have voted no, are patriots. People who would have voted yes, are playing on the terrorist's team as far as I'm concerned. I will not say any more on the subject.

Yay somone agrees with me...and I'm agreeing with conservatives, who'd have thought it?

People who would have voted no, are patriots.

oooo.... that's well below the belt.... granted something must be done to prevent terrorism. Increaing to 90 days is absurd! Okay, maybe 50... pushing to 80 even. But you can only interigate someone for so long before you keep getting the answers over and over again.

We've lived without the law fine and we won't struggle without it. I know that they are the secret service and all, but MI5 are doing a tremendous job. If it weren't for them we might not have Canary Wharf or we may have been attacked earlier than 7/7.

Terrorist attacks on London were definitly going to happen one way or another. There was no way to avoid, and the government thinks the 90 days will make it all okay?

Well if they do then I hope they've got some other brilliant ideas up their sleave.

It should have gotten through, but the idealists are having none of it.

i'd have voted yes. And apparently the majority of the population IS behind Blair on this one. It wouldn't infringe on civil liberties, there'd have to be a hell of a lot of suspicion on you for you to be jailed like this. Considering how bad the July attacks were and how much more damage could have been wrought, I don't think there's a case for allowing such a thing to ever happen again in the name of 'civil liberties'. If you live within the law then there's no reason you'd arouse suspicion in the first place.


There would not have to be a "hell of a lot of suspicion" for you to be arrested. that is the point of the law. It removes the need for a reasonable amount of suspicion, evidence or anything else that approaches justice.

And not infringing civil liberties? I can think of very few people whose lives would not be ruined if they were imprisoned for 3 months.

If you live within the law, it doesn't matter. You do not need to commit a crime. You do not need to have done anything. You do not need to be guilty or even reasonably suspicious. There is no safeguard. There is no protection.

This law would have succeeded where many have failed. Britain would have lost. We would have buckled to terrorism. We will have changed our way of life, we will have thrown away our human rights - not libertties, RIGHTS - we would have been cowed. We, Britain, would have given into fear and terror.


How many centuries have we built the solid reputation of stubborn fearlessness? How many generations have stood against horrors we cannot even imagine and never bent their necks in fear? Are we to be the ones who throw all of that away? Are we to be the Great Britain that turns round and says "no, we give in, we're afraid?"