NationStates Jolt Archive

Home Secretary John Reid is due to outline a series of tougher anti-terrorism measures which he hopes to win cross-party agreement on.
They may include another attempt to extend the 28-day limit on holding suspects without charge - and allowing questioning after someone is charged.

He is also expected to say a committee of privy counsellors will look at allowing intercept evidence in court.

The three-page discussion document will be unveiled later on Thursday.

It is a discussion document rather than a white paper or a draft bill because, Mr Reid said, he wants cross-party support before announcing more concrete measures.

There is simply no evidence that it has been needed

Nick Clegg on extending the 28-day extension period


Q&A: Anti-terror legislation


"I'm sure that of the range of measures that I'll introduce today, there will be many on which, given the recognition of the level of the threat, that there will in fact be cross-party support," he told BBC's Breakfast.

"On other ones, where there'll be more controversial views, and wider views, I'm hoping that the process I'm introducing, which is slightly different from what I've done before, will maximise the degree of support that we get."

Moves scuppered

Mr Reid came under fire in May after three more suspects on control orders absconded.

And he has blamed courts and opposition parties for scuppering previous moves to get tougher laws.

Attempts to extend the period for which suspects can be held to 90 days ended in Prime Minister Tony Blair's first Commons defeat in 2005.

Chancellor Gordon Brown, who will succeed Mr Blair within weeks, has said he wants to look again at extending the current 28-day limit.

Intercept evidence

The government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, Lib Dem peer Lord Carlile, reiterated his support for extending detention without charge beyond 28 days.

"I can imagine that there may well come to be cases - and I'm not saying that there have been any yet - in which the need to protect evidence, to discover what the evidence is, to de-encrypt computers, to find people may not be achieved within 28 days.

"At last we're having a proper consultation on this," he said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Next week, MPs will debate an amendment to a bill, approved by the House of Lords, which would allow telephone intercept evidence to be used in court.

Lord Carlile said it was appropriate to allow telephone intercept evidence in court, but warned that it was "not a cure-all".

"Having seen a lot of closed information, it is my opinion that intercept evidence might be useful in a small number of terrorism cases. It could prove very useful in relation to other very serious crimes and should be available for that too."

He also supported a register of convicted terrorists, similar to the existing register for sex offenders, describing it as a "sensible" proposal.

British liberties

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said his party would co-operate with the other parties, but "not at any cost".

He insisted that maintaining a balance between "customary British liberties" and the new measures was essential and said he would not back an extension of the 28-day detention period.

"There is simply no evidence that it has been needed," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

BBC Home Affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the Liberal Democrats were concerned that announcing a privy council review could be a way of kicking the issue into the long grass.

And there has already been criticism of reported proposals to allow police to stop and question anyone in the UK about their identity and movements - similar to those in Northern Ireland - amid concerns about civil liberties.



Just no. 28 Days is enough to hold someone and even then thats stretching it. I'm starting to hate the world thats unfolding before us with Paranoid Parenting, hints of a Nanny State emerging and just this. Safety for liberties...what a bargain.:rolleyes:

Just no. 28 Days is enough to hold someone and even then thats stretching it. I'm starting to hate the world thats unfolding before us with Paranoid Parenting, hints of a Nanny State emerging and just this. Safety for liberties...what a bargain.:rolleyes:

On the one have, it does seem excessive. On the other, England is having trouble with terrorists, especially given the mass Arab migration. I'm conflicted, but it may be necessary to tighten the terrorism laws there.

On the one have, it does seem excessive. On the other, England is having trouble with terrorists, especially given the mass Arab migration. I'm conflicted, but it may be necessary to tighten the terrorism laws there.


Could the same not be said about the USA or any other nation that has recently been attacked by extremists? England was last attacked 2005 and the US 2001, Spain 2004. Since then plots have been revealed and stopped under the current laws and in my own opinion any tougher limits are a waste of time, money and freedom.

Could the same not be said about the USA or any other nation that has recently been attacked by extremists? England was last attacked 2005 and the US 2001, Spain 2004. Since then plots have been revealed and stopped under the current laws and in my own opinion any tougher limits are a waste of time, money and freedom.

Well, I'm in no place to say what's appropriate, I guess. It's just that I would think England's demographics make those sort of stepped-up terrorism laws understandable. Whether they're necessary here, I'm not sure.

On the one have, it does seem excessive. On the other, England is having trouble with terrorists, especially given the mass Arab migration. I'm conflicted, but it may be necessary to tighten the terrorism laws there.

No we're not... Fifteen years ago it seemed like bombs were going off every week, and when they did the reaction was "Oh, another one :rolleyes:". I don't remember anything; Irish, Muslim or otherwise; blowing up for nearly two years, yet the government are desperate to make it easier to lock people up without charge, spy on people and decrypt their personal files. Why is that?

I wonder how long it will be before we get a Ministry of Love?

On the one have, it does seem excessive. On the other, England is having trouble with terrorists, especially given the mass Arab migration. I'm conflicted, but it may be necessary to tighten the terrorism laws there.

Theres mass Arab migration to Britain?

As far as I could tell the problem was with the 2nd/3rd Generation immigrants from Pakistan/Bangladesh etc. And a great deal of that is reaction to Blairs toadying to Bush.

Heres a quick example of the kind of extremist targeted by these powers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4291388.stm

Theres mass Arab migration to Britain?

As far as I could tell the problem was with the 2nd/3rd Generation immigrants from Pakistan/Bangladesh etc. And a great deal of that is reaction to Blairs toadying to Bush.

Heres a quick example of the kind of extremist targeted by these powers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4291388.stm

There have been some "home-grown" terrorists there, of course. But the influx of Arabs is generally how they are exposed to extremist ideology - thenew immigrants are more prone to that kind of thing, apparently.

There have been some "home-grown" terrorists there, of course. But the influx of Arabs is generally how they are exposed to extremist ideology - thenew immigrants are more prone to that kind of thing, apparently.

Most of our new immigrants are Eastern European.

Still no Polish restaurants in Corby though, the lazy bastards.

There have been some "home-grown" terrorists there, of course. But the influx of Arabs is generally how they are exposed to extremist ideology - thenew immigrants are more prone to that kind of thing, apparently.
The real hardcore fundamentalists generally don't leave Pakistan to go to Britain.

There's just one exception to that rule, and that's the Imams who think they need to spread the word. That's why I quite like the idea of having British Imam Schools which would eliminate the need to have preachers imported which might end up teaching less than savoury stuff.

As for the rest of the exposure, I'd say the internet and the news are a potent combination. Radical Islam is constantly on the news, and the internet allows you to access the most out-there stuff with a simple google search.

Not much you can do about that, other than try and make sure that there's as little extremist preaching as possible. The French have been quite successful in training, as it were, Imams which have lived in France all their lives and teach Islam within the context of French life.

The French have been quite successful in training, as it were, Imams which have lived in France all their lives and teach Islam within the context of French life.

So they teach Islam in the context of being a philandering Lothario, steeped up to the eyeballs in red wine? Excellent :D

Theres mass Arab migration to Britain?

As far as I could tell the problem was with the 2nd/3rd Generation immigrants from Pakistan/Bangladesh etc. And a great deal of that is reaction to Blairs toadying to Bush.

Heres a quick example of the kind of extremist targeted by these powers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4291388.stm

Bosnia was the real catalyst for Islamist resurgence in Europe and can be said to have lead directly to 9/11, it caused a huge reaction among the British Muslim community if not around the world.

Sure there was latent resentment, there always is, but Bosnia was the focal point upon which the old arguments of Mawdudi and others for an Islamist state really turned the general population outside of the Middle East.

That would place it under Clinton/Major - not everything can be blamed on Blair/Bush.

There have been some "home-grown" terrorists there, of course. But the influx of Arabs is generally how they are exposed to extremist ideology - thenew immigrants are more prone to that kind of thing, apparently.

There is no influx of Arabs to Britain. The current anti-terrorism laws were sufficient when the IRA were attacking England - why on earth do they need strengthening now?

Bosnia was the real catalyst for Islamist resurgence in Europe and can be said to have lead directly to 9/11, it caused a huge reaction among the British Muslim community if not around the world.

Sure there was latent resentment, there always is, but Bosnia was the focal point upon which the old arguments of Mawdudi and others for an Islamist state really turned the general population outside of the Middle East.

That would place it under Clinton/Major - not everything can be blamed on Blair/Bush.

Bosnia was a big catalyst for British radical muslims. Many orgs organized tours and camps and training sessions and what not. The authorities basically gave a blind eye because they were targetting some other country and historically, the British were tolerant to radical elements as long as they don't attack Britain.

There have been some "home-grown" terrorists there, of course. But the influx of Arabs is generally how they are exposed to extremist ideology - thenew immigrants are more prone to that kind of thing, apparently.

Britain's problem is mainly with young subcontinent muslim immigrants/sons of immigrants, especially Pakistanis and to lesser extent Bangladeshis.

I wonder how long it will be before we get a Ministry of Love?

Doubleplusunlong.

Britain's problem is mainly with young subcontinent muslim immigrants/sons of immigrants, especially Pakistanis and to lesser extent Bangladeshis.

Britain's problem is its government is all-too-eager to jump on any fnord going to lock people up without charge, impose ID cards, and track and spy on anybody it doesn't like.

Terrorism is old news in Britain, and much rarer now than it was. These changes are new.

Could the same not be said about the USA or any other nation that has recently been attacked by extremists? England was last attacked 2005 and the US 2001, Spain 2004. Since then plots have been revealed and stopped under the current laws and in my own opinion any tougher limits are a waste of time, money and freedom.

Agreed.

Any increase in anti-terrorism laws and regulations would give the United States government a decidedly unpalatable lean towards a police state

It's amazing how quickly the country has lost all memory of what it was like when the IRA were still active, the area where I live was bombed by them only 6 years ago. Life went on without the constant need for eroding civil liberties. But having only been attacked but Islamic terrorists once, we're even more terrified now aren't we?

Britain's problem is its government is all-too-eager to jump on any fnord going to lock people up without charge, impose ID cards, and track and spy on anybody it doesn't like.

Terrorism is old news in Britain, and much rarer now than it was. These changes are new.

Hey, its your country.

As long as your citizens (Mohammed Bilal, Omar Sheikh) do not come and blow up shit in my country, I don't care.