Poll: Poll: Terror vote 'will be very tight'

[Von Smallhausen]

Under law you had 24 hours to hold them before charging them. This was in place for nearly a thousand years (Magna Carta) but recently it crept up to 48 hours then 7 days then 14 days... where does it end?

24 hours has been the case since Magna Carta ?

I thought that 24 hours was introduced when the Police And Criminal Evidence Act came into force in 1985 when police powers of arrest, detention, interview and charge were hauled out of the Gene Hunt era into the modern age. There are exceptions for more serious crimes for extensions by senior officers and magistrates upto 72 hours but anyone who thinks that is sorted over a whisky and a wink is not correct.

As for extended detention such as 28 days etc, that is only applicable to terror cases where plots are incredibly complex where mobile phones, e-mail, vehicles used, homes rented, articles bought, places visited etc have to be looked into and they could be in this country, abroad and both.

 

[scorza]

People who think we're being too draconian should read this which details suspect's rights in other countries: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084762.stm

France

Suspects can be held without access to a lawyer for 72 hours and in pre-trial detention for up to four years.

Say what you like about 42 days, but I'd much rather be arrested for terrorism offences in this country than in most of those others. No access to lawyers is a far bigger issue imo.

 

[drunkenmaster]

grrr, another case of fighting the invisible crime is easier than fighting real crime. Ridiculous idea, completely ridiculous though possibly needed due to the incapable police force this government has created. Maybe working to improve the police forces effectiveness so you could possible come up with some idea if they guys guilty or not quicker would be more useful.

THe whole point of terrorism is to cause problems in the society, they aren't looking for firsthand damage, they are looking for killing the freedom's enjoyed in our society. THey hate how free and how openly we are able to live and think we are all blasphemous unbelievers who shouldn't live how we do. Giving up more rights and focusing so much money and manpower on terrorism is the reason other crime that effects and harms SO many more people than terrorism ever will, is there damn goal. Every penny spent on terrorism is simply playing right into their plan in the first place. AS with America's insistance on not giving into ransom demands and the like, as it simply breeds more kidnappings when they realise they can get something out of it. By reacting so much to terrorist attacks, simply encourages them to do it more. Ignoring it would slow down their attacks and not encourage them, with all the time and effort spent fighting terrorists put towards preventing stabbings and other murders, needless deaths we can save more people.

Its nothing more than making a big noise about something that in all honesty is a PR stunt so you ask questions about that rather than why the police are so incompetant at dealing with normal crimes, like murder. How many people died this year from stabbings, and how many from terrorists? how many terrorist attacks are there, its all a joke. Because the deaths are all in one go its easy to think its a huge problem, where as infact its a relatively tiny problem but hard to ignore, where as stabbings seem relatively small, normally 1 at a time, but add up to a far larger problem thats much harder to prevent.

 

[drunkenmaster]

People who think we're being too draconian should read this which details suspect's rights in other countries: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084762.stm



Say what you like about 42 days, but I'd much rather be arrested for terrorism offences in this country than in most of those others. No access to lawyers is a far bigger issue imo.

errm, that doesn't mean pre-trial for 4 years without a lawyer, only that first 72 hours without a lawyer. It means if the court case takes ages to gather evidence for and can't start they can hold them for up to 4 years, thats not without charges, that would almost certainly indicate charges would be brought up and they'd have to get on with a trial before 4 years was up, a little extreme but most likely rare. but still its FAR better than the amount of days here without charges. Only Greece has officially worse times possible than us and I'm not sure in what circumstances those time frames can be used. America's are I think officially better than ours, unless they just stick you out on a jail boat in international waters or in torture camps elsewhere in the world.

 

[bakes0310]

Clearly the ppl who says no to the poll has never been in a bear grip with a terroist.

 

[Indy500]

Clearly the ppl who says no to the poll has never been in a bear grip with a terroist.

Getting tough and solving a problem are two different things..thats why there is a (shrinking) difference between politics and war.

 

[Muffin`]

The IRA were a far more serious threat then who is attacking us now and we managed without removing civil liberties

 

[scorza]

errm, that doesn't mean pre-trial for 4 years without a lawyer, only that first 72 hours without a lawyer. It means if the court case takes ages to gather evidence for and can't start they can hold them for up to 4 years, thats not without charges, that would almost certainly indicate charges would be brought up and they'd have to get on with a trial before 4 years was up, a little extreme but most likely rare. but still its FAR better than the amount of days here without charges. Only Greece has officially worse times possible than us and I'm not sure in what circumstances those time frames can be used. America's are I think officially better than ours, unless they just stick you out on a jail boat in international waters or in torture camps elsewhere in the world.

No I know - I think no access to a lawyer within 72 hours is worse than detention without trial for 28 days.

 

[scorza]

The IRA were a far more serious threat then who is attacking us now and we managed without removing civil liberties

Why do you say that?

 

[Indy500]

No I know - I think no access to a lawyer within 72 hours is worse than detention without trial for 28 days.

What makes you think these suspects have access to lawyers? Competent ones, anyway - does anyone really think possessing peroxide, a known bleaching agent and disinfectant makes you a terrorist?

 

[KNiVES]

No. 28 days is also far too much. It's without charges for Christ's sake.

What a disgrace.

 

[atpbx]

As for extended detention such as 28 days etc, that is only applicable to terror cases where plots are incredibly complex where mobile phones, e-mail, vehicles used, homes rented, articles bought, places visited etc have to be looked into and they could be in this country, abroad and both.

Yes thats lovely, why cant they do all the investigating and proof gathering first?
Because the police at present couldnt catch a cold thats why, 42 days gives them lots of time to pin at least SOMETHING on the poor unfortunate they have locked away.
Look hard enough at anybody and they are a criminal in one way or another.

And its still official, more people are killed each year trying to put their trousers on than by acts of terrorism.
Ban trousers.
And coconuts, because they slaughter more people than terrorists do as well.

 

[Glaucus]

People who think we're being too draconian should read this which details suspect's rights in other countries: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084762.stm



Say what you like about 42 days, but I'd much rather be arrested for terrorism offences in this country than in most of those others. No access to lawyers is a far bigger issue imo.

and how do other peoples legal system have any bearing on ours. I couldn't care how long they hold people for. It's wrong it's useless and shouldn't happen in the UK.

 

[KNiVES]

Why do you say that?

In case you didn't know or have completely forgotten, the IRA has attacked the UK on several occasions (including a near-successful assassination attempt on Margaret Thatcher). It was quite clearly a far bigger threat to the public than radical Islamic groups are today. The Manchester bomb they laid and detonated in 1996 was far more potent and destructive than any explosive used by radical Islamic group in the UK.

 

[scorza]

What makes you think these suspects have access to lawyers? Competent ones, anyway - does anyone really think possessing peroxide, a known bleaching agent and disinfectant makes you a terrorist?

Because we see the lawyers on TV - always the same ones, Gareth Pierce (who also represented the IRA a lot), and Imran Khan are two who instantly spring to mind.

 

[scorza]

and how do other peoples legal system have any bearing on ours. I couldn't care how long they hold people for. It's wrong it's useless and shouldn't happen in the UK.

It shows that other governments are of similar opinions to ours on how to deal with the crime of terrorism.

 

[gillywibble]

Absolutely appalling idea IMO.

A police state is just around the corner.

 

[scorza]

In case you didn't know or have completely forgotten, the IRA has attacked the UK on several occasions (including a near-successful assassination attempt on Margaret Thatcher). It was quite clearly a far bigger threat to the public than radical Islamic groups are today.

Erm have you forgotten about July 7th 2005? 52 dead, 700 injured in one attack alone - the work of just 4 nut jobs. Remember that the jihad hasn't been going seven years yet, and they will get better at operations as they learn about our security forces. Al-Queda is a far bigger threat than the IRA ever was, and I don't say that lightly.

 

[pitchfork]

If your a terrorist you void your rights so I don't care what happens to them. Sames applies to criminals, commit a crime your rights don't matter.
This is if it's blatently obvious they were planing an attack.

Thats the way I see it.

 

[Sankari]

Voted "No".

^^