h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I heard that quite a few Tories were expected to vote with Blair. I keep hearing that the police have made a convincing case for 90 days & don't think a compromise reduction is any good, but I haven't heard any details of their argument.

My feelings are that it's far too long to hold someone without charge. What compensation could possibly make amends if no charge is brought & the person released? Create a new charge if they feel they must detain suspects.

No, I think this is easy publicity for 'doing good', not beneficial & effective government.

"I have always innocently imagined that if innocent I had nothing to fear. Obviously I am rather naive."

It's interesting to see the difference in perspective here: I'm a very law-abiding citizen, from a very law-abiding middle-class family, but I can remember how uneasy I felt as a student entering or leaving the UK at the height of the Troubles in the 70s. By the time you get to the "friend of a friend" level of acquaintances, I can certainly think of a number of cases of difficulties with the UK authorities at that period: "Oh, we were always careful what we said on the phone to X, cause they were sharing a house with Y who had republican connections, and everyone knew the phone was tapped"..."They came home one day to find the flat was burgled but there was no point calling the police because it was obvious it was the police who did it"...that sort of thing.

Certainly among Irish people of my age, I think the end result of having been treated with such suspicion is to leave us a bit warier of the authorities than British people of the same generation. Since some of my college contemporaries are senior judges by now, I think that in some ways this is a good thing.


Azara

I am listening to local radio, and the same sort of jiggery-pokery is happening next door in Australia. Certain leather-lunged loonies are advocating the same sort of thing here in NZ, because of the 'War on Terror'. Nongs!

I think those who've claimed that it's really all about passing more and more restrictive laws are right.

internment of japanese americans during world war 2 is still causing problems for the government in america.

in northern ireland during the 1970's the internment policy was recognised as being one of the best recruiting methods that the paramilitaries had, exactly because it was locking up people who everyone knew were innocent.

there is a moderately good case that has been made that it might need to go up from the current 14 days.

there might even be a case for 90 days, but the point is that the government has not made the case for 90 days, and this will cause them a lot of problems when it goes to the house of lords.

as if that wasn't enough for them, they have also scored an own goal with the sunset clause, because having introduced one in their options the case against it in principle has gone.

combined with the credibility problems they are going to get with the id cards bill, where they have also completely failed to address all of the valid concerns raised by many people, it is going to be interesting times for the labour government.

another problem with 90 days is that at three months, anyone locked up for the entire time is going to lose their job or business.

by definition, they are not going to be allowed to talk openly and privately to general members of the public.

in the meantime, the fact that they are arrested for terrorism will put a lot of strain on their families, as will the financial problems caused by the loss of their income.

if this results in the loss of their house due to inability to keep up the mortgage payments, this can kill a marriage (it has in some other miscarriage of justice cases).

of course innocent people will be locked up. they will then serve up to the full 90 days, could lose their job, home, family, and reputation (ie no smoke without fire assumptions), and never be charged.

it is very analagous to the question of how do you unhang an innocent man?

<>
This of course, is the nub of the argument. I wish the sheeple in Australia and NZ who back such laws, could be exposed to such arguments...

if they have the internet, they would find it difficult to avoid being exposed to these ideas.

but it wouldn't matter, as by definition they are sheep. this means that they only think short term, and even then only when they can't really avoid it.

this is the problem with education systems which encourage sheep rather than free thinkers.

of course systems which encourage free thinkers have their own problems...not least the smaller number of pupils that you can have per teacher using relatively standard teaching methods.

That's precisely the problem with the kind of people I was referring to - media commentators - short term thinking. Business and (some) politicians seem particularly addicted to it. The Greens are an honorable exception.

Yes, I agree that teacher/pupil ratios are an issue that's related.

Well it looks as if the New Labour whips are in a flat spin. Foreign Secretary summoned back and the Son of the Manse's feet hardly touched the ground in Israel before he was on his way back, to help with the campaign of course, yes, right on Gordy, we believe you as much as your boss.

It's going to be close and this could be the beginning of the end for our Tone. If he can't get a national security bill through he's got no chance on education or NHS reform.

Three line whip d'y'reckon?

I'm not sure. Back in a mo.

Yes it looks like it. This from today's Independent

'If Mr Blair's preference is voted down, it would be his first defeat in the Commons on a whipped vote since he came to power in 1997'

Why then were Straw and Brown allowed to leave the country. Panic setting in.

Moning WA, Clive et al.

Going to be a very interesting afternoon then!

Novo

Morning Novo,

Hoo Yus, it's going to be a close run thing. As the Today political reporter said 'It isn't a vote of confidence, but the closest thing to one for a long time.'

Yes WA

To use a November 5th analogy, I think ( and Hope ) that TB's fuse is spluttering, and there won't be a big bang, just a whimper.

Novo

"of course innocent people will be locked up. they will then serve up to the full 90 days..."

Leaving aside that "up to the full 90 days" is precisely equivalent, in some cases, to "15 days", innocent people are already locked up in this country. I simply cannot understand what all the bleeding-heart liberal fuss is about.

In this country you can be arrested and held without charge for up to 14 days (I think...) already. If, at the end of that time, the police have *anything* on you *at all* they can then charge you with it - which then allows them to keep you in custody, on remand, until the time of your trial. Remand can last *months*.

The limitation here, however, is that if you're on remand for one thing - say credit card fraud - the police are barred from interrogating you about other offences. They simply aren't allowed to ask those questions. It is therefore important to get a person charged with the correct (i.e. most severe) offence possible in the first place.

One might assume this was obvious, but it seems it needs spelling out over and over again, but it's also rather different dealing with people who do not expect to be alive after they've committed the offences they're planning, people who do not have a political agenda as such, people who are not going to issue coded warnings, and people for whom mass civilian casualties are not a hindrance but a boost to their "cause".

Bleeding heart liberals are very keen for this country to dismantle its nuclear deterrent and call the JSF and the Eurofighter white elephants because they were designed to defend against a belligerent Soviet superpower that no longer exists. "The world has changed, move on", they bleat.

Yet they hark back to the past in their attitude to terrorism legislation. In the old days, back when there was a Soviet Union, the terrorist threat to this country came from people who didn't use computer encryption, people who had a declared *political* (not religious or ideological) agenda. These people wanted a different life, not a glorious death. They did NOT want, generally, to murder large numbers of civilians (yes, I know there were obscene exceptions to that). In general, they felt they were fighting a war, and did so according to some perverse "rules", rules which included coded warnings of impending attacks. And of course, there's the tacit acknowledgement that for most of the time, the security forces knew exactly who all the major "players" were. And because their motivations were based firmly in the western idea of a political society, there was scope for negotiation and the possibility of subverting their organisation with spies and turncoats. And finally, there has been a move towards peace.

Well, as Blair has said, the rules have changed. The people we're now dealing with still look like us (at least, like those of us with dark skins), still talk like us, but they are not playing the same game at all. They have more sophisticated communications networks, using the latest easily available, impossible to break encryption. They have no demands that can be met. They are uninterested in negotiation. Their ideology is so different to civilised western thought that it is much more difficult to penetrate their organisations with spies. They are so alienated from the society in which they live that there is little possibility of them turning informant. They give no warnings of their actions, since they are not intended to inflict political or economic damage. And since they actively intend to die in the commission of their crimes, they have literally nothing to lose. Mass civilian casualties and public horror are not a propaganda problem for them - it's what they're aiming for.

None of the tools which were available to the security services when they were fighting the IRA work with these people. New tools are needed.

Innocent people are arrested, held, charged, remanded, tried, acquitted and released *all the time*. That's how our system already works.

And to the people who say that this law would disproportionately affect one or other minority, I'd say yes, it will. That's because the criminals come, disproportionately, from that same section of society - so what are *you*, personally, doing about *that*?

SoRB

>The limitation here, however, is that if you're on remand for one thing - say credit card fraud - the police are barred from interrogating you about other offences.<

Wrong.

Really? That was what someone said this morning on Radio 4. (I think it was Hazel Blears...). They were pretty specific about it. In fact it was the crux of the argument about making sure people are charged with the right thing from the get go.

Having said that, I'm not entirely surprised if it is wrong...

SoRB

I think the police would be very surprised to learn that the oik they charged yesterday with, say, an arson and is presently remanded in custody can't be questioned about a murder that suddenly comes to light.

I think the public might be just a little concerned about it as well.

For my own part, I am doing what I can in discussions like this one, to point out that our countries have brought war to a number of Moslem countries. With hindsight, if nothing else, it is becoming increasingly clear that these wars were (and are) not wholly justified.

The 'terrorists' who are bombing us indiscriminately are also the 'freedom fighters' who are striking back against the enemies of their faith when no-one else can/will do so.

I do NOT support or condone bombing civilians without warning, particularly when they could be my own friends or relatives. Nor do I support or condone any similar action, whoever carries it out.

But we cannot go on pretending we've done nothing to deserve it. Presidents Bliar and Bush have, on our behalf, and in pursuit of oil and money, unjustifiably waged war on other countries. We are reaping the reward for their behaviour.

Now we intend to imprison innocent citizens for up to 90 days, to aid the police in their fight against terrorism. Overall, the negative effects on British citizens will exceed the damage done by the bombs, IMO.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"