terrorism bill

the new terrorism bill will outlaw 'glorifying terrorism' so does that mean that most of the uk will be arrested on the 5th of november then?
cheers


julian.

 

Strictly speaking we're supposed to be glorifying the failure of the plot to blow up parliament.

Regards
Steve M

 

And I thought it was all because of Diwali

 

At the extreme of logical thought the new bill will mean that sympaphetic phrases such as "I can understand the motivation behind this act" will put the utterer under suspicion. Likewise "Britain's involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq has made us vunerable to increased terrorist attacks".

Presumably the politicians responsible for this would argue that they only meant to target rabel rousers and terrorist mouth pieces but as the wording is so vague the danger is that it can be used to censor virtually anyone who doesn't agree with the "Authorities" which is therefore only one step away a police state.

Ohh must go, there's a knock at the door.

 

I don't think that the bill is going to pass anyway so let's not lose sleep over it.

 

I thought this was going to be about the arrest of another of Saddam's henchmen.

Bob

 

would be Terroism Bill though

 

I don't see the problem with holding someone for 90 days before charge, esp if you can sent to prison for none payment of a TV licence.

 

What's one thing got to do with the other? Locking people up for 90 days without charge is yet another step towards a police state. The way in which long held civil liberties and human rights are just being wiped away at a stroke under the dubious justification of the "war on terror" is something that everyone should be deeply concerened about.

Michael.

 

Michael I am less concerned about the supposed erosion of my civil rights than I am about using public transport in the capital. I'm sure a number of people are. I am even less concerned about the civil rights of suspected terrorists.

 

If you don't have a TV licence but own a TV you have committed a crime which is punishable. It may not be a "serious" crime but you have broken the law none the less.

The Terror Act would mean people who have not been charged with breaking any law , let alone being found guilty, are imprisoned. The police take on the role of judge and jury. You can be entirely innocent yet have no recourse to impartial justice.

And you don't see anything wrong in that?

 

Any loss of civil liberties is extremely sad and is, in itself, a victory for the terrorists but it would be irresponsible of parliament not to recognise the special threat that terrorism represents and the difficulty the police and intelligence services have in analysing today's digital information, particularly as the police have specifically asked for 90 days.

Can anyone begin to imagine the fuss that would ensue if a terrorist atrocity was committed by someone who the police had held but had to release because the bill didn't go through?

I suspect that the bill will eventually go through with a compromise figure such as 45 days.

I expect that the 'glorification' bill will be dropped.

Steve M

 

Strangely we had none of this outcry during the IRA campaigns. For one I'm now far more wary of being shot by the police for no good reason than I am about travelling on public transport. FWIW only 0.002% of the population came into direct contact with the 7/7 bombings so the dangers of being maimed or lkilled are extremely slim.

 

is there an implication that terrorism is worse now than in the past, and that special measures are needed now by the police that weren't needed before?

I disagree with this sentiment - as strongly as Mr Blair would like me to consider it a fact.

 

The percentage of the population shot in error as terrorists by the police is 0.0000018%.

 

No. Not if, in the minds of our police force, these people are a potential threat to society.

FWIW only 0.001% of the population at the outside are ever likely to be held under the proposed laws so the dangers of being falsly imprsoned are extremely slim.

 

exactly Steve.

but the government is trying to pass knee jerk legislation that makes it possible to lock up policeman, rather the opposite.

 

So you are happy to allow the police (not known for impartiality at the best of times or for racial tolerance) to determine who is guilty? Surely this is why we have a judiciary which is seperate from the law enforcement

 

No, I am happy for our police to use existing erosions of civil liberties to ascertain who is a potential threat to the society I live in.

 

That's a fallacious argument. What if someone who'd been held for 90 days then committed an atrocity 10 days after they were released? The fuss would be just as great. Does that mean we then extend it to 180 days? Maybe a year? How long?

In the UK you are innocent until proven guilty. That applies to suspected terrorists just as much as anyone else. The police locking someone up for what they think that someone might do is rather horrifying Orwellian prospect.

Michael.