Thursday, November 10, 2005
On Those Who Are Quite Spectacularly Missing The Point
There's been no shortage of people jumping in to criticise Tony today, but almost all of them have completely missed the point.
For those who don't know, our own Dear Leader lost a vote in Parliament for the first time yesterday, as he tried to introdoce a law that would allow the Police to hold terror suspects for 90 days without charging them. He got Gordon Brown to fly back from some big policy meeting in Israel, and pulled out all the stops in trying to squeeze it through, but to no avail.
Predictably, everyone from the leader of the Conservatives to the Guardian have been announcing it vigorously as a victory for civil liberties. They're wrong.
Firstly, let me state that Blair's proposed law was a terrible law, a grotesque infringement on civil liverties, and was not only not fit for Britain, but in fact wasn't fit for any civilised society anywhere. However, many of those who voted against it proceeded, just a few short hours later, to agree to an amendment extending (in fact doubling) the allowed period of detention without charge to 28 days. To my mind, this is just the same. It strikes me as entirely unlikely that the Police would find anything extra in the time allowed, and if they were halfway competent, an entire month ought to be enough to find out about any possible terrorist threat.
The main point here is that an ancient right, one our ancestors fought long and hard for, has been slowly eroded over the last few years, worn down to the point where now, the more reactionary elements of Fleet Street (you know exactly who I'm talking about) can seriously brand the leader of the opposition a 'traitor' for not voting for a law allowing people to be imprisoned for potentially no good reason whatsoever for the grand total of three months.
'Habeus Corpus' is one of the great rights. Most frequently on this blog, I argue in favour of the right to free speech, and the right to free expression, but the right to a trial in front of a jury of our peers is just as important. Blair supporters could retort that in the 90-day law, the Police had to go to the courts to get continued permission for detention every seven days. However, this means nothing. If the courts have said 'yes' to a potential threat once, why would they say 'no' the next time? What judge wants to be the judge who releases the terror suspect who then commits the crime?
Not that any such crime is particularly likely to be committed. To put this in perspective, remember that the government also want to remove as many motoring offences and suchlike from the courts as possible, due to overcrowding. Yet you are many many thousands of times more likely to be hit by a driver without a licence or insurance than you are to die in a terrorist attack. Why clog the courts up with absurd applications for continued custody when it's almost certain not to make any difference.
I feel a little over-gushing in praising Brendan O'Neill yet again, but he put it perfectly in this piece:
'Neither Blair nor his opponents seem to feel much attachment to fundamental legal principles, so yesterday they were free merely to debate what is practical and reasonable in the fight against terrorism.'
Contrary to what you might think, I would actually have been glad if fundamental legal principles were at stake yesterday. It would have at least shown that someone in Parliament cared about them at all. Instead, we saw two tribes arguing about just how little respect should be shown to Habeus Corpus, and for all his crowing on the Channel Four News last night, Michael Howard, having voted for the 28 day measure, is just as bad. Apparently, The Sun suggested that maybe 900 days would be more appropriate. Well, why not? Come to it, why not nine years, or the rest of the suspects' life? As O'Neill says, 'we either have that fundamental freedom, or we do not.' It makes the grand total of bugger-all difference.
I could keep going on about the number of people arrested under the Terrorism Act, most of whom were arrested for doing nothing at all related to it, like heckling at a party conference, for example, or about how this is just yet another plank in this government's disregard for the rights of any of it's citizens, a government, incidentally, who started their tenure with the confirming into law of the Human Rights Act, but I can't be bothered. If you want me, try the police station cells first, but just don't expect me in a hurry.
Terrorists like this can expect a month at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
****************************************************
Two posts at Samizdata today are worth looking at. The first contains yet more bad news for the British legal system. The 'double jeopardy' rule that stated someone could not be tried for the same crime twice was overturned at the start of the year, and today Reuters announced the first person to fall foul of the rule - Billy Dunlop was previously acquitted of murdering pizza delivery girl Julia Hogg in 1989. He will stand trial for it again. It may turn out he did, indeed, commit the crime. However, I would still argue it wasn't worth it, for precisely the reasons Johnathan Pearce gives:
'But - the double jeopardy rule existed for a reason. If people can be repeatedly tried for the same crime, it creates a potential very bad and unintended consequence: police and the Crown Prosecution Service will become lazy in the preparation of cases. Why bother to get a case presented as powerfully as possible and with as much care if you think that if X gets acquitted, one can always have another go, and another, and another....?
The potential for abuse of power from double jeopardy is at the core of why the rule exists.'
I completely agree.
The other story is one where I'm not going to agree. The story is this, which states that the Government's new law outlawing discrimination in businesses with single-sex admission on the grounds of sexual orientation could end the gay scene in many towns and cities around Britain.
The writer says nothing that wrong, but he exaggerates the scale of the impact of this law. It won't end the gay scene, particularly as regards nightlife, for the reasons that commenter 'matt' states:
'I can only speak from my experiance of the gay clubs in birmingham, but in general the 'chav' lad element will advoid gay clubs like the plauge. Girls or no girls. Every gay club ive ever been in has never asked my sexuality on the door, how the hell could they prove it one way or another!! Im straight but have to say the atmosphere in gay clubs with my friends (who are gay) has always been a lot better than most other establishments. This law, like so many others will simply be ignored, both by the establishment and the people its supposed to benifit.'
Matt, despite his poor spelling, has completely got to grips with the matter (pardon the pun) in hand. The real scandal here is not whether or not such a law is an affront to civil liberties, but in fact why the government are bothering with such an irrelevant law in the first place. Gay clubs will continue to admit precisely who they like, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it, short of forcing policemen to stand at club entrances checking the bouncers don't break the law. Since that's never going to happen, we can assume that the world will carry on turning as usual, and instead we should ask why the government wastes our taxpayers money in preparing such stupid legislation.
For those who don't know, our own Dear Leader lost a vote in Parliament for the first time yesterday, as he tried to introdoce a law that would allow the Police to hold terror suspects for 90 days without charging them. He got Gordon Brown to fly back from some big policy meeting in Israel, and pulled out all the stops in trying to squeeze it through, but to no avail.
Predictably, everyone from the leader of the Conservatives to the Guardian have been announcing it vigorously as a victory for civil liberties. They're wrong.
Firstly, let me state that Blair's proposed law was a terrible law, a grotesque infringement on civil liverties, and was not only not fit for Britain, but in fact wasn't fit for any civilised society anywhere. However, many of those who voted against it proceeded, just a few short hours later, to agree to an amendment extending (in fact doubling) the allowed period of detention without charge to 28 days. To my mind, this is just the same. It strikes me as entirely unlikely that the Police would find anything extra in the time allowed, and if they were halfway competent, an entire month ought to be enough to find out about any possible terrorist threat.
The main point here is that an ancient right, one our ancestors fought long and hard for, has been slowly eroded over the last few years, worn down to the point where now, the more reactionary elements of Fleet Street (you know exactly who I'm talking about) can seriously brand the leader of the opposition a 'traitor' for not voting for a law allowing people to be imprisoned for potentially no good reason whatsoever for the grand total of three months.
'Habeus Corpus' is one of the great rights. Most frequently on this blog, I argue in favour of the right to free speech, and the right to free expression, but the right to a trial in front of a jury of our peers is just as important. Blair supporters could retort that in the 90-day law, the Police had to go to the courts to get continued permission for detention every seven days. However, this means nothing. If the courts have said 'yes' to a potential threat once, why would they say 'no' the next time? What judge wants to be the judge who releases the terror suspect who then commits the crime?
Not that any such crime is particularly likely to be committed. To put this in perspective, remember that the government also want to remove as many motoring offences and suchlike from the courts as possible, due to overcrowding. Yet you are many many thousands of times more likely to be hit by a driver without a licence or insurance than you are to die in a terrorist attack. Why clog the courts up with absurd applications for continued custody when it's almost certain not to make any difference.
I feel a little over-gushing in praising Brendan O'Neill yet again, but he put it perfectly in this piece:
'Neither Blair nor his opponents seem to feel much attachment to fundamental legal principles, so yesterday they were free merely to debate what is practical and reasonable in the fight against terrorism.'
Contrary to what you might think, I would actually have been glad if fundamental legal principles were at stake yesterday. It would have at least shown that someone in Parliament cared about them at all. Instead, we saw two tribes arguing about just how little respect should be shown to Habeus Corpus, and for all his crowing on the Channel Four News last night, Michael Howard, having voted for the 28 day measure, is just as bad. Apparently, The Sun suggested that maybe 900 days would be more appropriate. Well, why not? Come to it, why not nine years, or the rest of the suspects' life? As O'Neill says, 'we either have that fundamental freedom, or we do not.' It makes the grand total of bugger-all difference.
I could keep going on about the number of people arrested under the Terrorism Act, most of whom were arrested for doing nothing at all related to it, like heckling at a party conference, for example, or about how this is just yet another plank in this government's disregard for the rights of any of it's citizens, a government, incidentally, who started their tenure with the confirming into law of the Human Rights Act, but I can't be bothered. If you want me, try the police station cells first, but just don't expect me in a hurry.
Terrorists like this can expect a month at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
****************************************************
Two posts at Samizdata today are worth looking at. The first contains yet more bad news for the British legal system. The 'double jeopardy' rule that stated someone could not be tried for the same crime twice was overturned at the start of the year, and today Reuters announced the first person to fall foul of the rule - Billy Dunlop was previously acquitted of murdering pizza delivery girl Julia Hogg in 1989. He will stand trial for it again. It may turn out he did, indeed, commit the crime. However, I would still argue it wasn't worth it, for precisely the reasons Johnathan Pearce gives:
'But - the double jeopardy rule existed for a reason. If people can be repeatedly tried for the same crime, it creates a potential very bad and unintended consequence: police and the Crown Prosecution Service will become lazy in the preparation of cases. Why bother to get a case presented as powerfully as possible and with as much care if you think that if X gets acquitted, one can always have another go, and another, and another....?
The potential for abuse of power from double jeopardy is at the core of why the rule exists.'
I completely agree.
The other story is one where I'm not going to agree. The story is this, which states that the Government's new law outlawing discrimination in businesses with single-sex admission on the grounds of sexual orientation could end the gay scene in many towns and cities around Britain.
The writer says nothing that wrong, but he exaggerates the scale of the impact of this law. It won't end the gay scene, particularly as regards nightlife, for the reasons that commenter 'matt' states:
'I can only speak from my experiance of the gay clubs in birmingham, but in general the 'chav' lad element will advoid gay clubs like the plauge. Girls or no girls. Every gay club ive ever been in has never asked my sexuality on the door, how the hell could they prove it one way or another!! Im straight but have to say the atmosphere in gay clubs with my friends (who are gay) has always been a lot better than most other establishments. This law, like so many others will simply be ignored, both by the establishment and the people its supposed to benifit.'
Matt, despite his poor spelling, has completely got to grips with the matter (pardon the pun) in hand. The real scandal here is not whether or not such a law is an affront to civil liberties, but in fact why the government are bothering with such an irrelevant law in the first place. Gay clubs will continue to admit precisely who they like, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it, short of forcing policemen to stand at club entrances checking the bouncers don't break the law. Since that's never going to happen, we can assume that the world will carry on turning as usual, and instead we should ask why the government wastes our taxpayers money in preparing such stupid legislation.
Comments:
<< Home
You've been reading my mail Steve. I'm almost as angry at the compromises as the full ninety. The message is very clear.
"If you have nothing to hide, then whats your problem? Unless you HAVE got something to hide........Let New Labour soothe your worried brow. Habeus Corpus? Since when did that ever apply to any of you law abiding subjects?"
This is essentially the rational used by the apologists.
Had to laugh at that prize moron Michael Winner tonight. He was on some show with Marcus Brigestock. Like a parrot he spewed out the line about police needing 90 days to get evidence on their prisoners. If it takes you ninety days to find something to convict someone, then you have no fucking business arresting them in the first place.
Internment didnt work in Northern Ireland(No1 recruitment scheme for IRA and Loyalist groups), why the fuck would it work here and now?
I could go on about the questionaire put out that makes your average "Who Is Your Ideal Celebrity Partner?" survey look in depth and comprehensive, or the 100,000 Sun readers who backed up Blair but are still only about a twentieth of the newspapers readership..............The public concensus is a sham. It is also based on the assumption that the general public are simple minded, bigoted, kneejerk and irrational. Sadly this has an element of truth in it, but it's still a horrific way to attempt to run a country.
"If you have nothing to hide, then whats your problem? Unless you HAVE got something to hide........Let New Labour soothe your worried brow. Habeus Corpus? Since when did that ever apply to any of you law abiding subjects?"
This is essentially the rational used by the apologists.
Had to laugh at that prize moron Michael Winner tonight. He was on some show with Marcus Brigestock. Like a parrot he spewed out the line about police needing 90 days to get evidence on their prisoners. If it takes you ninety days to find something to convict someone, then you have no fucking business arresting them in the first place.
Internment didnt work in Northern Ireland(No1 recruitment scheme for IRA and Loyalist groups), why the fuck would it work here and now?
I could go on about the questionaire put out that makes your average "Who Is Your Ideal Celebrity Partner?" survey look in depth and comprehensive, or the 100,000 Sun readers who backed up Blair but are still only about a twentieth of the newspapers readership..............The public concensus is a sham. It is also based on the assumption that the general public are simple minded, bigoted, kneejerk and irrational. Sadly this has an element of truth in it, but it's still a horrific way to attempt to run a country.
Steve, do you think you could just go and top Blair? I'm sure things would be far easier if you were pm.
If you could get Bushboy whilst you're at it, it would be much appreciated. I've always fancied myself as President. Or Elle Presidente, as I would be known on pain of death.
xxB
If you could get Bushboy whilst you're at it, it would be much appreciated. I've always fancied myself as President. Or Elle Presidente, as I would be known on pain of death.
xxB
There are two amusing aspects in this post:
first that you have, in fact, spectacularly missed the point,
and second that you feel need to comment on matt's spelling whilst having written introdoce in your second paragraph!
That does imply that your 'pun' wasn't amusing - leave those to the big boys.. :p
Whilst a-musing over your post i thought several things:
I would be prepared to accept some reduction in my civil liberties if it means that it is less likely that some members of my great country won't get owned in a terrorist attack.
Does it matter that some people have spent years fighting for these legal rights that you preach of? I might spend years fighting to remove from women the right to vote, or drive.
You pass a snide comment over the 'more reactionary members' of Fleet Street. Why not let us have a state newspaper and be done with it? Just the one mind, don't want people to have nasty opinions, discordant with your own. Grow up and join the big boys!
Come out of your little cave for a while and join the outside world. Do you not remember July 7th? Do you not remember all of the news stories in the past few years? Ricin in a london flat? Smallpox threats? Terrorist raids around the country? I suppose this was all fabricated in some sophist attempt to scare fence-sitters into going along with these hardcore laws. People are trying to kill you, maybe not Dr Feelgood specifically, but you riff-raff; not just people in high profile positions.
There was an apology issued, by Tony Blair, for the removal of the old man from the conference, removed incidentally by over-zealous security guards and not Tony Blair and Charles Clarke. It's like if i came over to your party as a little boy and accidentally ate all of your birthday cake while not being watched. My parents would apologize for my sake, though not being responsible. Although i wouldn't have because your mom put strawberry jam into the sandwich and not apricot; and she used marzipan under the icing. It's not about marzipan.
Motoring offences are trifling in comparison to some stranger trying to kick my ass with a bomb. I don't want that to happen. Besides which, if every driver without a licence or insurance were to be stopped it would inevitably involve some massive infringement on your civil liberties by way of an enormously intrusive computer database.
x
first that you have, in fact, spectacularly missed the point,
and second that you feel need to comment on matt's spelling whilst having written introdoce in your second paragraph!
That does imply that your 'pun' wasn't amusing - leave those to the big boys.. :p
Whilst a-musing over your post i thought several things:
I would be prepared to accept some reduction in my civil liberties if it means that it is less likely that some members of my great country won't get owned in a terrorist attack.
Does it matter that some people have spent years fighting for these legal rights that you preach of? I might spend years fighting to remove from women the right to vote, or drive.
You pass a snide comment over the 'more reactionary members' of Fleet Street. Why not let us have a state newspaper and be done with it? Just the one mind, don't want people to have nasty opinions, discordant with your own. Grow up and join the big boys!
Come out of your little cave for a while and join the outside world. Do you not remember July 7th? Do you not remember all of the news stories in the past few years? Ricin in a london flat? Smallpox threats? Terrorist raids around the country? I suppose this was all fabricated in some sophist attempt to scare fence-sitters into going along with these hardcore laws. People are trying to kill you, maybe not Dr Feelgood specifically, but you riff-raff; not just people in high profile positions.
There was an apology issued, by Tony Blair, for the removal of the old man from the conference, removed incidentally by over-zealous security guards and not Tony Blair and Charles Clarke. It's like if i came over to your party as a little boy and accidentally ate all of your birthday cake while not being watched. My parents would apologize for my sake, though not being responsible. Although i wouldn't have because your mom put strawberry jam into the sandwich and not apricot; and she used marzipan under the icing. It's not about marzipan.
Motoring offences are trifling in comparison to some stranger trying to kick my ass with a bomb. I don't want that to happen. Besides which, if every driver without a licence or insurance were to be stopped it would inevitably involve some massive infringement on your civil liberties by way of an enormously intrusive computer database.
x
Matty - where can I start with this lot? Alright, I'll do my best:
1: You're right, I should leave the punning to you, because you are, in fairness, better at it. My bad.
2: 'I would be prepared to accept some reduction in my civil liberties if it means that it is less likely that some members of my great country won't get owned in a terrorist attack.'
The key phrase here is 'less likely.' The chances of anyone being in a terrorist attack are real, but exceedingly small, and the proposed law would have done little or nothing to reduce that risk. Bear in mind; the 7/7 bombers weren't arrested and then released by some civil-lib lovin' super because he didn't want to keep them too long - they were in fact unknown to the Police. Under no current statute could they have been arrested. Blair's law would not have prevented 7/7, and it would not prevent any similar attack in the future.
It is not just 'some reduction in civil liberties.' The government is proposing a raft of measures that deeply damage civil liberties, from the attacks upon freedom of speech in the new Terror Bill and in the Religious Hatred Bill all the way through to such absurd legislation as this.
3: 'Does it matter that some people have spent years fighting for these legal rights that you preach of? I might spend years fighting to remove from women the right to vote, or drive.'
That's not what I meant. My point is that Habeus Corpus, which has existed for exactly seven centuries, has only ever been overturned in special circumstances - the two world wars and the troubles in Northern Ireland, until it started to be eroded in the late seventies. Of those occasions, the first two were justified, and the third wasn't, as Ill Man has pointed out, and it certainly isn't justified today.
4: 'Why not let us have a state newspaper and be done with it? Just the one mind, don't want people to have nasty opinions, discordant with your own. Grow up and join the big boys!'
Unlike most of the other commenters on this blog, you actually know me in person. They could be forgiven, I suppose, for thinking that my continual written stance in favour of absolute freedom of speech is a lie, although if it were, I'd have been pretty busy writing things I didn't believe for no clear reason, but since you actually know me, you know this isn't true.
Clearly, as I have stood in favour of that absolute right unequivocally many times, amongst them here, here, here (which was of course concerning yourself), and here. I don't believe in some kind of Pravda society where I, the government, you, Rebekah Wade, or anybody else is the sole person who may pronounce opinion. I have little wish to write about 'The Sun' again, since this is a topic we've done to death before, but whatever my personal feelings about its editorial stance, it has the absolute right to espouse them. Similarly, I have the absolute right to disagree with them, and you with me.
Everyone has an opinion, and I neither believe they shouldn't, nor do I think that desirable. You know this.
5: 'I suppose this was all fabricated in some sophist attempt to scare fence-sitters into going along with these hardcore laws.'
Of course not. However, apart from 7/7, all of these instances are totally beside the point. I'm not denying that there are potential and actual terrorists out there - you can see that with your own eyes. However, all those other threats you mention were merely that - threats. The Police managed those situations perfectly fine without the need for three-month internment, so why do they need it now?
6: 'There was an apology issued, by Tony Blair, for the removal of the old man from the conference, removed incidentally by over-zealous security guards and not Tony Blair and Charles Clarke.'
They were indeed removed by over-zealous security guards, but if you read the link I so kindly provided, you will see that upon Mr Wolfgang's attempts to re-enter the conference, he was arrested and charged under the Terrorism Act, which was precisely my point.
7: 'It's like if i came over to your party as a little boy and accidentally ate all of your birthday cake while not being watched.'
How can you 'accidentally' eat an entire cake?!?
8: 'Motoring offences are trifling in comparison to some stranger trying to kick my ass with a bomb.'
It may be just me here, and I can see why some people may feel differently, but frankly if I was run over by a driver without a licence and killed, or killed in a bomb blast, the end result is the same - I'd be dead either way, and I can't really see why one way is better than the other.
9: 'Besides which, if every driver without a licence or insurance were to be stopped it would inevitably involve some massive infringement on your civil liberties by way of an enormously intrusive computer database.'
You got me in one! Of course, I am very concerned about any such database. My point was not that motoring offences should be punished more severely - I don't believe they should, as a rule - but that it is faintly hypocritical to be attempting to pile lots of extra work on to the courts when you have just made an admission that you need to take lots of work off them.
I hope that makes things clearer!
1: You're right, I should leave the punning to you, because you are, in fairness, better at it. My bad.
2: 'I would be prepared to accept some reduction in my civil liberties if it means that it is less likely that some members of my great country won't get owned in a terrorist attack.'
The key phrase here is 'less likely.' The chances of anyone being in a terrorist attack are real, but exceedingly small, and the proposed law would have done little or nothing to reduce that risk. Bear in mind; the 7/7 bombers weren't arrested and then released by some civil-lib lovin' super because he didn't want to keep them too long - they were in fact unknown to the Police. Under no current statute could they have been arrested. Blair's law would not have prevented 7/7, and it would not prevent any similar attack in the future.
It is not just 'some reduction in civil liberties.' The government is proposing a raft of measures that deeply damage civil liberties, from the attacks upon freedom of speech in the new Terror Bill and in the Religious Hatred Bill all the way through to such absurd legislation as this.
3: 'Does it matter that some people have spent years fighting for these legal rights that you preach of? I might spend years fighting to remove from women the right to vote, or drive.'
That's not what I meant. My point is that Habeus Corpus, which has existed for exactly seven centuries, has only ever been overturned in special circumstances - the two world wars and the troubles in Northern Ireland, until it started to be eroded in the late seventies. Of those occasions, the first two were justified, and the third wasn't, as Ill Man has pointed out, and it certainly isn't justified today.
4: 'Why not let us have a state newspaper and be done with it? Just the one mind, don't want people to have nasty opinions, discordant with your own. Grow up and join the big boys!'
Unlike most of the other commenters on this blog, you actually know me in person. They could be forgiven, I suppose, for thinking that my continual written stance in favour of absolute freedom of speech is a lie, although if it were, I'd have been pretty busy writing things I didn't believe for no clear reason, but since you actually know me, you know this isn't true.
Clearly, as I have stood in favour of that absolute right unequivocally many times, amongst them here, here, here (which was of course concerning yourself), and here. I don't believe in some kind of Pravda society where I, the government, you, Rebekah Wade, or anybody else is the sole person who may pronounce opinion. I have little wish to write about 'The Sun' again, since this is a topic we've done to death before, but whatever my personal feelings about its editorial stance, it has the absolute right to espouse them. Similarly, I have the absolute right to disagree with them, and you with me.
Everyone has an opinion, and I neither believe they shouldn't, nor do I think that desirable. You know this.
5: 'I suppose this was all fabricated in some sophist attempt to scare fence-sitters into going along with these hardcore laws.'
Of course not. However, apart from 7/7, all of these instances are totally beside the point. I'm not denying that there are potential and actual terrorists out there - you can see that with your own eyes. However, all those other threats you mention were merely that - threats. The Police managed those situations perfectly fine without the need for three-month internment, so why do they need it now?
6: 'There was an apology issued, by Tony Blair, for the removal of the old man from the conference, removed incidentally by over-zealous security guards and not Tony Blair and Charles Clarke.'
They were indeed removed by over-zealous security guards, but if you read the link I so kindly provided, you will see that upon Mr Wolfgang's attempts to re-enter the conference, he was arrested and charged under the Terrorism Act, which was precisely my point.
7: 'It's like if i came over to your party as a little boy and accidentally ate all of your birthday cake while not being watched.'
How can you 'accidentally' eat an entire cake?!?
8: 'Motoring offences are trifling in comparison to some stranger trying to kick my ass with a bomb.'
It may be just me here, and I can see why some people may feel differently, but frankly if I was run over by a driver without a licence and killed, or killed in a bomb blast, the end result is the same - I'd be dead either way, and I can't really see why one way is better than the other.
9: 'Besides which, if every driver without a licence or insurance were to be stopped it would inevitably involve some massive infringement on your civil liberties by way of an enormously intrusive computer database.'
You got me in one! Of course, I am very concerned about any such database. My point was not that motoring offences should be punished more severely - I don't believe they should, as a rule - but that it is faintly hypocritical to be attempting to pile lots of extra work on to the courts when you have just made an admission that you need to take lots of work off them.
I hope that makes things clearer!
Oh dear! I presume from Matt's spelling 'mom' he is a yank, in which case Britain's terror laws are none of his business. Our prime Minister might be willing to suck American cock, that doesn't mean the rest of the population are.
Quite apart from the above I am concerned that the police are using the current anti-terror laws, pretty much as they please. I do know of a case, through work where, someone was held for twelve hours, having nipped out to their local McDonalds and been 'caught'talking to two boys who were mistaken for drug dealers the police were hoping to arrest.
They were arrested under anti-terrorism legislation (this has been verified by the police), refused the right to a phone call because 'you could be tipping off other terrorists' and locked in a cell, until the police let them go without even questioning them. Oh, I should also point out that all of the people involved were white non-muslims. This cannot be explained by normal police racism. I can only conclude that any difficult case that lands on their desks is being labelled 'possible terrorist' which gives the plice far greater freedom to concoct evidence.
Post a Comment
Quite apart from the above I am concerned that the police are using the current anti-terror laws, pretty much as they please. I do know of a case, through work where, someone was held for twelve hours, having nipped out to their local McDonalds and been 'caught'talking to two boys who were mistaken for drug dealers the police were hoping to arrest.
They were arrested under anti-terrorism legislation (this has been verified by the police), refused the right to a phone call because 'you could be tipping off other terrorists' and locked in a cell, until the police let them go without even questioning them. Oh, I should also point out that all of the people involved were white non-muslims. This cannot be explained by normal police racism. I can only conclude that any difficult case that lands on their desks is being labelled 'possible terrorist' which gives the plice far greater freedom to concoct evidence.
<< Home
