42 days detention

[scubadiver]

Last week I saw a cartoon in one of the papers and it referenced a quote from the bible and I have only just remembered to check:

[Newspeak International]

It's the answer to life the universe and everything

[Mark Gobell]

Hat tip to your intuition Scuba

I wonder.

Could the apparent "argument" that is now not really a true adversarial scenario, given the reported opposition to it, be a smokescreen for the rest of the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2007-08, introduced by our Economics teacher, now reborn as our Home Secretary?

False flagism extends to their apparent arguments as well as death . . .

The most recent example, for me was the contrived 10p tax rate / Crewe & Nantwich fiasco. . .

We'll give you the reason why you rejected us.

Then you'll forget about it.

The "new normal" of government ineptitude might just be lost on those of us who think we've recognised it as something exceptional . . .

[Busker]

[Mark Gobell]

Can you believe this new Lab junta ?

How low can you go to try and get a new law through parliament ?

Unbelievable.

[paul wright]

They've also tried to buy off the DUP with £200m for Ulster
See here

[TonyGosling]

All these crooks seem able to do is bribe their way to hell - bribe the speaker, bribe the detainees, bribe the DUP.

Are we actually dealing with Evelyn De Rothschild types and the city of London here?



I thoroughly recommend Hull based Robin Ramsay's 'Prawn Cocktail Party' book which shows how New Labour always was just a puppet of the city of London ghouls.

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/

[spiv]

I wonder what an innocent person may feel being offered £3,000 per day for every day held over the existing 28 days without charge, having been banged up on a whim of the police for six weeks, and having lost his/her job, business, house and/or marriage.

If the police have no evidence to charge within 28 days (and even that is far too long), then so be it, we are innocent until proved guilty, or so I have always understood.

On the BBC website today, they comment “The opposition parties argue the proposed pre-charge detention limit would infringe civil liberties, but ministers say it is necessary to deal with increasingly complex terror plots”.

Why increasingly complex?? Different chapatti flour maybe?? Or a new strain of drink powder?? If it wasn’t so serious, this matter just gets more comical, especially knowing the fact that your chances of getting killed in a car accident going home this evening are greater than being blown up in a terrorist bomb.

I wonder if Gordon Brown has any inkling just why he is so despised by the voting public these days!!

[redadare]

[Newspeak International]

After all those excellent statements against,if put to a jury that bill would surely have been defeated.

[Mark Gobell]

Brown wins crunch vote on 42 days

It was passed by 315 MPs to 306 votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7449268.stm

Let's hope it gets thrown back to the commons from the other place.

[paul wright]

[onetruevoice]

I accept that people are universally opposed to the Bill on this particular thread, but what do people think that the REAL motive for the 42 days' detention is ?

Apart from a vague "attack on our liberties", what would it achieve for the government, if we are looking at this from a "conspiratorial" viewpoint - ie. that the "War on Terror" is largely a myth ?

I'm interested to know what the "real motive" might be - any theories please ?

[karlos]

this is truly dispicable
they bribed the Ulster Unionists into voting Labour

£3000 per day to stay in jail, not a bad deal
two weeks £42,000
might even be worth getting nicked

did you read that statistic that 40,000 inmates had refused early release prefering to stay in custody

this terror law will be used for striking workers and for all sorts of non terror stuff, in some areas councils have been using terror laws to spy on parents wanting to send their kids to different schools
Basically 42 days means if arrested and held without charge you will lose your job and much else. Really as the conservatives have consistently argued there was never any problem holding people longer. You simply go to court every seven days and tell the judge you want to hold this person and a person can be held on remand for several months if not years. Now they can hold for 42 without even a shred of evidence and it really is an affront to a civilised country.
On the news it says this is the longest summary detention period in the WHOLE WORLD. Even in countries with appaling human rights record like Israel have to prent a prima-facie case in front of a magistrate.

[kbo234]

The intelligence services are desperate for more 'terrorists'.

They need to be generating 3 or 4 news stories per week to feed the matrix and keep the majority believing in the bull*hit that is the 'War on Terror'.

Perhaps they think this development will enrage a few more schizos who will soon be dropping like ripe plums into their web to further fuel their propaganda machine.

[Linda]

The Labour MPs are spineless A**oles who voted today.

The only terrorists are the Government, they are the ones that should be locked up permanently without charge.

They terrorised Iraq with cluster bombs killing thousands of innocent civilians
They will never be brought to justice.

All they want to do is create FEAR in the public by saying we are a nation under threat of terrorism.

[Mark Gobell]

I thought it was supposed to be Al Qaeda that hated our freedoms?

So why is our own government further eroding them ?

Amnesty International UK's response:

[acrobat74]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/millions-planning-%a33000- 'i'm-a-terrorist'-scam-200806121015

[Mark Gobell]

Excellent laugh. Cheers.

I must admit I was thinking the same when I read of the 3 grand a day scheme.

All you'd need to do is hatch a plan so devastatingly complicated that it would take plod 42 days to track down all your contacts, emails, multiple mobile phone records, fall ill while in custody, keep changing your story, feign madness etc etc and cash in.

£3,000 per day for every day over 28 days that's 14 x £3,000 = £42,000 multiplied by the plot hatchsters !

I feel a business plan coming on . . .

Joviality aside.

Just to remind everyone, the government doesn't have any money of it's own.

The funds for this despicable bribe is actually our money.

Now if those New Labour scum and DUP scum and Anne Widdecombe scum who voted for this bill were to have the £3,000 a day taken from the salaries and the expenses that we pay them for eroding our freedoms, would the outcome have been different?

[TonyGosling]

Nice lists Mark,

But don't you have a 'Quislings' list of all the self-seeking New Labour traitors who voted FOR the 42 day internment law in the desperate hope of future wealth and power for themselves?

This whole grimy police state business was of course all driven by the virtually Masonic 'Association of Chief Police Officers'

[Mark Gobell]

[karlos]

6 weeks without charge and without evidence and without access to a solicitor means we are a facist state.

From watching Shami several times i do get the feeling she is another managed opposition.
I have not heard her defend peoples rights at all wholeheartedly.
I dont want to play the race card but she is possibly anti Muslim herself.
At least she seems to be very compliant to Labour policies.

1200 people are being held right now i believe. With only a handful of convictions so far. All for thought crimes rather than actual events.

Anne Widdecombe is scum. A bitter nasty twisted spinster.
She like Blair switched codes because she was against female vicars.
She is rabidly Islamophobic.
She opposed Michael Howard when he was her boss.
Now she is the only Tory to cross the lobby.
A bitter nasty twisted spinster.

[Jayhawk]

Dont you like Anne Widdecombe then?

[blackcat]

She may be bitter nasty and twisted Karlos but her marital status is irrelevant. Bitter, nasty twisted housewife and mother doesn't have the same effect though does it? Putting the word spinster with bitter twisted and nasty reveals a tad of prejudice I think.

[paul wright]

[Sinclair]

The Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 also contains the Clauses 65 measure, which relate to the holding of coroners' inquests without a jury and/or family member present (secret inquests) & also Clause 67 - the government appointment of specially selected coroners. Neither of these measures have been commented upon at any length.

Along with '42-day pre-charge detention', the amendment orders to remove the measures in Clauses 65 & 67 of the Bill, were defeated (i.e. the measures stay in. We have the House of Lords to raise their objection & bat the subject back to the House of Commons). The Clause 65 amendment was defeated by 310-287 & the Clause 67 amendment order by 331-269. (Details of how your MP voted from the links here).


Watch the House of Commons debate, from the evening of 10/6/08, on Clause 65 - the holding of coroners' inquests without a jury and/or family member present (secret inquests) here.

In the debate it is intimated that the Clause 65 (& 67) measures are apparently required by the government to deal with 'one particular case' - the de Menezes inquest case (which has been opened then was immediately deferred), but, of course, the nefarious measures would also apply to any/all of the inquests into the July 7th 2005 victims.

Note that none of the July 7th victims' inquests have been concluded.


The existing coroners inquest system already allows for a coroner to invoke Public Interest Immunity (PII) procedured in cases where 'National Security' information cannot publically be divulged.

But ask yourself this:
Under what circumstances - WHY and HOW would 'National Security' be compromised in such an inquest into a July 7th victim?

Why are the government so keen to implement secret inquests headed by specially selected/appointed coroners?

What 'national Security' issues would be revealed by an investigation under the existing coroners inquest system?



More info on this subject is at the J7 Blog & the J7 Forum.