| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: Gordon NWO Brown to announce new terror plans |
 |
|
From the BBC
| Quote: | Wednesday, 14 November 2007, 10:41 GMT
Brown to unveil anti-terror plans
Gordon Brown is to announce measures to give better protection against terror attacks on rail stations, airports, shopping centres and sports stadiums.
Security minister Lord West was asked to draw up the plans in July.
However, ahead of the announcement Lord West was at the centre of confusion on detention limits for terror suspects.
He told the BBC initially he was not convinced about extending the limit beyond 28 days - but then said he was convinced after talks in No 10.
During the Today programme interview at 0810, former Admiral Lord West said he wanted "to have absolute evidence that we actually need longer than 28 days".
'Complex plots'
"I want to be totally convinced because I am not going to go and push for something that actually affects the liberty of the individual unless there is a real necessity for it."
But then at 0930, after a half-hour meeting with Mr Brown, the peer told the BBC he was "personally convinced" that the 28-day limit needed extending.
Lord West
There is no doubt there are very real threats, that the design in the past of certain buildings and certain places does not make it easy to counter a terrorist attack on them
Lord West
Security Minister
"I personally, absolutely believe that within the next two or three years we will require more than that for one of those complex plots," he said.
Tories, Lib Dems and some Labour MPs plan to try to block the move to raise the limit, saying there is no evidence change is needed.
Lord West's comments came as Mr Brown prepares to outline the conclusions of the peer's review into strengthening security in crowded public areas and designing anti-terror features in new buildings and projects.
Mr Brown will also unveil more details of the planned border force combining immigration, customs and visa staff and a relaxation of air luggage rules.
Ahead of the statement he said that there would be "some inconvenience in what we propose", but this needed to be balanced with protection of liberties and minimising the inconvenience to passengers in our airports.
Vigilance
Lord West told Today that he started his brief "on the premise that what we mustn't do is the terrorists' job for them".
"Yes, there is a great risk, we've got to be vigilant - but we need to make sure we conduct our normal way of life in terms of business, work, pleasure, all these things," he said.
"There is no doubt there are very real threats, that the design in the past of certain buildings and certain places does not make it easy to counter a terrorist attack on them.
"If a bomb goes off, we have actually built into them the shrapnel that will kill and injure people and we can actually do things to make this better.
"We very clearly, from now on, must always make sure we design in counter terrorism measures as we do counter crime measures."
'Cancer of terrorism'
The peer said he and his team had looked at how to protect existing buildings, by redesigning road layouts, putting in barriers and using specific types of glass.
He said Britain "can spend the national wealth on protecting ourselves and trying to chase these criminals down".
But none of the measures would be effective without "exorcising this cancer of terrorism", by "stopping the radicalisation of our youth" - a measure the prime minister is expected to update MPs on.
Details of the unified border force, first announced by Mr Brown in July, are also due to be outlined on Wednesday.
A study led by the Cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, considered whether it should include police officers as well as those from the Border and Immigration Agency, Customs and the overseas UK Visa operations.
Writing in the Sun newspaper, he said: "Terrorism can hit us anywhere from any place.
"But just as the terrorists use every method and the very freedoms we enjoy to kill or maim people, so we must also adopt new tools to beat the terrorists, secure our borders and create a safe global society." |
You can listen again to this morning's Today radio 4 interview with our unelected "Security Minister" Lord "we don't need 56 days, yes we do" West here
The previous anti-terror legislation, the Terrorism Act 2006, came into force on 13.4.6 - that's 1 day and 19 months ago.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
This whole news story has been generated to cover up the fact that illegal immigrants have been employed by security companies to protect government buildings.
If there really was a 'war on terror' and there isn't, they would just give security jobs to any tom dick or harry who happened to be walking past a building.
In the early 1980's when jobs were really hard to come by, Give us A Job became a catchphrase. Now its are you an illegal, heres a security job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whilst refusing to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran, our esteemed neo-con marionette, issues forth:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13757.asp
| Quote: | Mr Speaker, in advance of the National Security Strategy which will be published in the next few weeks - and following the statement by the head of MI5 about the potential threat from UK-based terrorists - I want to update the House, as I promised in July, on the measures we are taking at home -following the incidents on June 29th and 30th - both to root out terrorism and to strengthen the resilience of communities to resist extremist influence ----- measures that to succeed will require not just military and security resources but more policing and intelligence, and an enhanced effort to win hearts and minds.
And let me first of all thank the police, the security services and the armed forces for their vigilance, their service and their courage in facing up to the terrorist threat.
Mr Speaker, the terrorist attacks in June revolved around an attempted bomb attack on a London venue where hundreds congregated and a vehicle bomb attack on Glasgow airport. The conclusions today of the review by the Noble Lord West on the protection of strategic infrastructure, stations, ports and airports - and of other crowded places - identifies a need to step up physical protection against possible vehicle bomb attacks. This will include, where judged necessary, improved security at railway stations - focusing first on those of our 250 busiest stations most at risk - and at airport terminals, ports and over one hundred sensitive installations.
The report proposes the installation of robust physical barriers as protection against vehicle bomb attacks, the nomination of vehicle exclusion zones to keep all but authorised vehicles at a safe distance, and making buildings blast resistant.
While no major failures in our protective security have been identified, companies responsible for crowded places will now be given updated and more detailed advice on how they can improve their resilience against attack, both by better physical protection and greater vigilance in identifying suspicious behaviour.
New guidance will be sent to thousands of cinemas, theatres, restaurants, hotels, sporting venues and commercial centres, and all hospitals, schools and places of worship - and this will include advice on training staff to be more vigilant
Up to 160 counter-terrorism advisers will train civilian staff to identify suspect activity and to ensure premises have secure emergency exits, CCTV footage used to best effect, and regular searches and evacuation drills. From now on, local authorities will be required as part of their performance framework to assess the measures they have taken to protect against terrorism.
We will now work with architects and planners to encourage them to 'design-in' protective security measures into new buildings, including safe areas, traffic control measures and the use of blast resistant materials -- and on this I am grateful for the recommendations of the Hon Member for Newark, whom I thank.
And following further work we will report back soon on what more we need to do to strengthen security to protect against the use of hazardous substances for terrorist purposes.
Mr Speaker, just as we are constantly vigilant to the ways in which we can tighten our security, so too we must ensure that the travelling public are able to go about their business in the normal way.
In the most sensitive locations, for example some large rail stations - and whilst doing everything to avoid inconvenience to passengers - we are planning additional screening of baggage and passenger searches.
But in the last few months at key airports there has already been additional investment in new screening capacity and we have been able to review the one-bag per passenger rule. The Transport Secretary is announcing today that as soon as we are confident that airports are able to handle additional baggage safely, these restrictions on hand baggage will be progressively lifted. Starting with several airports in the new year, we will work with airport operators to ensure all UK airports are in a position to allow passengers to fly with more than one item of hand luggage.
Mr Speaker the security budget - which is two and a half billion pounds this year - will rise to three and a half billion pounds in 2011.
Because of the terrorist threat, the size of the security service - which was under 2,000 in 2001 and is 3,300 now - will rise beyond 4,000, twice the size of 2001.
I can report that we have now constituted dedicated regional counter terrorism units - with in total more than 2000 police and support staff - responsible for overseeing investigations into those who recruit terrorists and promote hate.
From the Home Office budget, from now until 2011, an additional £240 million pounds will finance counter terrorism policing - focused as much on preventing the next generation of terrorists as pursuing current targets. And this will include additional funding for further training of our 3,500 neighbourhood police teams to deal with radicalisation in their local communities.
The scale of our international effort is such that around £400 million pounds over the next three years will be invested through the Foreign Office, DfID and the British Council to tackle radicalisation and promote understanding overseas. And the Government will report back on action overseas with other countries to counter extremism when we launch the National Security Strategy.
I can confirm £70 million pounds is being invested in community projects devoted to countering violent extremism.
So in total we are now investing nearly three times as much in security now compared with 6 years ago.
Mr Speaker, in line with the measured way we responded to the terrorist incidents in June, we will only seek new powers that are essential to the fight against terrorism.
I can tell the House that in the forthcoming Counter Terrorism Bill - to be introduced shortly - there will be stronger sentences for terrorist-related offences and, where terrorists have served sentences, new powers for the police to continue to monitor their activities.
Asset freezing is an important tool in the fight against terrorists buying weapons or using money for terrorist purposes. Sophisticated evidence gathering of financial transactions can both deny terrorists finance and locate the sources of terrorists plots. Current legislation makes it difficult for us to take preventative action, so the new Bill will give us new powers to ensure we can use all available information to pursue those who finance terrorist attacks.
In addition to measures to process terrorist cases more efficiently and reduce the time between arrest and trial - including 14 new specially protected courtrooms - a single senior Judge has been nominated to manage all terrorism cases. And there will also be a single senior lead prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service responsible for cases relating to inciting violent extremism.
Mr Speaker, to ensure we protect our borders and detect possible terrorist suspects, members of the new UK Border Agency will have the power, from January next year, to detain people not just on suspicion of immigration offences or for customs crime but also for other criminal activity including terrorism. Powers are also being given to airline liaison officers to cancel visas where justified.
In line with my statement of July, there will be one single primary checkpoint for both passport control and customs; and the UK Border Agency - which will have 25,000 staff - will now apply controls at points of entry and exit on people and goods, into and out of the UK, as well as working throughout the world.
The new Agency will enable us to transfer intelligence from UK operations overseas to those making visa decisions, and to check biometrics taken from visa applicants against criminal and counter-terrorism records. Further details of the new Border Agency - which has been welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers - are published in the Cabinet Office report issued today.
This will go hand in hand with what is increasingly necessary - biometric visas for all applicants from March next year, biometric ID cards for foreign nationals introduced from the end of 2008, and a strengthening of the E-borders programme, with the contract to incorporate all passenger information awarded today.
Having agreed repatriation arrangements for foreign terrorist suspects with Jordan, Lebanon and Algeria, work is underway with a number of additional countries with a view to signing new agreements. In addition to the nine foreign nationals recently deported under immigration powers on grounds of national security, a further 24 foreign nationals are currently subject to deportation proceedings on national security grounds. And 4000 foreign prisoners are likely to be deported this year.
Mr Speaker, all faith communities in the UK make a huge contribution in all spheres of our national life and are integral to our success as a society. And as we found - listening to all communities in June - the vast majority of people, of all faiths and backgrounds, condemn terrorists and their actions.
But the objective of Al Qaeda and related groups is to manipulate political and humanitarian issues in order to gain support for their agenda of murder and violence --- and to deliberately maim and kill fellow human beings, including innocent women and children. We must not allow anyone to use terrorist activities as a means to divide us or isolate those belonging to a particular faith or community.
And to deal with the challenge posed by this terrorist threat we have to do more, working with communities:
* First to challenge extremist propaganda and support alternative voices;
* Second, to disrupt the promoters of violent extremism by strengthening our institutions and supporting individuals who may be being targeted;
* Third, to increase the capacity of communities to resist and reject violent extremism;
* And fourth, to address issues of concern exploited by ideologues and where by emphasising our shared values across communities we can both celebrate and act upon what unites us.
This will be achieved not by one single programme or initiative and it won't be achieved overnight. This is a generational challenge which requires sustained work over the long term and by a range of actions in schools, colleges, universities, faith groups and youth clubs; by engaging young people through the media, culture, sport and arts; and by acting against extremist influences operating on the internet and in institutions including prisons, universities and some places of worship.
As part of intensifying measures to isolate extremism, a new unit bringing together police and security intelligence and research will identify, analyse and assess not just the inner circle of extremist groups but those at risk of falling under their influence -- and share their advice and insights.
Building on initial roadshows of mainstream Islamic scholarship around the country, which have attracted over 70,000 young people, and an internet site which has reached far more, we will sponsor at home and abroad, including for the first time in Pakistan, a series of national and local events to counter extremist propaganda. The next stage will draw upon the work commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council, Kings College and the Royal Society for Arts on how best to deal with radicalisation both at home and abroad.
One central issue is how to balance extremist views supporting terrorism which appear on the internet and media. The Home Secretary is inviting the largest global technology and internet companies to work together to ensure that our best technical expertise is galvanised to counter online incitement to hatred. I also welcome the decision by the Royal Television Society and Society of Newspaper Editors to hold a conference and regional debates on how to ensure accurate and balanced reporting of issues related to terrorism in the media.
To ensure charities are not exploited by extremists, a new unit in the Charity Commission will strengthen governance and accountability.
A specialist unit in the Prisons Service will be tasked with stopping extremists using prison networks to plot future activities. And because young people in the criminal justice system are especially vulnerable to extremist influences, we are making further funding available through the Youth Justice Board, the National Offenders Management Service and the many voluntary agencies that work with young people in trouble to support young people who may be targeted for recruitment by extremist groups.
Following evidence that some of those involved in promoting violent extremism have made use of outdoor activity centres and sports facilities, we are working with Sport England to provide guidance for the sector to ensure that these facilities are not abused.
Backed up by a new website to share best practice, a new board of experts will advise local authorities, local councillors and local communities on tackling radicalization and those promoting hate.
We have had mosques in the UK for more than a hundred years, serving local communities well. And these communities tell me that mosques have a much wider role beyond their core spiritual purpose in providing services, educating young people and building cohesion - and the majority already work hard to reject violent extremism. As the newly constituted Mosques and Imams National Advisory Body recognises however, the governance of mosques could be strengthened to help serve communities better and challenge those who fuel hate.
Our consultations with Muslim communities emphasise the importance of the training of imams, including English language requirements --- and the Secretary for Communities will be announcing an independent review to examine with communities how to build the capacity of Islamic seminaries, learning from other faith communities as well as experience overseas.
In addition to updated advice for universities on how to deal with extremism on campus, the Secretary for Skills and the Higher Education Minister will later this month invite universities to lead a debate on how we maintain academic freedom whilst ensuring that extremists can never stifle debate or impose their views. And we will now consult also on how to support further education colleges.
And the Secretary of State for Culture is working with the museums, libraries and archives council to agree a common approach to deal with inflammatory and extremist material that some seek to distribute through public libraries, whilst also protecting freedom of speech.
We know that young people of school age can be exposed to extremist messages. The Secretary of State for Children will be convening a new forum of headteachers to advise on what more we can do together to protect young people and build bridges across communities.
To ensure young people have the opportunity to learn about diversity and faith in modern Britain, we will work in partnership with religious education teachers to promote the national framework for teaching religious education in schools including making sure children learn about all faiths.
An advisory group will work with local communities to promote the citizenship education classes run by mosque schools in Bradford and elsewhere.
And I can announce that one essential part of this will be to twin schools of different faiths with our new £2 million pound school linking programme, supported by a new national website and School Linking Network.
I am also announcing today a youth panel to advise the Government --- learning from youth projects like the Youth Debating Circles in Birmingham, Tag TV in Tower Hamlets, the 'Extreme News' educational website in Oldham and the Green Light Project's 'one stop' website in Dudley which all enable young people to debate and discuss issues of concern - as does the work of the Youth Parliament who have been running debates about the impact of terrorism on young people.
And we are sponsoring and encouraging a series of national and local mentoring programmes for young people:
* A Business In The Community Muslim mentoring programme linking 100 young people with professional mentors and role models;
* New leadership training sponsored by Common Purpose, the Karimia Institute, Crime Concern and Muslim Hands;
* And local youth leadership schemes in Blackburn, Waltham Forest, Leeds and in partnership with Tottenham Hotspur football club in Haringey.
After discussion with Muslim women, a new advisory group has been set up by the Secretary for Communities. This will advise on the access of women to mosques and their management committees.
Mr Speaker, it is by seeking to build on shared interests and shared values that we will isolate extremists and foster understanding across faiths. Following the recent remarkable letter by 138 Muslim scholars - from a diversity of traditions within Islam - which paid tribute to the common roots of Islam, Christianity and Judaism and called for deeper dialogue, we stand ready to support in Britain new facilities for multi-faith scholarship, research and dialogue. A green paper will be published to encourage interfaith groups to come together in every constituency of the country. I am also inviting the Higher Education Funding Council to investigate the idea of setting up in Britain a European Centre of Excellence for Islamic studies.
And in addition to joint work with the French and German governments on building an appreciation of Islamic and Muslim heritage across Europe, the Arts Council England, Tate Gallery, Victoria and Albert Museum and British Library will all be taking forward projects to promote greater understanding of the contribution of Islam to European history and culture.
And just as the British Council is connecting young people across the world through school twinning and volunteering exchanges, I am announcing that we will finance a rising number of young people from all communities to volunteer overseas.
Finally Mr Speaker, the intercept review will report in January, we believe a consensus now exists on post-charge questioning and the Home Secretary is beginning a new round of consultations with parties and communities on detailed proposals on pre-charge detention where we believe we can establish a cross-party consensus.
Mr Speaker, there is no greater priority than the safety and security of our people and building the strongest possible relationships across all faiths and communities --- and I believe it possible to build a stronger consensus that will both root out terrorist extremism and build more vibrant and cohesive communities.
And I commend this statement to the House. |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even has NWO in his name...
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | This whole news story has been generated to cover up the fact that illegal immigrants have been employed by security companies to protect government buildings.
If there really was a 'war on terror' and there isn't, they would just give security jobs to any tom dick or harry who happened to be walking past a building.
In the early 1980's when jobs were really hard to come by, Give us A Job became a catchphrase. Now its are you an illegal, heres a security job. |
Perfect for a Mossad or Sayanims to pose as false flag muslim security terrorists
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
From The Sunday Times
November 18, 2007
| Quote: | It’s one small step from Brown’s paranoid state into a police one
Simon Jenkins
Britain is not a police state but a nation with police state tendencies. In any democracy the dictates of freedom wrestle with those of security. Britons are a liberal people who want to be safe. Do they also want to live in a condition of perpetual paranoia?
In his five months of power, Gordon Brown has shown himself a tentative, uncertain leader, reluctant to confront admirals, bankers, property developers, American presidents, and now his own security apparatus. This final weakness is the most dangerous.
Under the same “fortress Britain” rubric as Tony Blair, his predecessor, Brown last week initiated a sudden and extraordinary set of measures curbing liberty in the name of security. They involve extending the present eccentric luggage checks at airports to 250 “strategic” train stations as well as to ferry ports, sports stadiums and other places of public resort.
A further 100 “sensitive” installations such as power stations and petrol plants are to be reconfigured against suicide car bombs. Architects are to redesign public buildings as blast resistant (and presumably windowless) on their lower storeys. Brown is insistent that security demands British citizens be subject to detention without trial, charge or even explanation for up to 56 days.
The public realm is here being medievalised at the bidding of Osama Bin Laden. According to the civil rights group Liberty, the 56-day infringement of habeas corpus compares with a maximum of one day in Canada and two days in America and Germany. The British limit is already 28 days and there is no evidence that this has impeded counterterrorism. The 56-day proposal is rather a display of machismo and a leitmotif of loyalty to the prime minister.
The steady extension of discretionary detention 56 represents a collapse in democracy’s ability to curb the repressive tendencies in any security regime. It suggests a drift towards banana republicanism, towards regimes that survive on perpetual states of emergency, in thrall to some bullying police chief or paranoid spymaster.
It was Blair who said, extraordinarily, that it would be irresponsible of him not to do “whatever the police asked”. In 2005, aided by Charles Clarke, his home secretary, he ran scare stories that state security might demand the incarceration of up to 1,500 “known” terrorists uncharged for 90 days. John Reid, Clarke’s foolish successor, went further and claimed that Al-Qaeda’s threat to Britain was “worse than Hitler’s”.
Earlier this month Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, made a Downing Street-approved speech telling of 2,000 “known terrorists” who were “grooming” young people and children as suicide bombers “as I speak”. Evans did not explain why he had arrested none of them even for the permitted 28 days. The scaremongering was a crude prelude to a demand for more powers and resources.
This is not responsible government. Yet on the advice of a self-confessed “simple sailor” security adviser, Admiral Lord West, Brown is now to encircle Britain with an “e-border”. All comers and goers are to be electronically recorded and asked to supply addresses, phone numbers and computer details, up to 53 items of personal information. Officials are to be given powers to revoke visitor visas at immigration desks without appeal. It will make America’s draconian immigration control seem like open house.
Given the fallibility of government computers � the new e-border one is to cost an astronomical £650m � getting into, out of and about Britain will change from inconvenient to sheer hell. If a Brazilian, de Menezes, can be shot for looking Arabic and a normal Briton in a diabetic fit be Tasered and manacled for “looking Egyptian”, the mind boggles at the accidents waiting to happen.
To the health-and-safety regulariat is now to be added a terrorism one. Whitehall’s 450 counterterrorism officials (doing what all day?) are to be reinforced with hundreds more to run courses in terrorist detection for all staff in cinemas, theatres, hotels and shopping centres. They will be told how to control car stopping distances, the location of bollards and barriers and the use of CCTV. A new chain of bombproofed courtrooms is to be built to try the terrorist hordes. A new prosecutor is to be appointed to deal with hate speech and incitement.
The principle that a free democracy requires some personal risk to both VIPs and ordinary mortals has vanished in an avalanche of police overtime and equipment salesmanship. Security-obsessed officials and blame-averse ministers simply give in to any safety argument and pay up, citing the last bomb blast. It is the equivalent of closing all motorways because 3,000 people a year die on the roads.
At a recent Whitehall conference on “civil risk”, officials compared various threats to life and property. Top were motorway pile-ups, industrial explosions, fires, floods and food contaminations, along with the dissemination of drugs and organised crime. A terrorist bomb was way down the priority list, yet it was c***-of-the-walk for attention and resources. The mere mention sent ministers berserk.
The threat from an Islamist bomb clearly requires new types of policing from that applied to the IRA or to anarchist groups in the 1970s and 1980s. Militant Islamism is challenging in its ideology and its hold on particular ethnic groups. But with a few stark exceptions, the threat is amateur and apparently easier to stifle than previous ones. It calls for more intelligent community policing.
The explosion of a deadly bomb is always possible in an open society enjoying freedom of movement. It does not “threaten the nation” or destabilise its freedoms unless government so decides, in Brown’s case by altering the social, legal and physical infrastructure of the nation. Ministers seem unaware of this distinction. In capitulating to the terrorism industry they capitulate to the terrorist.
Were a Tory government introducing these measures, Jack Straw, Peter Hain, Harriet Harman and others would be howling about dictatorship. Instead they mutter “national security” and “if you knew what I know” and avert their eyes in shame. They are only obeying orders.
The result has reopened a division in British politics between what Isaiah Berlin called negative and positive concepts of freedom. The first is freedom to pursue individual liberty without interference by superior authority. The second is an enforced freedom to be safe and sound under a beneficent state. The latter is “owned”, defined and imposed from above and is mostly phoney, represented in Berlin’s day by Soviet communism. It lives on as a statist gene within the British Establishment.
Hence Blair would talk of the civil right to be safe from being blown up or threatened by Saddam Hussein as “overriding” the civil rights of an alleged terrorist. Brown has joined the same intellectual fraternity. Frightened of being depicted as “soft on terror”, he does not plead the cause of freedom against a demand for more police powers.
One remarkable consequence has been to end the customary response at Westminster, that “national security” justifies anything proposed by government. That line is no longer bought without question by the media, peers, Labour backbenchers (other than the most cringing) and even the Tory party.
Indeed Brown has pulled off a remarkable coup in unearthing a libertarian conscience within modern Conservatism. David Davis, the Tory home affairs spokesman, usually a walking-talking police state, admits he can find “no evidence whatsoever” of the need for 56 days’ detention. For once the Tories are on the side of liberty’s angels. They must stay there if the government’s fifth antiterrorism law in office is not to be followed by many more. The boundary is a fine one between a paranoid state and a police one.
The job of the security services is to propose to government what they think will make Britain as safe as the grave. The job of politicians is to put such proposals to the test of proportionality, value for money and civil liberty. It is now moot whether Britain’s politicians are up to that job.
simon.jenkins@sunday-times.co.uk |
You can add your comments here
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | MI5 chief to brief MPs on terror
MI5 chief Jonathan Evans will brief MPs as part of their inquiry into the government's counter-terror proposals.
The Home Affairs select committee is studying ideas including extending the time a terrorist suspect can be held without charge beyond 28 days.
The MI5 director-general is expected to say the security service will not make any recommendation on the issue as it does not have power to arrest suspects.
He is likely to outline the nature and evolution of the terrorism threat.
Railway security
The meeting is an informal private briefing rather than a formal session for giving evidence.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is attempting to win a cross-party consensus for extending the 28-day limit, which is currently opposed by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
Last week, Mr Brown also announced plans to step up security at railway stations, airports and ports as part of government attempts to tackle terrorism.
From next year there will be new security barriers, vehicle exclusion zones and blast resistant buildings, and rail travellers face having their luggage screened at large stations.
Building design
Mr Brown said improved security would be brought in at 250 railway stations, plus airports, ports and more than 100 other sensitive locations.
Guidance on how to keep people safe would be sent to thousands of cinemas, theatres, restaurants, hotels, sporting venues and commercial centres, and all hospitals, schools and places of worship.
Architects would be encourage to design better security in new buildings, such as blast-resistant materials, safe areas and traffic control measures.
The proposals followed a review by Security Minister Lord West. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7104891.stm
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Goldsmith doubts 90-day detention
Lord Goldsmith says he has not seen evidence to support extension
The attorney general says he is not convinced the government should extend the detention of terror suspects without charge beyond 28 days.
Lord Goldsmith said he had seen no evidence to support such an extension.
He spoke after Tony Blair said he still backed plans for an extension to 90 days, despite its defeat by MPs.
Tory shadow home secretary David Davis said Lord Goldsmith's comments showed "unequivocally" that the Tories had been right to oppose the 90-day plans.
A Downing Street spokeswoman refused to say anything about Lord Goldsmith's comments.
Plans defeated
Lord Goldsmith said: "The recent investigations demonstrate that it was right to extend the period to 28 days, but on extending it any further we need evidence to demonstrate that that is needed."
Last year, the Commons voted down the government's plans to bring in a 90-day limit on detentions, with MPs and peers eventually settling on 28 days. Previously, the limit had been 14 days.
The attorney general has confirmed that there is absolutely no evidence to justify the government's case
David Davis,
Shadow home secretary
The prime minister has said he remains in favour of a longer detention period, as asked for by police, but wants to proceed by consensus.
And on Sunday, Home Secretary John Reid said he would consider extending the time limit if police presented enough evidence to support it.
Mr Davis told BBC News: "What the attorney general is saying is, what we thought all along, that there's no evidence there to argue for more and that 28 days, as it stands, is sufficient."
Ministers were seeking the extension "for party-political advantage rather than making the public safer", he added.
The BBC's Reeta Chakrabarti said that, if the issue returned to Parliament, the words of the attorney general would make it much more difficult for Mr Blair to change the minds of MPs who were already sceptical.
Post-charge interviews
But Lord Goldsmith did raise the prospect of the questioning of suspects after charge.
He said that, if post-charge interviews were introduced, there would be safeguards to ensure suspects were not "browbeaten time and time again" by police interviewers.
Such interviews would not be restricted to terror suspects, but people suspected of other crimes as well.
"While terrorism is top of the agenda I don't think that it needs to be restricted to that," he said.
Lord Goldsmith also said work was continuing to find a way in which telephone intercept evidence could be used in court without compromising the sources of the material and the methods used.
Earlier, Mr Reid said he had yet to see any evidence to support the introduction of phone-tap evidence in court cases
Lord Carlile, the government appointed expert who oversees terrorism laws, has said he expects new anti-terror measures, possibly including an extension of detention to 90 days, to be published early next year.
|
Ditto Ken MacDonald Head of CPS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6162946.stm
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: Extension of internment dead in the water? |
|
|
Some good news for a change!!!!
DPP opposes extending 28-day detention limit
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor - 22/11/2007
Gordon Brown's proposals to extend the pre-charge detention limit for terrorist suspects appear to be dead in the water.
Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, both told MPs yesterday that they saw no reason to justify the proposed extension.
The Prime Minister wants to use the forthcoming Terrorism Bill to increase the length of time that police can question suspects without either charging or releasing them. He is seeking an extension from 28 days to more than 50 days.
Sir Ken told the Commons home affairs select committee that he had not asked for an increase..................
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor the last attorney general have seen the evidence to go beyond 28 days."
He added: "Terrorism will be defeated by good intelligence, professional policing and the rigorous application of British justice, not by unnecessary incursions into the freedoms and rights that British subjects have had for centuries."
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: "This is yet another devastating blow to arguments for extending pre-charge detention."
Earlier, MPs on the select committee received a briefing on the present terror threat given by Jonathan Evans, the director general of MI5.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/22/ndpp12 2.xml
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's some strange mind control going on here.
The loss of the two dvds seem to damage the case for id cards because the governmental departments are too incompetent in protecting personal information.
In fact what the governmental departments want to do is share as much info with as many powerful organisations as possible.
What's happening at the moment is the demonisation and engineered downfall of the Brown cabal and the British Pound
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Watchdog to challenge 50-day detention limit
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 3:05am GMT 24/11/2007
New laws to lock up terror suspects for 50 days or more without charge face an unprecedented court challenge from the country's human rights watchdog.
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the new Equality and Human Rights Commission, told The Daily Telegraph that he was ready to use his statutory powers to seek a judicial review of the proposals.
As the row over the Government's plans escalated yesterday, he said they would need to show the measure was proportionate and not likely to lead to discrimination.
Mr Phillips has been given authority by Parliament to consider the impact of legislation on civil liberties and minority groups.
''We have the capacity to go to court if we think that the policy is likely to be discriminatory,'' he said.
Gordon Brown wants to extend the pre-charge detention limit beyond 28 days but is facing growing opposition.
Mr Phillips said the issue was far more fundamental than an auction between political parties about how long someone can be detained. He believed it went to the core of "what it means to be British" and live in a country where people were not prey to arbitrary state power.
Mr Phillips said the Government would have to advance strong arguments that detaining someone for two months without charge was justified.
He said he did not doubt there was a real threat from terrorism, but the response had to be proportionate and based on evidence.
"This is the central thing that has defined Britain: that the individual is not here to be bullied by authority," he said. "It is our job to protect the human against the bureaucrat."
He said he was not making a judgment until the new counter-terror Bill, due before Christmas, was published.
"But we are the human rights authority and we have certain powers that might allow us to interfere with the passage of the Bill. I don't think we can stop any new provisions but we could certainly make it very difficult."
He added: "When you are talking about depriving people of their liberties - these [liberties] are the reasons why people come to this country.
"These are the kinds of things that mark out Britain and mean we should never be Pakistan, for example.
"Competence is also important. The Government may give lots of reassurances about how this is going to be done.
"But what we have seen - like the Stockwell shooting - gives me great pause for thought about whether whatever system is put forward will work effectively.
"There is no certainty that if we are going to deprive people of their liberty that the system will ensure we are depriving the right person."
Yesterday Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, became the latest senior figure in the criminal justice system to join the attack.
He said ministers and the police had still not produced proof to show that a change was needed. "I, like very many other people, have not been convinced by the evidence put forward for increasing the period," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=WOH55QT2PMLSDQFI QMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/11/24/nterr124.xml
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Earlier this month Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, made a Downing Street-approved speech telling of 2,000 “known terrorists” who were “grooming” young people and children as suicide bombers “as I speak”. Evans did not explain why he had arrested none of them even for the permitted 28 days. The scaremongering was a crude prelude to a demand for more powers and resources. |
The utter illogic exposed yet the RED carpet continues to be rolled out.
Bolshevicks killed 100,000,000 in Soviet. How many here will it be?
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Independent
| Quote: | Dobson leads heavyweight revolt against detention without charge
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 08 December 2007
The former health secretary Frank Dobson is rallying opposition among Labour MPs for a full-scale revolt against Gordon Brown's proposal to allow suspected terrorists to be detained without charge for up to 42 days.
Mr Dobson, chairman of the Labour backbench civil liberties group, is a supporter of Mr Brown but is determined to stop the measure which he believes will undermine basic rights laid down in the Magna Carta.
He has organised a meeting for the 49 Labour dissidents who voted against the proposal to extend detention without charge to 90 days when Tony Blair suffered his first Commons defeat. The group has been whittled down by appointments to the lower rungs of the ministerial ladder in the Brown government, but the meeting will give the whips a clear warning of the size of the revolt ahead.
"Even George 'Guantanamo Bay' Bush has got only 48 hours' detention without charge in the United States and yet we have already got detention without charge for 28 days. I think that is quite enough," said Mr Dobson. "We have already got the longest period of detention without charge in the democratic world. I cannot see any reason for making it longer. I have been the principal advocate for allowing suspects to be interviewed after being charged. That should be sufficient."
Mr Dobson's opposition to the measure outlined by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, will cause alarm among the whips who had been hoping to avoid a major rebellion. Ms Smith will appear before the Commons Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday to appeal to it to support 42-days' detention before it delivers its report on the legislation.
In a letter to fellow dissidents calling the meeting for Tuesday, Mr Dobson says he wants to "see what we can do to persuade ministers to accept an alternative to a further extension which we can all support".
The dissidents are also expected to include Mark Fisher, a former arts minister. John McDonnell, the chairman of the left-wing Campaign Group of Labour MPs, said in a GMTV interview to be broadcast tomorrow that a number of Labour MPs were "quite angry" because the Prime Minister had "bounced" them into the proposal. "Most of us thought those discussions were still going on and we'd meet after Christmas and then we'd arrive at a consensus." |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
| Quote: | 42-day detention plan attacked as constitutionally illiterate
· Critics say Commons vote could come too late
· Home Office insists MPs would be able to say no
Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Saturday December 8, 2007
The Guardian
Proposals to extend the limit for pre-charge detention to 42 days are "constitutionally illiterate" as well as dangerous, critics warned yesterday, because proper parliamentary scrutiny would confuse the roles of MPs and judges.
The former attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned that such examination by MPs would be difficult, adding: "I think parliamentary scrutiny is hugely important and one of the great things we have in this country. But it isn't necessarily the right way to deal with individual cases, while they are going on."
In an interview with the Guardian, he insisted he had seen no evidence for extending detention and said he would have resigned from office if parliament had approved a 42-day limit.
The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said this week that the power to extend the detention of terrorism suspects beyond 28 days "should only be used where there is a clear operational need related to a particular operation or investigation and should be supported by strong parliamentary and judicial safeguards".
The home secretary would have to notify parliament within two days of granting the 42-day limit, with MPs approving the decision within 30 days. But critics argue the police are unlikely to know they want extra time until they draw near to the 28-day limit - meaning, if the home secretary approves, they could hold a suspect for 42 days before MPs had a chance to vote.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, warned: "This extension can be authorised by the home secretary with or without parliamentary approval. Therefore it is a sham of a safeguard."
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, branded the promise of parliamentary oversight a fraud, adding: "This is not just a dangerous proposal, but constitutionally illiterate. It fails to understand the proper distinction between the legislature and the courts. If you had anything like a real debate approving this in relation to an individual case, the suspect would immediately say this had prejudiced his right to a fair trial. It only works if parliamentary approval is a rubber stamp."
A Home Office spokeswoman said: "It is vital we don't prejudice prosecutions, but important that the higher limit is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
"The home secretary's statement would include, for example, the fact that a terrorist investigation was ongoing and had given rise to exceptional operational need, that a higher limit was urgently needed to prevent, control or mitigate terrorism, and that it was compatible with human rights legislation ... MPs do have the right to say 'No, we don't believe this is the case'."
Leftwing Labour MP John McDonnell told the GMTV Sunday programme that backbenchers were angry, adding: "What Gordon promised was that we'd arrive at a consensus and most of us thought those discussions were still going on."
|
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Telegraph
| Quote: | MI5 chief refuses to back longer detention limit
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor
Last Updated: 9:01am GMT 09/12/2007
The head of MI5 has said he will not support the detention of terror suspects beyond 28 days, striking a fresh blow against Gordon Brown's anti-terror plans.
Jonathan Evans told MPs at a private meeting that he was not willing to back the Government's proposal to extend to 42 days the period for which suspected terrorists may be detained without charge.
The Prime Minister is already under pressure on the issue with growing opposition among MPs threatening him with a Commons defeat.
A report by the Home Affairs select committee is expected to cite strong opposition to the plans from senior figures including Sir Ken MacDonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general.
The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has been summoned to appear before the committee on Tuesday to explain the proposals for a 42-day detention limit, itself a compromise on plans for 58 days, before it delivers its report.
The committee has been unable to find a single voice in favour of the move apart from Sir Iain Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner.
During separate briefings to MPs, Mr Evans said the Security Service would not make any recommendation as it does not have the power to arrest suspects.
He refused to say whether he backed the proposal and was described as "distinctly unenthusiastic" by one of those present.
A source close to the director-general said: "You have to remember his background in Northern Ireland. He saw the effect of internment, making martyrs out of IRA terrorists and he will have been affected by that. He will not speak out against it. He will remain neutral but that in itself speaks volumes."
Ministers say the extension is necessary because of the complexity and international nature of terror plots. But the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and a growing number of Labour MPs are opposed, setting up the possibility of a defeat for Mr Brown if he insists on putting it to a vote.
Yesterday it emerged that the former health secretary Frank Dobson is leading a group of 49 Labour MPs who oppose the move.
Sir Ken told the committee he would be less likely to prosecute a suspect who had been detained for more than 28 days.
Mr Dobson said that if the move went ahead it could act as a recruiting agent for terror groups.
He told GMTV's Sunday programme: "It would be harmful, but it wouldn't just be harmful to the Labour Party, it would be harmful to the country." |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Terror detention extension a 'charade', say dissenting MPs
Louise Radnofsky and agencies
Tuesday December 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Government plans to extend the length of time terror suspects can be held without charge to 42 days were denounced by MPs today as a "charade".
The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, faced fierce criticism from members of the home affairs select committee as the Labour backbencher David Winnick branded proposed safeguards a "cosmetic exercise". The MP, who orchestrated a previous revolt against longer pre-charge detention, warned that by the time MPs voted on a particular case, a suspect might already have been incarcerated for 42 days.
Revised proposals unveiled by Smith last week would give the home secretary power to authorise the detention of suspects for up to 42 days, subject to a report from the relevant chief constable and the director of public prosecutions. The home secretary would have to inform parliament of her decision and both the House of Commons and the House of Lords would have to decide whether to uphold it within 30 days.
Winnick was joined by James Clappison, the Conservative MP for Hertsmere, who said a vote from parliament overturning the decision would be meaningless and that it was "misleading to describe it as a safeguard" for the terror suspect.
Clappison said it would be difficult for both houses to debate cases where they did not have the necessary information and were trying not to prejudice an ongoing investigation.
Other MPs on the 14-member committee asked questions about the lack of support for the proposals from the former attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and the director for public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, as well as whether the decision to propose a 42-day limit was one of political expediency.
Smith admitted that there had "not been a case at the moment that had needed more than 28 days in order to be able to either charge or indeed release somebody," saying that she did not disagree with Goldsmith or Macdonald, who believed there was no immediate need for an extension.
But she defended the government's decision to try to pass the new time limit, conceding that it had been a compromise but saying that the number had been reached because "it is our view that in the system we have designed, 42 days is likely to be adequate in the future".
The home secretary repeatedly described the limit as a "safeguard" rather than a "target" and said it would be used only in exceptional circumstances. She said that while she was concerned about community cohesion, she thought a successful terrorist attack would be "the biggest disruptor of community cohesion and community peace in this country".
Smith told Karen Buck MP that she thought it was important there was a specific piece of legislation governing the detention of terror suspects, rather than for the government to rely on adapting laws intended for a state of emergency. She was confident and, at times, breezy, when answering questions and said that she expected to win over MPs to the plans in the run-up to the bill being debated in the House of Commons.
The home affairs select committee chairman, Keith Vaz, said a report would be published "very shortly indeed", and Smith said the government would introduce the bill after that.
Smith has written to opposition parties today seeking their views on using evidence from telephone taps and other surveillance in court hearings to freeze terrorists' assets.
She said the proposal would be included in the new counter-terrorism bill. A special review on the current ban on intercept evidence is due to report back next month.
Intercept evidence is already used in control order cases, deportations and hearings over whether terror organisations should be banned, but would be a major departure for asset-freezing applications, Smith said in her letter.
"Presently there is no mechanism in legislation to safeguard the use of closed source material in civil court proceedings relating to terrorist asset-freezing cases, nor may intercept product be relied upon to support the asset-freezing decision," Smith wrote.
Civil liberties campaigners and others have argued for wider use of intercept evidence as an alternative to extending the 28-day limit on pre-charge detention. |
Guardian
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Simon Hoggart wrote: | | There is talk of a constabulary work-to-rule (no planting evidence at weekends, that sort of thing) |
| Police sources who have to remain anonymous because I made them up wrote: | DSgt Grim: Copy this Mujahadeen Terrorist Manual onto that hard disk for me would you?
PC Plod: Sorry Sarg. No can do. It's gone 5 o'clock. We've agreed to stop planting false evidence as a part of our ongoing industrial dispute over pay and conditions.
DSgt Grim: What ! Give me the detonators then. I'll do it myself.
PC Plod: I haven't got them Sarg.
DSgt Grim: Well who's got them? Where are they ?
PC Plod: Back of the car Sarg, where they normally are, with the mobile phones and flight tickets. Nice weekend. |
Guardian
| Quote: | From waiting to baiting
Simon Hoggart
Wednesday December 12, 2007
The Guardian
Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, came into the meeting with a scowl. The home affairs committee had kept her waiting more than a quarter of an hour. Being home secretary is, without doubt, the worst job in government. To be kept waiting like a customer in a crowded chippie must be enraging.
I have seen John Reid looking more cheerful. That's how bad it was, and things did not get better. They were supposed to be talking about detention for terrorist suspects. But they started with police pay. There is talk of a constabulary work-to-rule (no planting evidence at weekends, that sort of thing) if their rise isn't backdated. This would cost £30m, money vitally needed to keep Northern Rock going for another hour or so.
MPs of all parties were furious. David Davies, a Tory (no relation to the shadow home secretary) pointed out that the Home Office had a surplus of £50m. She said she didn't know that. He affected incredulity at her ignorance.
The police do not have the right to strike. But they could go to the European court instead: "You would have to spend millions on that and you might lose anyway."
Labour's Martin Salter pointed out that coppers from his force, Thames Valley, were vanishing like the snows of spring in order to join the Met, where they can earn over £4,000 a year more.
There was no recruitment crisis, the home secretary snapped. "What you say is simply not the case," Salter barked back. This was getting quite nasty.
Bob Russell, a Lib Dem, asked whether this saving had been forced upon her by the Treasury and the prime minister. She launched into an immensely long reply, which I took to mean no but turned out to mean yes - the prime minister had wanted it. We might have guessed. When a ministry has to indent for fewer felt pens, we surmise that Gordon is behind it, scribbling a furious memo at 2am. All in all, nobody had a word to say in her favour.
Keith Vaz, the committee chairman, a man so grand he could patronise the Pope if called upon, said they should ponder the "slightly less controversial subject of counter-terrorism."
They went on to the 42-day rule. The MPs were even more unhappy. "You have not persuaded me," said Gary Streeter, Tory. Margaret Moran, for Labour, demanded to know if Smith had spoken to the director of public prosecutions, who is against an increase on the present 28 days.
For complicated reasons, parliament will be able to vote on a case where someone is to be banged up for longer - but only after they have already been inside for more than 28 days. This was "cosmetic", said David Winnick. "A charade," said James Clappison.
"I haven't yet crunched the numbers," said the home secretary grimly, looking as if there was quite another part of Messrs Clappison and Winnick she would very much like to crunch |
And this from our economics teacher?
"I haven't yet crunched the numbers"
Here they are Jacqui. 28 and 42. Crunch them.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Independent
| Quote: | Two-pronged attack on Smith's plan for 42-day detention
By Ben Russell and Nigel Morris
Published: 14 December 2007
Jacqui Smith suffered a devastating double blow to proposed new laws allowing terrorist suspects to be detained for up to 42 days without charge as the plans were savaged in two highly critical reports.
The damning verdict came from two all-party committees, which declared that there was no evidence for extending the current time limit of 28 days.
Peers and MPs on the respected Joint Committee on Human Rights warned that ministers had failed to make a case for extending the limit, while the all-party Commons Home Affairs Committee warned that detention could be seen as "internment" by Muslims.
The Human Rights committee said evidence the Crown Prosecution Service had "managed comfortably" under the current limit was "devastating" to the Government's argument.
It said: "Any extension to pre-charge detention is a serious interference with liberty that requires a compelling, evidence-based demonstrable case. We do not accept that the Government has made out a case for extending pre-charge detention beyond the current limit of 28 days."
It said plans to allow Parliament to debate extensions to the limit would produce a "serious risk of prejudice" to any future trial.
Andrew Dismore, the committee chairman, said: "All of the evidence we and many others have gathered points one way. The public can be adequately protected by a combination of the alternatives we have advocated." The Labour-dominated Home Affairs Select Committee acknowledged Britain faced a "real and acute" terrorist threat, but also concluded that ministers and police had failed to make a convincing case for going beyond 28 days.
It said: "We consider there should be clearer evidence of need before civil liberties are further eroded."
They reached their conclusion after a majority of witnesses to the committee, including the Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed any increase.
The MPs suggested the Civil Contingencies Act could be used instead for emergency detention for more than 28 days in exceptional circumstances.
They also warned that Muslims could view an increased detention period as a form of internment.
Calling for alternatives to longer pre-charge detention to be used to secure convictions, the MPs denounced the ban on the use of intercept evidence in terrorist prosecutions as "ridiculous".
Kate Allen, UK director of Amnesty International, said: "The consensus against extending pre-charge detention limits is growing day by day." |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've raised this on a number of occasions, and it still doesn't appear to have struck home - the reason that phone-tap evidence is shunned is, by their own admission, that they don't want people to know their technical capabilities.
It can be deduced from this (although I know it from other sources) that the capability they don't want us to know about is that they can use your mobile or home phone as a bug, even when switched off or off the hook.
Think about it for a moment - we know they can listen in when we're talking on the phone, so what further capability can they have? Obviously, that they can listen when we are not using the phone.
This is not an attack on your post, Mark, but I'm simply using this opportunity to inform unaware people of the danger in their pockets and on their dressing-tables (yes, even in moments of passion, THEY may be listening!).
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
