Tony Blair defeated on 90-day bill... Where do you stand?

[Markgway]

Personally I was with Tone on this one, as was, according to an ITN poll, 80+ % of the general public. So why aren't the MPs representing their constituents? Has the left grabbed such a stranglehold on Britain that nothing can be done in case it ofend "civil liberties"? The 90-day limit is just that: a limit. It didn't man the police were gonna start grabbing random Asians off the streets and lock 'em up for 3 months without charge. A judge would have to approve the dentention every 7 days and we know how much our judges love the Police. Not. So what were these MPs afraid of? A PC backlash?

Have your say.......

[grim_tales]

Don't you believe in "innocent until proven guilty" Mark? IMO 90 days is too much, what if it was a member of your family or something who was taken for up to 3 months, hadn't been told what they'd been charged with? I can't agree with that.
And I know its only a movie, but what about the main character in Oldboy - imprisoned without charge and not knowing why (OK for 15 years not 3 months), the point is its hell.

I didnt know the bit about judges approving the detention though.

[Mordib]

i really havent read up enough about it to be sure, i agree that investigations need to be kept secret hence limiting a suspects access to people is essential. i am however unsure as to what they could do in 90 days that would make that much of a difference.

My compromise would be to allow the 90 day custody thing but put them in custody somewhere comfortable plus have a set cash payout if at the end of the investigation and 90 days the police are unable to justify the incarseration to a judge. it doesnt have to be a public hearing.

hardly a great solution I know but if after a year or two it isnt making any difference then at least the victims of the cock ups wont be quite so traumatised

[grim_tales]

Its the without charge thing I worry about - think about the recent cock-ups like the shooting of the innocent Brazillian man, and ejecting an old man (Walter Wolfgang) from the House of Commons and charging him under the terrorism act just because he said Straw's speech was nonsense.
In Iraq Saddam would lock up people without a fair trial (and worse) - why do we want to do the same?

[bradavon]

I'm for an extension definitely.

14 days is to short BUT equally 90 days is far to long. I'd recommend making it 28-31 days, that's fair. Anymore would only result in people's human rights being taken away.

Even suspected terrorists have rights. They've not done any provable crime yet.

Personally I was with Tone on this one, as was, according to an ITN poll, 80+ % of the general public. So why aren't the MPs representing their constituents?

That's only 80% of the general public who actually vote.

The 90-day limit is just that: a limit. It didn't man the police were gonna start grabbing random Asians off the streets and lock 'em up for 3 months without charge. A judge would have to approve the dentention every 7 days and we know how much our judges love the Police. Not.

All true but the sheer fact someone could be in jail without charge for THREE MONTHS, is enough for me to be against it.

Like I said 28 days is better. I agree 14 days is definitely to short.

[grim_tales]

28 days is the compromise its been set at, Brad.

[bradavon]

Really?

So it's now 28 days?

Much better.

[BiscLimpkit]

My compromise would be to allow the 90 day custody thing but put them in custody somewhere comfortable

That's exactly what I suggested to my dad this morning. How's about keeping them in a five star hotel?

Sorry for exaggerating but yeah, as you say, somewhere comfortable may be ok.

[Markgway]

Don't you believe in "innocent until proven guilty" Mark? IMO 90 days is too much, what if it was a member of your family or something who was taken for up to 3 months, hadn't been told what they'd been charged with? I can't agree with that.

Of course I believe in innocent until proven guilty. No one is talking about throwing away the key. But if the Police (ie. the people who actually have to do the detective work) believe that in certain cases 90 days is necessary why shouldn't I believe them? It's not like they're gonna pull random Asians off the street and throw them in a pit for 3 months. Only people who are believed to have connections to terrorism and can aid enquiries. Certianly mistakes happen, but that goes for any aspect of justice. I'd imagine it's very rare than any person detained under this act is innocent. And if they are a judge can overrule the Police every seven days. When the alternative maybe another suicide bomb... what can I say? Sometimes extreme measures need to be taken to protect the lives of the majority.

[Markgway]

the shooting of the innocent Brazillian man

A dreadful tragedy but alas not something this law would have had any bearing on. As I said mistakes can be made for 14 days or 90. But I don't expect them to happen often. The media merely highlight the rarities.

and ejecting an old man (Walter Wolfgang) from the House of Commons and charging him under the terrorism act just because he said Straw's speech was nonsense.

Labour shot themselves in the foot with that one and it has since been siezed upon by the left as if every person was vulnerable. Only in rare cases would those with suspected links to terrorism be detained. As wrong as it was the old gent was never beaten with a rubber hose was he?

In Iraq Saddam would lock up people without a fair trial (and worse) - why do we want to do the same?

Saddam would massacre families and bury them in shallow graves. When Labour proposes the same then I'll get misty eyed.

[Markgway]

That's only 80% of the general public who actually vote.

Aren't they the ones that count?

All true but the sheer fact someone could be in jail without charge for THREE MONTHS, is enough for me to be against it.

But what if it gives the Police time to discover vital evidence? Isn't that more important than the civil rights of a suspected terrorist?

Like I said 28 days is better. I agree 14 days is definitely to short.

I can live with 28 days... but we have to trust the judgement of our Police. If not... what then??

[bradavon]

Aren't they the ones that count?

As much as the rest of the population who didn't vote.

But what if it gives the Police time to discover vital evidence? Isn't that more important than the civil rights of a suspected terrorist?

I'm really not sure it is. The word here is "suspected".

Still I very well may feel differently if I was involved in 7/7.

[Markgway]

As much as the rest of the population who didn't vote.

You don't vote, you don't count. That's how democracy works.

I'm really not sure it is. The word here is "suspected".

Well, the rights of terrorist suspects (yes, even suspects) are extremely low to me, and the safety of the general public at large is priority one. I'm quite amazed anyone could feel differently. If the Police go to the trouble of arresting a suspect it's very likely this person has some knowledge or involvement with the terrorism being investigated. It's not like they'd grab a random Asian off the street and say "Oi, you'll do!" And if the Police have enough evidence to arrest and detain a suspect (again, with judicial review every week) I have no porblems with that. And if Liberals think that infringes their civil liberties. Tough shit. Tell it to the 57 corpses from July 7th.

[grim_tales]

Hey,

Its' been in the news that Gary Glitter has been detained in Vietnam for 90 days because of suspicion of sex offences against underage girls, though he has not been charged.
Do you agree with this? I'm not a fan of Glitter, but what may influence some people is that he has been cuaght with child porn before?

Why do we treat him differently than say, Michael Jackson?

[Markgway]

Three reasons.

1. Glitter was CAUGHT (and convicted) with Child Pornography. Jackson's allegations were just that and he was found NOT Guilty.

2. Glitter is in Vietnam. Jackson is in America (the land of the celebrity).

3. Glitter is shite and desperately uncool. Jackson isn't.

...also it's extremely likely Glitter is guilty of these latest offences. The Jackson case was always dubious and likely to collapse.

[biguy]

Was reading about GLitter on another forum....

Apparently, he has already been deported and refused reentry to Cambodia (no charges filed though)...

Also he first went to Cuba...but what he did ther was not known....

Some interesting info though is that mayeb he should have checked the laws of Vietnam before he did anything ..

this was taken from Yahoo news last week....



Gary Glitter is in a heap of trouble.

The faded glam rocker, best known for the ubiquitous sports anthem "Rock and Roll Part II," was arrested Saturday morning by Vietnamese immigration authorities on charges of child molestation as he tried to board a flight from Ho Chi Minh City to Bangkok, according to published reports.

The news comes two days after the Vietnam's foreign ministry revealed that Glitter, whose real name is Paul Francis Gadd, was wanted by police for questioning regarding allegations he had sex with two girls, one of whom was 15 and the other only 12, while living in the southern resort town of Vung Tau. The age of consent in Vietnam is 16.

"Having sex with a 12-year-old girl, regardless of whether he had her consent, is still considered child rape under Vietnamese law," a police officer in Vung Tua told the BBC.

Glitter, 61, had been residing in a rented seaside house since March. But he vanished Nov. 12 after local newspaper reports claimed several underage girls had been seen at his home. He also reportedly was kicked out of a local nightclub for feeling up a teenage barmaid.

Investigators went to Glitter's home after seeing the newspaper accounts. Although Glitter had already gone, the police discovered the two girls. It's not known whether the entertainer paid to have sex with them, but a police official confirmed a probe has been initiated to look into the girls' claims.

"We can already say he had sexual relations with Vietnamese adolescents," Do Minh Dan, deputy director of Ba Ria-Vung Tau provincial police, told reporters Sunday.


****The bouffant-wigged British crooner allegedly committed "lewd acts" on the girls. If found guilty, Glitter could face up to 12 years in prison for obscene behavior, while a charge of child rape could carry the death penalty, which would be carried out by firing squad. ******

GET HIM SHOT !!! :twisted:

[grim_tales]

Three reasons.

1. Glitter was CAUGHT (and convicted) with Child Pornography. Jackson's allegations were just that and he was found NOT Guilty.

2. Glitter is in Vietnam. Jackson is in America (the land of the celebrity).

3. Glitter is shite and desperately uncool. Jackson isn't.

...also it's extremely likely Glitter is guilty of these latest offences. The Jackson case was always dubious and likely to collapse.

LOL I agree about Point 3.
Yes thats right, Glitter has been convicted and caught before. Jackson lives somewhere else other than the US now though.

[Markgway]

To me there's a difference between statutory rape and forceable rape so I wouldn't advocate Glitter being shot but he should do jail time or be put in a hospital.

[biguy]

I think I would rather be shot than go to a SE Asian jail....

His defence is that he was teaching them English....but 5 of the girls are ready to testify against him...

[Yi-Long]

I think I would rather be shot than go to a SE Asian jail....

His defence is that he was teaching them English....but 5 of the girls are ready to testify against him...

"Ok ... now say;'swallow' ... "