Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[tikay]

Don't think that was who he said. Maybe it was a Crystal Palace defender 

It was a QPR player, but I can't recall who.

As my 2,000th post I offer the winning entry into guess the Tom lookalike, Gary Penrice, ty ty ty ty ty...

Wnner.

[RED-DOG]

Hold suspected terrorists for up to 42 days.... OK, how will they define "Suspected terrorist"?

Will it mean that they can hold anyone for 42 days without charge just by saying "We suspect that he is a terrorist?"

[Karabiner]

Hold suspected terrorists for up to 42 days.... OK, how will they define "Suspected terrorist"?

Will it mean that they can hold anyone for 42 days without charge just by saying "We suspect that he is a terrorist?"

I heard a discussion on the radio today where it had apparantly been suggested that if the suspect was held beyond twenty-eight days and subsequently released without charge, the suspect would be reimbursed £3k per day that he/she was held over and above that up to the new maximum forty-two.

Could be a nice little earner, 14x £3k = £42k 

PS I have a bone in the bone-bank.

[Grier78]

Hold suspected terrorists for up to 42 days.... OK, how will they define "Suspected terrorist"?

Will it mean that they can hold anyone for 42 days without charge just by saying "We suspect that he is a terrorist?"

It will mean someone they suspect of being a terrorist because their name is similar to one on a list of suspected terrorist but they have no actual evidence that they are a terrorist and so need to keep them locked up until it can be established that they are indeed a terrorist.

[RED-DOG]

Hold suspected terrorists for up to 42 days.... OK, how will they define "Suspected terrorist"?

Will it mean that they can hold anyone for 42 days without charge just by saying "We suspect that he is a terrorist?"

It will mean someone they suspect of being a terrorist because their name is similar to one on a list of suspected terrorist but they have no actual evidence that they are a terrorist and so need to keep them locked up until it can be established that they are indeed a terrorist.

And who decides which names go on the list in the first place?

[Grier78]

Hold suspected terrorists for up to 42 days.... OK, how will they define "Suspected terrorist"?

Will it mean that they can hold anyone for 42 days without charge just by saying "We suspect that he is a terrorist?"

It will mean someone they suspect of being a terrorist because their name is similar to one on a list of suspected terrorist but they have no actual evidence that they are a terrorist and so need to keep them locked up until it can be established that they are indeed a terrorist.

And who decides which names go on the list in the first place?

You go on the list if your name is linked to anyone who is already on the list, so by the six degrees of terrorism they can put anyone they like on the list.

[RED-DOG]

Hold suspected terrorists for up to 42 days.... OK, how will they define "Suspected terrorist"?

Will it mean that they can hold anyone for 42 days without charge just by saying "We suspect that he is a terrorist?"

It will mean someone they suspect of being a terrorist because their name is similar to one on a list of suspected terrorist but they have no actual evidence that they are a terrorist and so need to keep them locked up until it can be established that they are indeed a terrorist.

And who decides which names go on the list in the first place?

You go on the list if your name is linked to anyone who is already on the list, so by the six degrees of terrorism they can put anyone they like on the list.

Which kind of proves my original point.

What they actually want is to have the power to detain anyone for 42 days without charge.

[Bongo]

I agree with you Red...

First they came for the Socialists, and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left
to speak up for me.

[boldie]

Hold suspected terrorists for up to 42 days.... OK, how will they define "Suspected terrorist"?

Will it mean that they can hold anyone for 42 days without charge just by saying "We suspect that he is a terrorist?"

This is actually a LOT worse piece of legislation than the "42 days" it's being called.
This legislation has loads of amendments (70 odd) and it means the government can now get away with several things like;

Removing a coroner from a case (like an inquiry into the death of a soldier in iraq) which they deem to be negative towards the government. A coroner can be "removed" which means they essentially won't get to hold en enquiry anymore. The hearing would also not hear about any supply issues with body armour and all that as it would be deemed a threat to national security.

The 42 days effectively only means the govt needs to ask permission to hold "suspects" longer than 35 days...uptill then they can be held as a matter of course, it'd just be a stamp on paperwork that is required.

This is a properly bad piece of legislation if you think a proper inquiry into the deaths of soldiers should be held and it is shocking that it went through.

[RED-DOG]

Hold suspected terrorists for up to 42 days.... OK, how will they define "Suspected terrorist"?

Will it mean that they can hold anyone for 42 days without charge just by saying "We suspect that he is a terrorist?"

This is actually a LOT worse piece of legislation than the "42 days" it's being called.
This legislation has loads of amendments (70 odd) and it means the government can now get away with several things like;

Removing a coroner from a case (like an inquiry into the death of a soldier in iraq) which they deem to be negative towards the government. A coroner can be "removed" which means they essentially won't get to hold en enquiry anymore. The hearing would also not hear about any supply issues with body armour and all that as it would be deemed a threat to national security.

The 42 days effectively only means the govt needs to ask permission to hold "suspects" longer than 35 days...uptill then they can be held as a matter of course, it'd just be a stamp on paperwork that is required.

This is a properly bad piece of legislation if you think a proper inquiry into the deaths of soldiers should be held and it is shocking that it went through.

I agree.

[AndrewT]

Why can't the police use phone-tap evidence?

This is the reason why suspects need to be held for so long - MI5 can have recorded phone calls or bugged conversations of suspects discussing plots but can't use them as the basis for a charge. Hence keeping them locked up whilst the police try and construct a case charging someone in connection with something which hasn't happened yet (which can be quite difficult, as you can imagine).

[boldie]

Why can't the police use phone-tap evidence?

This is the reason why suspects need to be held for so long - MI5 can have recorded phone calls or bugged conversations of suspects discussing plots but can't use them as the basis for a charge. Hence keeping them locked up whilst the police try and construct a case charging someone in connection with something which hasn't happened yet (which can be quite difficult, as you can imagine).

It's astonishing that it isn't allowed  and i just don't get why as noone actually seems to oppose it or think it's a bad idea. Even civil liberty groups think phone-tap evidence should be used FFS.

[RED-DOG]

Now and then over the years, we have caught the odd fleeting glimpse of a green woodpecker at Chez Red. Until lately that is. over the last month or so he seems to have realised that we are friendly and has lost a little of his shyness.

This morning he sat on the lawn for about 5 minutes while I stood in the window and watched him. I snapped him with my phone but I didn't dare move to fetch my proper camera until we get to know each other a little better.

[RED-DOG]

Eventually I hope to get one like this from google images.


 

[RED-DOG]

Aint 'e 'ansome?