egafd.com

As has been said, used correctly there would be no problem. But a chief advocate for the powers is Sir Ian "Shoot 'em up" Blair---and that is rather worrying.

Presumably, the OAP who heckled during the Labour party Conferance could have been interned for 90 days under Blair's proposal. I think many MP's remember the 70's, when the police locked up anyone with an Irish accent as long as they got an arrest.Now it sounds to me the police want 90 days, to give them time to FIT the evidence to the suspect.
There are many more dangers that face the British public than just terrorists, why does the governement have such a problem with imposing a mandatory prison sentence for carrying a knife? Surely you have a much greater chance of being stabbed by a hoody, than being blown up.
The fear of terrorism is a great weapon for removing all our basic rights, to "make us safe". I think Hitler used the same tactic, by demonising the Jews, along with every other jumped-up dictator in recent history.

I think a "Sunset clause" for a year... to see if any people were held and released without any charge, after being held for the limit of ninety days. Analyse the results and then renew or adapt.

IMHO This would have been a good compromise.

I am surprised that people are talking as if the maximum time of 90 days holding would be applied all the time.


I would feel so sad if I lost someone* just for the sake of a few!!! days to keep the British way of life.


* My brother in law a Baptist minister on the way to an "understanding Islam" course went thru one of the bombed stations less than 5 minutes before the explosion... one of his colleagues, a lay preacher was 5 mins behind and did die.

I agree that the terrorism act has always been mis used and i think that is why the 90 days was voted out, a labour M.P. was being interviewed on the radio about compensation for people who would be held for 90 days and then released without charge he replied there was nothing in this bill about that it was something to be discussed later, another of Im the almighty President Blairs rushed through bills, im glad it got kicked out.

If you want to see the best example of detainment without evidence be it 28 or 90 days just look at the current Japanese Justice System

Suspects are held in custody for long periods before indictment or even arrest, deprived of sleep, threatened, refused access to a lawyer and bullied into signing a confession. Only then are suspects indicted ? equivalent to a guilty verdict from the prosecutor's office ? and the courts simply rubber-stamp that verdict. No wonder the conviction rate for serious crimes in Japan is 99.98%.

cheers
B....OZ

From 1st Jan 2006 the Police have new powers ... and you'd trust them with 90 or even 28 days???

"Under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a balance was struck between police powers and the individual's rights. There was a clear distinction between non-arrestable offences, arrestable offences and serious arrestable offences. Everyone knew where they stood and the public was protected from officious or malevolently motivated police constables.

From 1 January, there will be no such distinction. Every offence will be arrestable. That means motoring infringements, dropping litter, swearing and behaving loudly in a demonstration will very likely end in arrest.

There are specific tests of necessity a police officer must satisfy, yet at the end of the list come two paragraphs which give the officer complete freedom. The first stipulates that an arrest may be carried out to allow the prompt and 'effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question'. The second says that an arrest may take place 'to prevent any prosecution of the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question'.

If the officer feels he cannot satisfy the first requirement, he will certainly take refuge in the second. Arrest is a certainty, however minor the offence.

Now comes the sinister part. For all but a truly minor crime, the officer is empowered, using force, if necessary, to take a sample of the suspect's DNA from his mouth, to photograph and fingerprint him and, finally, to take impressions of his footwear. Remember, at this stage, the suspect is just that - a suspect. He has not been found guilty by a court and, under British law, is therefore presumed innocent. And yet he has been forced to submit to a humiliating process as though he were about to enter prison.

Most solicitors who deal with the police on a daily basis are convinced that these new powers criminalise the public. Because every offence becomes arrestable, it is unlikely that someone held by the police will be able to make a case for an unlawful arrest. The sentence in the act which allows 'prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the person in question' is a catch-all which means the police officer may say that he was reasonably investigating someone's behaviour. East Germany's Stasi would have been content to operate under such a provision."

I find Blair's total disregard for the freedom of the individual to be terrifying.

Bang next!!!!

And I felt a bit guilty at wanting 90 Days

PC

You are not a very nice person phototaker.
I'm glad I don't live next door to you.

Mart