Anti terror laws ruled illegal.. - Page 2

beeman · 13-01-2010, 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG

Are you serious?

How many terrorists do you need to blow up one aircraft.

Why woulnt he bee serious? i personally would much ruther die free then live in a totaliarian police state.

over the years MILLIONS of people have knowingly laid down their lives for the very freedoms we so freely give away today in the name of anti-terror.

Pierre · 13-01-2010, 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

we can't have it both ways ,we have to sacrifice some freedome in the interests of catching terrorists

So they would have you believe.......... the politics of fear.

---------- Post added at 07:39 ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

The police being able to stop people without cause is too far. I don't want to give up my freedoms because of a few terrorists. A line needs to be drawn and we seem to have crossed it long go.

agreed.

From the article

Quote:

In my view, section 44 is being used far too often on a random basis without any reasoning behind its use," he said

This is very true and the police (and local authorities) are like pigs in sh** with their new powers, stopping people taking photos of buildings etc

---------- Post added at 07:41 ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG

Are you serious?

How many terrorists do you need to blow up one aircraft.

one, and he ballsed it up. Not to mention that all the west intelligence services knew about him, but just forgot to tell each other.

Angua · 13-01-2010, 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG

Are you serious?

How many terrorists do you need to blow up one aircraft.

Oh yes, the classic fear factor.

Reality for the vast majority of us is nothing is likely to happen to us. Security at airports could still be circumnavigated and NO amount of stop & search will change this.

The terrorists are winning by default, as our government are allowing the fear of their action to take away the majorities rights with their knee jerk useless policies.

I am with beeman on this!

Osem · 13-01-2010, 09:51

Andy Hayman's view:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6985504.ece

Mr Angry · 13-01-2010, 10:25

As someone who lived through the troubles™ here in Northern Ireland and who was one of many thousands who were subject to searches each and everytime they went to the city centre and any shop therein I can state, categorically, that stop and search was not a deterrent nor did it have any discernable affect on the activities of the then terror activists.

A terrified state, whether by fear or action, is no state to live in.

I think that this post from the Times site pretty much nails it.

"Andy Hayman, with the way the government, police, and other parts of the State are acting in the name of protecting us from terrorism, I simply do not want the State's protection from terrorists. It feels more like State protection is some kind of massive protection racket.

I feel much safer with the spontaneous response of the British people to the 7th July 2005 London bombings: We're Not Afraid. It leaves the terrorists having achieved nothing more than death and destruction - a failure of terrorism. It leaves them having failed to achieve their real ends with their terrorist means. That leaves their terrorism useless, a waste of their time, effort and lives. Why would they continue with futile methods?

Unfortunately, the way the State has responded has turned what was initially a terrorist failure (52 murdered, many more injured, but We're Not Afraid as the spontaneous response within days of the attack) into a much bigger success for the terrorists. It means they bombed us into doing real social (and economic) harm to ourselves.

Stop and search is just one example of how terrorists are succeeding in terrorising the State into harming our society.

Andy Hayman, you have been a part of the problem, a tool of terrorists. They have successfully used you to harm our society. And you're still supporting such social self-harm."

13-01-2010, 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua

Oh yes, the classic fear factor.

Reality for the vast majority of us is nothing is likely to happen to us. Security at airports could still be circumnavigated and NO amount of stop & search will change this.

The terrorists are winning by default, as our government are allowing the fear of their action to take away the majorities rights with their knee jerk useless policies.

I am with beeman on this!

And when they realise they cannot target aircraft I wonder where they will target with as much destruction, you guessed it the airports.
The intelligence had the information and failed to act on it.
I would sooner not have stop and search powers that can be used by some over zealous officers, if you think the police have none of these in their ranks you have been living in cloud cuckoo land.
I would sooner enjoy the very miniscule freedom we have in this country right now, which is being eaten away at day by day.

Tarantella · 13-01-2010, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

And when they realise they cannot target aircraft I wonder where they will target with as much destruction, you guessed it the airports..

Hmm no, it will be other forms of transportation.

13-01-2010, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

we can't have it both ways ,we have to sacrifice some freedome in the interests of catching terrorists

No we don't have to give up our freedom's in the interest of security and catching terrorists

As Benjamin Franklin once famously said....

Quote:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

nomadking · 13-01-2010, 18:57

So the carrying of a knife, gun, bomb and/or drugs etc with an intent to use, is an essential liberty?

**Hugh** · 13-01-2010, 19:01

No, but the assumption that everyone's innocent until proven guilty is, along with due process and cause.

nomadking · 13-01-2010, 19:14

So, no investigation of a crime can ever take place because everyone is assumed innocent? You couldn't even question somebody because that would assume that they could be guilty.
Is there no murderer until after somebody has been convicted of that murder?

13-01-2010, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

So, no investigation of a crime can ever take place because everyone is assumed innocent? You couldn't even question somebody because that would assume that they could be guilty.
Is there no murderer until after somebody has been convicted of that murder?

it is a basic principle in law that you are innocent untill proven guilty and it's the investigation that proves innocence or guilt

on the subject of this thread my opinion has changed somewhat since my first post .I think the police have enough powers under the PACE laws for stop and search when the country isn't at high alert like now .For the metropolitan force to continually use the anti terror law in the way they have is wrong imo and shows a willingness to totaly ignore the spirit of a law that is only meant to be used on rare occasions and for terrorists not every tom dick or harry walking down the street

Mr Angry · 13-01-2010, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

investigation of a crime

Is entirely different from "thinking" someone might commit a crime. Of course where a crime has been committed investigations should take place.

13-01-2010, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

So the carrying of a knife, gun, bomb and/or drugs etc with an intent to use, is an essential liberty?

Just because a small proportion of the population carries a blade, or an illegally held firearm, or distributes illegal drugs, does not mean *I* should be treated like a potential criminal. If the police ever decide to "give me a tug" under Nu-Liebours anti-freedom laws I shall refuse to comply. If that means I end up in the cells, so be it....

13-01-2010, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

Just because a small proportion of the population carries a blade, or an illegally held firearm, or distributes illegal drugs, does not mean *I* should be treated like a potential criminal. If the police ever decide to "give me a tug" under Nu-Liebours anti-freedom laws I shall refuse to comply. If that means I end up in the cells, so be it....

you're not going to start acting all weird on buses are you just to test that theory