UK Police Chiefs want to hold terror suspects indefinitely?

Question

British police chiefs are asking UK.gov for the right to hold terror suspects indefinately, for as long as it takes, according to one police chief officer. Your thoughts please. Yanks and Brits etc all invited.

Answer 1

British law is different than American law.

But, that being said, the basic principles of justice demand that someone must be convicted -- or at least the likelihood of guilt established -- before they are imprisoned.

Someone "suspected" of being a terrorist has not been proven to be a terrorist. Not even by the relaxed standards used for bail hearings. So, holding them indefinitely -- presumably without trial or other means of challenging the detention -- just make the captors as much criminals as those they seek to detain.

The USA set a horrible standard when we decided to hold people for years without even considering a trial. It's sad to think of other countries falling down to the same depths of injustice.

Answer 2

When all this terror kicked of there were so many promises that those phsychotic idiots would never change our way of life or our core values.
Sorry, but our who legal system is founded on the principle that you are innocent till proven guilty and you cannot be punished until 12 of your peers have heard the arguements and made their informed decision.
If the evidence is there to reach a conviction or go to court they can be arrested anyway, if there is no evidence or evidence that cannot be found in a quick (few hours) search of their home or workplace then its wrong to punish someone.

On this principle the police should arrest Tony Blair and George Bush for ordering attacks on other states, just like Osama Bin Laden did. Different weapons, but same principle, just because its retaliation doesnt make it right. They have caused terror and destabilised entire nations for decades to come. If thats not terror then I dont know what is.

No, all allegations must recieve proper judicial process, otherwise those terrorists have achieved their objectives. What happens when no evidence is ever found, just because a senior police officer or politician thinks they might have commited a crime. Do they stayed locked up indefinately? Its the same with these control orders, these people never go to court, never recieve a trial but have huge restrictions on their lives, no internet or mobile phones, curfews, families cannot live with them, can only visit people when they have been given permission.
I for one, will not stay in a country that detains people without charge or good reason (accusing someone of a crime with no trial or evidence is not a good reason). I hope that all politicians oppose this vehemently as they have in the past, and bring the limit down from 28 days to at the most 7.
Police should get better at their job, instead of detaining law abiding musilms (it will come down to this, arresting 'suspicious' muslims and completely dividing the country and give terroist leaders and teacherrs more ammunition and more disallusioned youths) at their whim.

Treat people with respect and they will help stop the violence.

Answer 3

It militates against the principles of British justice. You are held for a time at the end of which the police must either charge you or release you. This time has been extended for terror legislation and currently no political party has suggested that the time limits in place are too restrictive.

Who would police this power? Would it be there automatically once a terror suspect was arrested or would the police be obliged to make a case before a court. And if this power was there automatically, what checks are in place to ensure that the individual is really a terrorist and it is not an abuse of police powers? Unlikely? No not really. Remember Walter Wolfgang 82 year old Labour party member ejected from the 2005 Labour Party conference and arrested under the Terrorism Act?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4292342.stm

Answer 4

No. If they know it will save lives, that means there will be evidence that this is the case, and suspects should be charged accordingly. If you can't find enough evidence to charge someone within a decent time frame (and a month is plenty long enough) there is no justification to hold them indefinitely. If a country anywhere else in the world does this, Amnesty International are rightly campaigning against them. This country has until very recently always done the same thing. Police find a crime has been committed, you arrest the suspected criminal, charge them with the offence and if they are convicted chuck them in jail. You should not be suspecting, then arresting, then looking for evidence of a crime. This is the wrong order.

Answer 5

This is a terrible idea, it was used in the past in Northern Ireland, innocent people were held, or sent to jail on 'circumstantial' evidence to appease the baying media. If anything it just recruited extra militants to the IRA, it didn't work in the north, its not going to work on mainland Britain. If anything it intensified the 'troubles' and delayed the peace we thankfully have now.

This type of action makes the government as bad as the terrorist themselves, can anyone here say that Guantanamo bay (sorry if misspelt) has taken terrorist off the streets? Its a shocking situation, in which the US government should be ashamed of their actions. it gives other a reason to hate, and adds fuel to a militants fire.

I'm not a yank or a brit, (so sorry for butting in) but why go against justice systems that were once the envy of others!

Answer 6

whats going on?
its a SUSPECT!!!!!!!!!!
does that mean the government can lock up anybody they don't like? sounds like Nazi thinking to me
suspect means they having done anything yet.
look get a grip please since 9/11 here in the UK there has been one attack that worked.
3 other attempts were balls'ed up by retards oh and a Brazilian was MURDERED on the underground
take a deep breath please relax the IRA were more scary than this lot of twits
when the whole of the Tory government nearly all died in the Brighton hotel attack the response was measured and sane but that's not something new labour could ever understand

Answer 7

What the police want is wrong and flies in the face of the whole history of law and order in the UK. Innocent until proven guilty. Indefinite imprisonment without trial is incarceration, which is when we start lowering ourselves to the level of a dictatorship. Hopefully the Commons will once again reject any attempt to legislate for this.

Answer 8

The politicians seem determined to make life as difficult as possible, for the security services and as easy as possible for the would be terrorists.
When there is a fixed time scale, on investigations, it puts the police in the position, of having to do everything in a hurry and consequently, more likely to make mistakes.
The would be terrorists are also very much aware, that if they keep their mouths shut, for twenty eight days, they will probably be released on police bail and be able to do a disappearing act, possibly dressed in a burka. (It's been done before.)
Are these politicians ever going to face reality?????

Answer 9

The police are not a fit organisation to hold anyone indefinitely.

No organisation can be trusted to hold people for ever..

Holding anyone must go through the public court system.

I wonder how many people in Germany thought that Hitler held the Jews indefinitely in the public interest!

Answer 10

Great idea, despite how much we may be inclined to moan,this is a great country with great people. I f anyone is a threat to it and us they are our enemy until pr oven innocent,hold any suspects for as long as it takes. It is only time to them anyway when you look back at the Glasgow episode it is quite clear that the person on fire was more than willing to die for what he had done,to become a mayrter. Live be the sword die by the sword.It has never made sense to kill and maim,as we saw in Northern Ireland the only thing that works is cooperation and discussion.