Locked up for 90 days on the whim of the Gissies

Charlie_Thompson

Charlie_Thompson

Well-known member
Not happening HA Ha Ha.

If you suspect someone of terrorism but can\'t prove it, but really know they\'re guilty (Guilford 4 etc.) just do what you\'ve always done. Illegally tap their phones, monitor them on a few of our 6 MILLION cctv cameras (Best in the world). Access their e-mails (Allowed) force people to spill the beans about them on pain of prosecution or just follow them 3 steps behind wherever they go. Job done.

Fuck you Tony
 
Unfortunately Charlie, the first time a suspected terrorist is released after 28 days because the security forces didn`t have time to their job properly, then goes on to blow up more innocent folk, who will be the first ones to bleat about the government not protecting the citizens?

The tossers who voted against the 90 days rule, thats who !

Because they haven`t listened to the voters on this, I hope they find the voters don`t listen to them come the next election.
 
if terrorists and are awaiting sentence or or the police have reason or beleive that they could be a threat they should lose all civil and human rights!. anyone who murders or kills inocent people dont deserve rights. this country is far to soft, iv\'e suppotrd labour since i was a teenager but tony blairs labour :mad: :mad: its B****cks.
90 days!!!!! to short!!!!!!
 
If you trust your police 100% then no problems.

What about the two Liverpool lads fishing in the docks last year, what were they charged with then, it certainly was not tresspass.

Jim.
 
even the police dont trust themselves and that comes from two pals of mine who are x coppers lol, but seriously its not alaughing matter. it was at the time when they told me :D


cheers
mark
 
Lol at keith :P . Think Jim hit the nail on the head with \"Trust\" , remember the poor old boy who was lifted out of the \"Labour\" conference and then arrested under the terrorism act? They could of banged him up for 90 days if so desired . If anyone has complete trust in the police , just remember the miners strike :o

On a different note , I had my car broken in to yesterdayand rang the police . No one came out and i\'m still waiting for a crime number after a faithful promise to ring back \"After 5 mins\"- still waiting .
 
Unfortunately Charlie, the first time a suspected terrorist is released after 28 days because the security forces didn`t have time to their job properly, then goes on to blow up more innocent folk, who will be the first ones to bleat about the government not protecting the citizens?

The tossers who voted against the 90 days rule, thats who !

Because they haven`t listened to the voters on this, I hope they find the voters don`t listen to them come the next election.
Click to expand...

lets just lock em away indefinately then, works in guantanamo bay??

the law as it stands does allow people to be held for 90 days, they just hold em for 14 (now 28 days) then go to a judge and ask for another 28 days, and another and another. whats wrong with that

I wonder if the liverpool anglers were in favour of it?? the same law that saw them arrested for fishing could of had them in the chokey for 3 months, no questions asked and no recourse to the law when it realised they\'d made a mistake

the finer points of this particular bill were the fact that there would be exepmtion from the Prima Facae evidence act, meaning that plod does not have to show any just cause for holding them and does not have to declare what, if any avenues their investigation is following, basically lock em away and never need to justify it. The solictor that you find to represent you is also not entitled to see any of the evidence they may or may not have, and if he does see any he is not allowed to speak to anyone about it or investigate it, and any conversations you might have with your solicitor cannot be repeated to any one anywhere, and that include to an aappeals court, so you get a banged up, you tell your solictor your innocent because xxxxx, but if he tries to appeal and days he is apppealing because xxxx he is in contempt of court and guilt of breaking the same law, and of contravening the amended RIP act, for which he can get 10 years in the chokey


So the point is that getting banged up for 90 days is one thing, having every right removed to enable you to attempt to prove your innocence is another

And all it might take is some one to ring up special branch and say that you\'re an Al Queida operative and off you go
 
Part of the problem lies as to what they class as \'terrorism\'.

I bet 75% or more of us could be arrested and held if they ever get this stupid law passed eventually, just for doing things we are doing already in our everyday lives.

If they wan\'t to charge you for something and can\'t find owt else, this is where it will be used.

Scrap the lot of it.
 
We`ve been here once before ............... to get rid of someone you disliked was easy ....... call them a \"witch\"

Thought we`d progressed from there , but obviously not. !
 
I once got nicked for jumping over a barrier in N/cle (straight into the path of an oncoming police car (Silly me) :( :(

I explained to the \"officers\" that I\'d finished work and been to the gym and just wanted to get home to me Mum and me dinner!! :D :D

They didn\'t believe me and charged me with being drunk and disorderly and locked me up for the night. :( :( :D

Thing is: I was telling the truth! And on the day of the court hearing my solicitor produced a list of 21 witnesses plus times and places, to prove (without reasonable doubt, tee hee) that I could not have been drunk. :D :D :(

Under section \"blah blah\" of the \"such and such\" Act I elected to stand trial in a Crown Court with my witnesses to prove my innocence. All fine and dandy \'till the court asked for the police report. :(

A fine upstanding pig (I mean pillar of our community) said,

\"your worships, his eyes were glazed and his speach was slurred\".

Verdict: \"guilty\" and sentenced to a fine and denied a trail. :( :(

All this happened a long time ago (the police car was a Hillman Imp! :o ) but If they\'d charged me under a \"terrorist act\" ie. (jumping over the barrier in a terrorist like way) how could I have defended myself? :casstet:

Not Mr Blair etc. The law has been a farce since it was invented and is an institution that cannot now be challenged (\"or your nicked sonny boy\"). :cool:

1 day, 90 days or whatever: \"where there\'s police force (backed up by a demorcratic European, American \"civilized\" government boo blah) there\'s a way\"

To sum up, the police will always do what they want (after all, they dont have to be elected!), they\'re the babies of \"any\" political party along with the BBC and the Guffwrap military wan***kers who smoke cigars with binliners on their heads and a whole (Israeli) jaffa orange pinched (lighty/tighty) between the buttocks. Or is it a binliner on the head with orange in the mouth and cigar (alight of course) stuck (pleasently/pleasently) up their ar***se? Answers on a postcard to any tory MP or councellor. no questions please.
 
All TV, radio media etc is \"b*o*l*l*o*c*k*s\" (hope u can work out my encryption), they so smart that we dont know! Hi Sless, I\'m still jealous of ya long ling :P
 
Back
Top