Weep for your liberties, oh Britain...

[Derek S]

In my opinion (which will no doubt be shot down in flames shortly) the reason we went through years and years of Irish terrorism without these laws was that, with some exceptions, the IRA did not set out with the express aim of killing as many civilians as they could.

If they had done and events such as Eniskillen and Omagh were regular occurrences then similar laws would be put in place.

Also at the time the technology that security services have to defeat wasn't anywhere near as advanced as it is today.

[BBKing]

Ready, aim, fire....

The technology argument as applied to encryption is a red herring in that either:
1) the suspect is using the best encryption out there and using it properly, in which case we can bring in the (dormant) provisions of the RIPA 2000 which makes refusing to hand over the decryption (or 'deencryption' as the thicko Blears called it this morning) keys an offence,

2) he isn't using proper encryption, or any encryption, or writes his password down on a post-it note, or it's 'jihad' or something, in which case any good police forensic lab (or private one, more likely, since it's a lucrative outsourcing field, like DNA - calling Big Dave Blunkett again) wouldn't even need 14 days to crack it. If the suspect persists in not handing over the keys, you charge him with that and lock him up, but even the best cracking technology we have won't break the best freely available encryption in 90 days (unless the NSA have already got quantum computing working). So that argument goes down the U-bend.

I don't think the Home Office ministers who spout rubbish about this understand one iota about the technical issues, so why should we listen to them? It's an insult to our intelligence.

Also at the time the technology that security services have to defeat wasn't anywhere near as advanced as it is today.

Have our own technical capabilities not gone up in the last 30 years as well, or something? Doesn't wash, a bit like my cat.

the IRA did not set out with the express aim of killing as many civilians as they could.

Hmm - it was only in the late period of their activities that they had the slightest regard for people's safety, preferring big attacks against buildings. Before that the Deal and Hyde Park bombings were against military targets but very, very soft ones (musicians in fact) and the aim was expressly to kill as many as possible with no warning. We did, of course, introduce draconian measures such as internment and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (another badly named one there, really) but the only thing that worked was a political solution, which is the only one we're not talking about (large elephant in room with 'IRAQ' painted on the side).

[basa]

Originally Posted by dezzo

In my opinion (which will no doubt be shot down in flames shortly) the reason we went through years and years of Irish terrorism without these laws was that, with some exceptions, the IRA did not set out with the express aim of killing as many civilians as they could.

If they had done and events such as Eniskillen and Omagh were regular occurrences then similar laws would be put in place.

Also at the time the technology that security services have to defeat wasn't anywhere near as advanced as it is today.

I acknowledge your exception ("with some exceptions") but I doubt the good citizens of Manchester and Warrington would agree they did not set out to kill civilians (unless the British Army have secret bases in Manchester and Warrington shopping centres !!

The police may have new powers under this legislation, but bearing in mind most of them are half brained power hungry lazy *******s they wont be arsed with the wagon load of paperwork an arrest would generate and would rather be out kicking the **** out of some guy for looking at them.

No change there then huh?
Besides, they'd have to emerge from behind the speed cameras and do some dectiving to find a crime. Most police seem genuinly amazed when no one grasses on their mates.

My recent burglary they didnt even bother checking for finger prints, turned up 4 hours after we reported it, then CID came the next day. Talk about taking the pish.

[cookie_365]

I remember when the checkpoints into the City of London were set up to prevent the IRA from bombing sensitive financial targets.

I was most surprised at how many Irish Republicans were black .....

[Chimaera]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

I remember when the checkpoints into the City of London were set up to prevent the IRA from bombing sensitive financial targets.

I was most surprised at how many Irish Republicans were black .....

I remember those - I was stopped by one! And threatened with being detained under the prevention of terrorism act. My crime? Driving round an emerald green Ford Capri with Irish number plates - obviously a typical terrorist, then!

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

That's possibly a good thing, as it will mean people will have to start taking the law more seriously. It's also likely to make people think twice before getting lippy with the Police.

As far as I am aware, "getting lippy with the Police" is not an arrestable offence unless you're on the streets of Mega City One and talking to Judge Dredd.

Are you suggesting that it *should* be arrestable?

Consider that if you are arrested, the Police have the right to enter your house to search for evidence and if they do they will certainly confiscate your computer, CDs, DVDs and any other related material to be examined at a later date (ie when it suits them) and, under this law you will have *NO* right to even complain about wrongful arrest.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

under this law you will have *NO* right to even complain about wrongful arrest.

Well that sucks

Originally Posted by Graham

As far as I am aware, "getting lippy with the Police" is not an arrestable offence unless you're on the streets of Mega City One and talking to Judge Dredd.

I wasn't suggesting it should be, however, I was suggesting that perhaps if they were more worried about actually getting arrested, rather than just getting a dirty look from a copper, then some individuals might think twice.

Originally Posted by Graham

...under this law you will have *NO* right to even complain about wrongful arrest.

That's just plain wrong.

As far as I can see, no matter what elements of it I might agree with, the total package is clearly the next step towards the '1984' scenario. I do believe they might just be relying on the 'nothing to hide/fear" argument for their support, because this almost instantly gets them all the support they need as so many people will simply comply to avoid being conspicuous. Which is odd, since they are thereby saying they had nothing to hide/fear...

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by basa

You may say the 90 days detention is not the worst bit of the legislation .. but consider what that means ..

....you are dragged off the street or even out of your own home in the middle of the night and thrown in a police cell, a 3m x 3m concrete cube with possibly one window which you can't see out of. You will probably find it cold and too uncomfortable to sleep (even if your mental state would allow sleep), you have NO contact with the outside world, not another soul, except and unless the police should allow it. You may get food (so called) only when the police remember where you are and decide you need sustenance and at their own time. Your whole life is controlled by a police officer who may or may not care for your welfare and only then if he is not too busy to remember you. Don't forget this could go on for upt to 90 days that's c.3 months !! from say tomorrow to early February !!

And as we've already seen, the Prevention of Terrorism Act is routinely used to impose a virtual police state - cast your minds back to his Tonyness' own party conference where an old man was kicked out and Austin Mitchell had his digital camera seized and wiped - to prevent terrorism apparently - and if this is what they do to their own what chance do we stand?

Originally Posted by Graham

As far as I am aware, "getting lippy with the Police" is not an arrestable offence unless you're on the streets of Mega City One and talking to Judge Dredd.

Oh I thought we were in Mega City One

[basa]

Originally Posted by Graham

As far as I am aware, "getting lippy with the Police" is not an arrestable offence unless you're on the streets of Mega City One and talking to Judge Dredd..

You should try it .. and see how fast you end up at the nick charged with 'obstruction' or a 'public order' offence!!

[BBKing]

You should try it .. and see how fast you end up at the nick charged with 'obstruction' !!

Considering the number of times the Old Bill has (ab)used their God (well, Tony) given powers and subsequently paid compensation out (cf. the anti-monarchy demonstrators at the 2002 Jubilee who were hauled out of a pub, put on buses and driven round the capital) you don't even need to get lippy for it to be a nice little earner

In other news, the Police effort to use SOCPA to threaten the Critical Mass people resulted in, er, rather more turning out than usual (1200 in London, more in other cities). This, of course, is rather the opposite of the original little Hitler intention.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326614.html

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Considering the number of times the Old Bill has (ab)used their God (well, Tony) given powers and subsequently paid compensation out

And considering the amount of arrests and subsequent convictions that police make year in, year out that aren't an abuse of their power...?