Salaam
So what do ppl make of the new law where a suspect could be held without charge from 28 days to 42 days - six weeks - that was passed in the Commons last week!
heres more info on this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7447218.stm
do the police really need 6 weeks to suss out if you are a terrorist?
is this the end of human rights and civil liberties?
is this an indirect atatck on Muslims?
should we be concerned about the ne wlegislation?
or should we back it as its best to be wrong than terrorist succeeding even if it means some of our civil liberties have to be compromised?
have your say
wasalaam
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Well, I get what he's trying to say, but we need to give up SOME freedom, like we can't say it's our freedom to smoke in enclosed public places. We can't scrap law and order altogether.
BUT, there comes to a point where it's unreasonable! Why do we need 42, when no one has been held for more than 14? Surely 28 is enough for high risk terrorists?
Hopefully, the Lords will vote against it and the DUP wouldn't back them this time. Or the government will get caught out or more rebels will emerge. Jusst, maybe.
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
Salam
I am against locking up innocent people for
42 days, or 28 days, or 14 days or whatever.
I condemn this practice because it is a violation of human rights.
It is totally against the values of democracy and liberty.
Shame on those people who call themselves "liberals", and yet they
do not protect the rights of innocent people. Such "liberals" are dispicable.
Omrow
^ Ditto what brother Omrow said
They talk about protecting the rights of people yet there's high opportunites of them taking away the rights of the innocent
Wagwan with that.. Its lame, its just another excuse to buy time in order to frame more muslims
Learn To Love The People Who Are Willing To Love You At Present. Forget The People In The Past & Thank Them For Hurting You, Which Lead You To Love The People You Have Right Now..
I thought 28 days was a lot but 42? Wow, amazing. OTT.
The media, government, tried to blow us, but they can't out the flame, or doubt the name.
So what if you're a suspect, surely 96 hours for murder suspects isn't alot. At the end of the 96 hours they either charge you, or let you go. You hvae to weigh the pros and cons, but 42 DAYS for SUSPECTED terrorists is too much!
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
Salam
Courage. I have weighed the pros and cons.
And I am still against locking up of innocent men or women.
It is an Islamic principle that says:
"Better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man hangs."
But what the so-called idiots who call themselves "liberals" have done is to say that
it is "better that 100 innocent men hang, than one guilty goes free".
You take your pick. I chose the former.
Omrow
I agree with Omrow.
Recent years have seen the flouting and undermining one of the basic (legal) tenants by the UK government - the rule of law - and this 42 days detention law is a prime example of it - their attempts to amend the laws to their own advantage. UK citizens have already lost trust in their government, and actions like this not only undermines, but destroys any opportunity of winning that back - it reflects the actions of a dictatorial ruler.
May Allah shine sweet faith upon you this day and times beyond. May your heart be enriched with peace, and may your home be blessed always. Ameen.
No one's saying the we should lock up innocent people, I don't agree with that at all!
But say if I'm suspected of murder, do you actually believe it's unreasonable to hold me while I'm being investigated? If I'm guilty you can charge me, if not then you can apologise and release me.
If you're Superintendent Omrow and I'm suspected of a serious crime how'll you handle it?
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
I'm not agreeing with 42 days either. It's blatantly obvious. I've specifically said that I don't.
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
Salam
Tell me Courage, after what length of time will an apology NOT be enough for you? And also, do you have the right to set the same limit for others?
Let me make it even simpler:
As an innocent peson, YOU may tolerate a month behind bars. Thats your choice. I respect that.
But how about a year? Even ten?
But what about a innocent girl who refuses to tolerate even a single day in a jail?
Would you tell her that she has no right to love her "freedom" so much?
Innocent people ought to love their freedom too much.
Omrow
I never said I'd tolerate a year, or even a month. You seem to be missing the point. Surely we need to hold suspects for SOME time, not weeks, or months or years! They can love their freedom, but why is it unreasonable to hold them for a LITTLE while, just so a proper and fair investigation can happen. Why can't we tell the innocent girl to be calm, assertive, honest and patient otherwise it'll make her look guilty. Surely that's what her lawyer would say.
Why is being held for a short time while being investigated unreasonable?
Let me ask you again, if you're the Super and I'm a suspected murderer how would you handle it?
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
Salam
No?
Listen to this:
To me, that appear to be saying that you do tolerate an innocent person being held in a prison.
Courage. Let me break it down to you even further.
You need to make up your mind on two things:
Do you tolerate, or don't you tolerate, innocent people being locked up in a prison.
If your answer is "yes", then for how long do you tolerate it.
You seems to have not decided on the issue.
Why don't you be COURAGEOUS and tell us exactly how long is this "little while" of yours for which you tolerate an innocent person being thrown in jail?
Either you accept any law that allows innocent people to be locked up, or you reject it.
You can't have it both ways.
Omrow
I support holding suspects for while, as their being investigated as long as it isn't too long.
Do you disagree with holding ANY suspect for ANY time at all? Not even while their being investigated?
My little while depends on the type of crime. For serious murder, with good and progressive evidence 96 hours is fair enough. The terror limit is already high enough with 28 days.
Now will you be courageous and tell me how you'd handle a murder investigation? How long would you hold a suspect under investigation?
If a girl's been raped and you're the superintendent, will you tell her that you've let the suspected rapist go after questioning him? That you're going to bail him out? Or are you going to hold him while he's being investigated but charge or release him when the time is up?
It's great that you're defending civil liberties and all that, mate, I don't even believe that an innocnet person should be in mainstream prison, where they've been branded a criminal, without being convicted first. But you have to be real and practical.
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
But the Conservatives and Lib Dems (and Labour rebels) argue 28 days is enough, 42 would just destroy someone's life and encourage them to extremism.
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
Salam
How would I handle an investigation?
Like Sherlock Holmes.
He is an inspiration.
Fair and proper, Mr Homes does NOT harass innocent people.
Elementary my dear COURAGE.
I see.
So you would not mind an innocent girl being locked up for 96 hours in a jail.
That's 4 days in prison for an innocent woman.
96 hours.
Why not 120 hours?
What if the police request holding the innocent chick for just ONE more day?
Are you really going to ARGUE with the Police Chief for 24 more hours?
Remember, the Chief claims that evidence is better than "good and progressive".
Omrow
[url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/][img]http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/u...
Don't just do something! Stand there.
That's not an answer. So you mean to tell me that you won't hold ANY suspect for even a little while? Not even while they're being investigated? People will have so much faith in you, mate.
Any old person won't be held for 96 hours. And 96 is the maximum for a non-terrorist offence. You need the permission of a judge for that. I think it's 36 hours from a Superintendent and 48 from a magistrate. And you need to prove that the extension is justified!
If a girl walks in and accuses someone of rape, and he's arrested, do you mean to tell me you'll question him and let him go just like that? You won't even hold him while he's being investigated.
Remember, you're not holding them in mainstream prison, but you're holding them in police custody.
I don't mean to be harsh on you but, GET REAL!!! You obviously haven't weighed up the pros and cons. You obviously haven't balanced civil liberties with the seriousness of the crime and safety of society.
At the moment your position seems to be that suspects shouldn't be detained not even, for a legitimate while, not even if their accused of something serious. I don't think many people would agree with you. I don't believe in holding anyone unnecessarily, which is why if after some time there's no adequete evidence, then we should let them go.
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
What happened to the basic legal maxim that "He who asserts must prove" (i know its civil law but same thing) :roll: - the burden of proof is on the PROSECUTION (even before trial) - why should a civillian be labelled guilty and locked up for ANY number of days without any evidence? No-one should be detained for any length of time, unless there are some solid grounds for doing so.
May Allah shine sweet faith upon you this day and times beyond. May your heart be enriched with peace, and may your home be blessed always. Ameen.
Yes the burden is on the prosecution, but the prosecution needs time to set up a case, which is why if there's no basic evidence that the person is guilty then they'll be released. But do you really think it's wrong to detain someone for a few hours while they're being investigated? That's not saying that YOU ARE guilty!
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
Salam
Then tell us when does it actually BECOME "wrong"?
Omrow
It becomes wrong when it's blatantly clear that there is no case but the police hold them when there's no need. But it's also wrong and incompetent if someone accused of a very serious crime, like rape and murder, is just released without even considering the consequences.
I think you've made your position clear, I've made mine. So this is becoming a circular arguement that gets nowhere. If you're still going to insist on your initial position, feel free to do so. But I don't think a Superintendent would last if he took that stance and I don't think many people would agree with you on that point.
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
Salam
I asked you to tell us after how many days, or months,
does it became wrong for the police to keep an innocent girl in jail.
You said:
So, you DON’T know after what length of time it
becomes WRONG to keep an innocent chick banged up in jail.
Well, that’s ok. If you dont know, just say you dont know.
You are not alone in this. It is the state of the majority as well.
Thats fine with me.
If you dont know, you dont know.
Omrow
The length of time depends on the situation, the reasonable length of time changes depends on the crime and the weight of evidence and potential evidence. If we KNOW anyone is innocent we shouldn't detain them, I've never said we should.
I'm not going to give you a definate time, because we can't just generalise.
And why is it always the innocent chick?
Didn't I say that she won't be in jail, but in police custody? There's a big difference.
But like I said, we've both made our positions clear. I don't think most people would agree with you here. And I don't think your stance would work.
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
Salam
Being banged up is not nice for any woman, where ever it may occur.
I think any innocent girl would NOT be able to
tell the difference as to where she is banged up.
Omrow
You're talking about it as if we all know she's innocent but we're holding her for fun. Tell me what crime has she been accused of and what the evidence is and then you can judge how long, if at all she should be held.
Why is it always this same girl?
And you've forgotten about my other questions, about if it was a murder or rape case? Should they, or shouldn't they be held for a reasonable time while they're being investigated? Or should they be free to run away? Or take revenge?
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
Salam
Reasonable?
Spending 4 days in a jail may be too much for an innocent girl to bear.
Women are like flowers. They wither when oppressed.
Courage. You have no right to decided for an innocent
girl what is "reasonable" for her. She should decide that herself.
A woman is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Is that TOO difficult for you to understand?
Omrow
Who says she's going to be held for 4 days? She may be investigated and held for just a few hours. I never said she's guilty, or we should treat her like she's guilty. Why are we sticking to this girl?
What about someone accused of a serious crime? We're not saying they're guilty, just that they need to be investigated.
You still seem to be avoiding the suspected rapist/murderer situation. You still haven't told us how you'd handle an investigation. Shelock Holmes isn't an answer. But we can guess, from what you've written, that your stance is clear. I've made mine clear. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I think most people would disagree with you and your investigation (and job) will fall flat on its face.
I don't know why you can't understand the convicting and investigating someone are two totally different things. And the investigation needs to be done efficiently and reasonably.
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
I'm going to say Omrow is banging on the same point and not getting anywhere.
Chin up, mate! Life's too short.
That is a normal response from those who have
lost and start crying like a baby.
p.s. Love is funny.
Pages