Control orders rebranded as Liberal Democrats break yet another election promise

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...em-voters.html

'Lite' terror control orders designed to keep Nick Clegg safe from ire of Lib Dem voters, claims Labour

Criticised: The scrapping of control orders was said to be a result of 'horse-trading' between the Coalition parties to reverse the declining popularity of Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg came under fire today when Labour accused the Government of horse-trading over the issue of control orders to appease Lib Dem voters. Unveiling the new Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures, Home Secretary Theresa May announced 16-hour curfews for terror suspects would be replaced by 10-hour 'overnight residence requirements'. However, the new 'lite' version of the controversial orders was immediately said to be a result of the difficulties faced by Nick Clegg, who campaigned at the General Election on a pledge to abolish them completely.

His failure to deliver on several key pledges has left the Liberal Democrats adrift in the polls and has caused unrest among party members. He was taunted by shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper before the announcement when she said the review of counter-terrorism powers should be about keeping people safe in their homes, 'not keeping Nick Clegg safe in his job'. Ms Cooper said the Home Secretary must show that she has put the national interest above party political squabbling after a review process 'characterised by delays, disarray and a politicised public debate between different parts of the government'.

As she unveiled the measures in the House of Commons, MPs howled with derision as it became apparent that many of the powers would remain, albeit under a different name. Civil liberties campaigners who claimed control orders infringed upon suspects' human rights, branded the exercise 'spin and semantics'.

A spokesman for Liberty said: 'Control orders are retained and rebranded, if in a slightly lower-fat form.' The Government will only be able to use their powers on suspects for two years, and they will only be renewed 'if there is new evidence that they have re-engaged in terrorism-related activities'. The new regime may be seen as a victory for Mrs May, who had insisted major restrictions must remain in place. The new measures will allow authorities to retain the power to tag suspects and will have the right to remove their means of communication. And there will no longer be a requirement to review the powers once a year.

Well the broken promise isn't suprising considering that both parties are only following the example of the Labour Party which was in government before them in making promises before the general election and then simply dropping them when in office - it is amazing any of them have any support in the polls at all. A recent poll put the Liberal Democrats in fourth place behind UKIP nationally for the younger age bracket (18-24) as their main support base continues to melt away. If this is the honeymoon period for this government, I can't wait to see the end result.

The issue at hand; control orders. Introduced by the last government in 2005, they restrict a persons liberty and freedoms despite that person not being put to trial/charged with anything. It is a sort of executive order which in my view goes against what real justice and law are which is that you should only be held for a maximum of 24 hours without being charged, if the police cannot provide enough evidence to charge you within 24 hours then you should be released. Control orders on the other hand in my view should be scrapped fully.

Thoughts?

[alexxxxx]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...em-voters.html

'Lite' terror control orders designed to keep Nick Clegg safe from ire of Lib Dem voters, claims Labour

Criticised: The scrapping of control orders was said to be a result of 'horse-trading' between the Coalition parties to reverse the declining popularity of Nick Clegg

Well the broken promise isn't suprising considering that both parties are only following the example of the Labour Party which was in government before them in making promises before the general election and then simply dropping them when in office - it is amazing any of them have any support in the polls at all. A recent poll put the Liberal Democrats in fourth place behind UKIP nationally for the younger age bracket (18-24) as their main support base continues to melt away. If this is the honeymoon period for this government, I can't wait to see the end result.

The issue at hand; control orders. Introduced by the last government in 2005, they restrict a persons liberty and freedoms despite that person not being put to trial/charged with anything. It is a sort of executive order which in my view goes against what real justice and law are which is that you should only be held for a maximum of 24 hours without being charged, if the police cannot provide enough evidence to charge you within 24 hours then you should be released. Control orders on the other hand in my view should be scrapped fully.

Thoughts?

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/toda...lts-240111.pdf

as pointed out in the comments of that blog post this YouGov survey seems to contradict your message that they are third.. there are probably times where control orders are justified, but to the extent of 16h/day...

[Catzsy]

Considering they were supposed to be cutting this is going to cost more as they will be back before the judges every 14 days instead of 28 days to get a new control order. 24hours is very little time to gather evidence, Dan. Even under PACE it is longer than that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/toda...lts-240111.pdf

as pointed out in the comments of that blog post this YouGov survey seems to contradict your message that they are third.. there are probably times where control orders are justified, but to the extent of 16h/day...

Well i'm not claming every poll, some polls put the Liberal Democrats at 7% and some put at 11% - not all polls are the same, infact for the lower polling results for parties such as the Liberal Democrats and UKIP I often put 'x to x in the polls as they have such a range depending on what poll you read. The link was via the link I posted anyway, also a Yougov poll; http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/toda...-21-230111.pdf

As I said before, if this is the honeymoon period then.. ouch.

Considering they were supposed to be cutting this is going to cost more as they will be back before the judges every 14 days instead of 28 days to get a new control order. 24hours is very little time to gather evidence, Dan. Even under PACE it is longer than that.

Then you should only arrest somebody when you think you have sufficent evidence to charge them or near charge them, otherwise it is a breach of 'innocent until proven guilty' - one of our most important values which the last government seriously damaged.

The Police should arrest somebody only when they are more or less sure of somebodys guilty, 24 hours is plenty to sum up evidence and charge.

[Catzsy]

Well i'm not claming every poll, some polls put the Liberal Democrats at 7% and some put at 11% - not all polls are the same, infact for the lower polling results for parties such as the Liberal Democrats and UKIP I often put 'x to x in the polls as they have such a range depending on what poll you read. The link was via the link I posted anyway, also a Yougov poll; http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/toda...-21-230111.pdf

As I said before, if this is the honeymoon period then.. ouch.



Then you should only arrest somebody when you think you have sufficent evidence to charge them or near charge them, otherwise it is a breach of 'innocent until proven guilty' - one of our most important values which the last government seriously damaged.

The Police should arrest somebody only when they are more or less sure of somebodys guilty, 24 hours is plenty to sum up evidence and charge.

Well the police presently have 36 hours to charge or release which can be extended by a magistrate. Personally I believe there is probably good cause for the majority of them but the problem being that 'innocent' people to get caught up in it as well. Perhaps if we knew more about the reasons they are detained then we would be able to make a better valued judgment.

[Ajthedragon]

really don't care, they're a minority in the government, what do people expect. :rolleyes: