BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Should control orders be abolished?

10:48 UK time, Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Ministers have announced long-awaited reforms to counter terrorism powers. Do you agree with the changes?

Control orders are to be scrapped but suspects will still be tagged and have their movements restricted.

Powers to stop and search anyone for terrorist material within designated areas will also be curtailed.

What do you think of the government's plans? Do control orders maintain national security? Is there a better alternative?

Thank you for your comments. This debate is now closed.

Comments

Page 1 of 5

  • Comment number 1.

    Yep, Liebour went way too far with their paranoid delusions.
    It's about time some balance was restored.
    Of course we wouldn't be such a target if Bliar hadn't taken us to war on the back of a dodgy dossier. But there you go, he's rich and the taxpayer pays for protection for him and his family until they all peg it.

  • Comment number 2.

    In a country where you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty then clearly they should go.
    We should undo about 99.9% of the last Labour parties laws - anyone who might be anywhere near a child is a paedophile until the police prove them innocent, they can arrest you as a terrorist and never prove it, they can fine you on the spot for anything without the use of a court... the whole lot is very out of hand.

    I am VERY happy to say that in a society where at one extreme we are all chained up in case we might be terrorists, and on the other extreme we have freedom and terrorists blow up a city centre every day I would rather live in the second.

    We should catch and properly punish terrorists and those that control them - capital punishment being the most sensible option for all concerned.

  • Comment number 3.

    The next time people die because of this, you make sure that you post this exact same question again.

  • Comment number 4.

    Sometimes when I hear the rant against control orders I wonder if we are discussing slavery or flaying people alive. Certainly this is a restriction of liberty without trial, but it is not imprisonment, it is a control of someone who has done something that gives serious concern that they may commit or aid an act of terrorism. We are talking about TERROR. Perhaps this needs to be replaced with something better but let us at least take the time to carefully consider how we act because there are lots of people in the world who get a high from controlling the minds of others and making bullets for others to fire and hiding behind religion to justify it.

  • Comment number 5.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 6.

    I am not in favour of control orders which I see as Labour's neglect of civil liberties. However, alternatives need to be considered.

    A place to start is with the police and intelligence organizations. With the peace agreement in Northern Ireland the impression I formed was that the intelligence community would survive as there was a threat from animal rights (extremists of course) activists and they, alongside with extreme environmentalists would require surveillance.

    As we know controversial undercover operations have been conducted with these groups whilst control orders seem to be targetted at (alleged extremists) within the religion of peace.

    What worries me is if the level of incompetence shown with recent exposure undercover operations is revealed in attempts to replace control orders on Islamic extremists. The idea of a police officer going native with bunner lovers and tree huggers is one thing, but going native with Al Qiaida is another, especially if officers have suicidal tendencies.

  • Comment number 7.

    What to be replaced by Control Orders under another name?

    Waste of time and waste of money.

    Either the person is a threat or not a threat.

    If they are threat deal with it and if that means shipping them back to their own country even if it means persecution or death then tough.

    If they want asylum that’s fine but if they promote their own extremism either here or abroad then they should lose their right of asylum.

    It’s time to get tough with these people but then we do not know what wheeling and dealings are really taking place in the back ground.

  • Comment number 8.

    I feel that the coalition government have made the UK a soft touch on criminals and terrorists. Why are they reducing the control orders and reducing the police powers when they pursue person/s who are out to destroy us and inflict as much damage as possible upon us. This makes me cringe that this government does not know what the hell they are doing but stage strutting to look good withhout knowing truly what they are actually doing...and that is putting our lives more at risk and still allowing these "terrorists" a free hand to backdoor achieve their evil aims.

  • Comment number 9.

    I don't understand this. The authorities apparently don't have enough evidence of suspected terrorism to prosecute, but do have enough to impose control orders or, failing that, tagging? What's going on?

  • Comment number 10.

    The last government went over the top in response to perceived threat. We didn't react in this way when the very real threat of being bombed was coming from right next door in Ireland. I suppose the Irish were more civilised in their campaign in the sense that they phoned it in before any devices went off, but they were still a bigger threat to our security.

    Instead of control orders people should just be deported. If they're British nationals still deport them, if they're so enamoured with foreign training camps, let them live in those countries, we don't need people like that in our country.

  • Comment number 11.

    Foreign terrorists should be jailed, made to work hard and deported with no compensation.

  • Comment number 12.

    murder is murder and terror is terror,how and why is not a consideration for government to haggle over loosening the reins on would be suspects,just because the engine on political thinking in parliament has changed,people expect the coaltion government to make sweeping changes to reduce crime rather than encourage an increase in all avenues of terror from what ever source.

  • Comment number 13.

    "I am VERY happy to say that in a society where at one extreme we are all chained up in case we might be terrorists, and on the other extreme we have freedom and terrorists blow up a city centre every day I would rather live in the second."

    I second that, too many in this country are afraid of their own shadow. What's the point in living in a free society if the price we pay is locking people up without due process. We used to laugh at commies and banana republics doing the things liebor thought were acceptable. Ho Ho, we would never do that kind of thing in Britain... until Bliar, Mandy, Buffoon and the Demon Headmaster got their feet under the table.


  • Comment number 14.

    Sounds like the government are weighing up the cost of security against the value of life.




  • Comment number 15.

    5. At 11:26am on 26 Jan 2011, maverick wrote: The only people I fear our are awful politicions - Lock them all up chop of their heads and make me a happy lassy!

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    You have a good point there. I often think that the Tower of London could be put to better use. I would not chop their heads off; the tourists would pay to hear the politicians bray!

  • Comment number 16.

    Control orders should not go just yet, But people should be very aware in some parts of the commuity that they can be used if anyone who travels, to some places' with no real excuse will flag up on government computors where they are know terrorist groups ,and will be view with misgivings by them.

  • Comment number 17.

    Scrapping control orders may well prove to be a very costly mistake. They serve a very real purpose in restricting the movements of suspect individuals who are well-known to the security services. The authorities just don't have enough hard evidence to put OUR ENEMIES where they belong, consequently valuable resources and manhours are used to monitor their activities.
    All of the acknowledged experts, who have worked in this field for many years, have stated that control orders work. We are facing a very intelligent foe, well versed in covering their tracks. To allow them freedom to plot further atrocities is unwise (verging on reckless).
    Having worked in Military Intelligence for 9 years, and having lived and served in hostile Muslim environments, I can assure you that we are in a war in which we need to listen very carefully to experts who look after our safety. We ignore their recommendations at our peril.

  • Comment number 18.

    The government should publish exactly how many people are on control orders and include, their ethnic origin, their nationality, their right of abode in the UK and a general reason for the control order.

    We all know that the current enemy within are from a certain religious group - perhaps we can grow some and stop being PC about them and start removing their extreme scholars (if not British) and people who align themselves with the more extreme interpretation of the religion. Until this religion has a period of enlightenment it will be at odds with British society and values.

  • Comment number 19.

    That depends.

    Do we want a country where we respect the rule of law which provides all citizens with equal rights, protections and freedoms?

    Or do we want to manipulate the law so we are better protected from a tiny few who would harm us, at the expense of some of the basic rights a UK citizen can expect in terms of freedom and legal protection?

    Personally I don’t think any potential criminal offense, even mass murder by terrorist, warrants the removal some of our most basic human rights, without trial, conviction or the right to appeal. This is the UK in 2011 not Germany in 1940.

  • Comment number 20.

    If there is no proof of illicit action then let them go, they have done nothing yet. If there is proof that they are involved in terrorism then jail them.

    The no mans land of control orders is useless as it has no definite place to exist in law.

    To hold people becuase they might do something is like giving a driver a speeding ticket because he might speed, or arresting everyone at a school gate because they might snatch a child.

    When they do something then I aplogise to the liberals but arrest them, charge them, jail them, deport them even if it is dangerous to their lives or they do not have a passport. Personnaly I would not even land I would issue a parachute and tell them shout Geronimo...

    No one can say at passport control we don't want you.

    Better to send them back to the holy fight than to feed them here or the family and risk killing more innocent citizens.

  • Comment number 21.

    The citizens of this country deserve to be protected whatever the civil rights supporters say.

    My answer to those who are offended by control orders, tags or whatever is that I hope and pray no one they love is killed or damaged by those who call us the enemy.

    The UK has become too soft in my opinion and the deportation of agitators or extremists seems the only solution to the 'threat' of violence. We import terrorism, we allow young men and women to be radicalised right under our noses then, surprise surprise, there's an uproar when people are killed and maimed.

    Only the most stringent observation will keep these particular wolves at bay. Strengthen the measures not weaken them.

  • Comment number 22.

    2. At 11:23am on 26 Jan 2011, anotherfakename wrote:
    I am VERY happy to say that in a society where at one extreme we are all chained up in case we might be terrorists, and on the other extreme we have freedom and terrorists blow up a city centre every day I would rather live in the second.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    I assume that your comment about being happy to live in a society where terrorists blow up a city centre every day is a joke?!!!!!
    Have you ever had to deal with the aftermath of an explosive device?!!! Filling body bags and collecting the blown off limbs of children is not a very pleasant activity!! Before you ask: Yes I have, and I guarantee you it is not pleasant.

  • Comment number 23.

    We should keep the whole issue of terrorism in perspective...

    1. Roughly 3,000 die on UK roads each year, do we subject wilfully reckless drivers to tags and control orders, NO

    2. Roughly 36,000 die early in the UK due to air born pollution, do we subject polluters to house arrest, NO, did we take action against the falsification of air pollution evidence for the third runway at Heathrow proposal, NO

    3. Do we subject suspected negligent hospital staff to control orders, NO

    4. Do we take action against those doing serious harm to the UK economy which damages countless lives, NO

    What has the actual acts of terrorism really cost us?

  • Comment number 24.

    "Should 'control orders' be abolished"? is the HYS question.

    Do we have any choice? A pointless question. It's a done deal - just keep your fingers crossed and everything will be OK.

  • Comment number 25.

    14. At 11:41am on 26 Jan 2011, BradyFox wrote:
    Sounds like the government are weighing up the cost of security against the value of life.

    ------------

    Doesn't everyone?

  • Comment number 26.

    If the measures taken saved just one life, then they were worth it, and if it caused a certain section of society some grief, then it should have been a wake up call to them to put their house in order. I would say Control Orders don't gar far enough, and that we should recognise the fact we are still at war and that internment is needed for the duration of this war.

  • Comment number 27.

    Ok, sometimes the Security Services don't get it right and a person/convert ends up with a Control Order. If this is the case then the individual has due process to seek compensation through the legal system. However, Control Orders were put in place for a reason and that is to protect the people of this country and its infrastructure. Those that live in this country or indeed come to this country and go about their daily lives scheming to kill, maim or damage property by the means of a terrorist act need to be caught and where necessary jailed for life (until death) or deported. I am sick to the back teeth of the media reporting that a "British Citizen" has done this or that, how dare they call themselves British. For those of you Tree huggers, do gooders and Human Righters please keep up to speed on what goes on in this world and spare a thought for those that have been slaughtered in Moscow.

  • Comment number 28.

    Should control orders be abolished?

    No, but I think their use needs updating, to deal with the growing number of MPs and Lords/peers who are being convicted of criminal behaviour against the people and taxpayers of the UK.

    If Lord wotsisname doesnt have his peerage removed for ripping off taxpayers and using the highly intelectual argument of that others alledgedly stuck their heads in the oven so he did too, then what truth or fairness is there in UK justice.

  • Comment number 29.

    Absolutely not!

    If anything they should be replaced with even more robust restrictions for UK nationals and deportation without appeal for all others.

    How many innocent people must die before our so called leaders protect us?

  • Comment number 30.

    Paraphrasing Lincoln, and whoever else may have said similar:

    Anyone who is willing to give up their freedom in the name of security deserves neither and will end up losing both.

    Any security system is only as good as its weakest point (as, unfortunately and sadly, was demonstrated at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow). So we either need to lose all of our freedoms to a Police State, to have security, or we need to keep our freedoms and live with a much lower level of security. As a product of my upbringing, and the propaganda I was fed, I believe freedom to be the more important, even at the expense of security.

    Therefore I applaud anything that removes untenable laws and orders. I don't think this government are going to go far enough in reclaiming freedoms, but anything they can manage is welcome. Coming from Scotland, though, with have-a-go heroes like John Smeaton being rife, I don't much fear for my security anyway. Remember the Scottish motto - Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Wha dares meddle wi' me!

  • Comment number 31.

    7. At 11:30am on 26 Jan 2011, RonC wrote:
    What to be replaced by Control Orders under another name?

    Waste of time and waste of money.

    Either the person is a threat or not a threat.

    If they are threat deal with it and if that means shipping them back to their own country even if it means persecution or death then tough.

    If they want asylum that’s fine but if they promote their own extremism either here or abroad then they should lose their right of asylum.

    It’s time to get tough with these people but then we do not know what wheeling and dealings are really taking place in the back ground.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Wish I had read Rons post before commenting - would have saved me the effort!

  • Comment number 32.

    11. At 11:36am on 26 Jan 2011, Dave wrote:
    "Foreign terrorists should be jailed, made to work hard and deported with no compensation."

    The problem is, Dave, most of the people who were subject to control orders are British citizens.
    Again, the Law is being made-up on the usual ad hoc basis of precedent, rather than being based upon a proper Bill of Human Rights, allied to a written and legally-binding Constitution.
    For some arcane and mystical reason, the British Establishment glories in the fact that the rights of the people of this country are not constitutionally safe-guarded. That's probably why we still have an unelected second chamber, a monarchy and our ridiculous quangocracy.

  • Comment number 33.

    #3. Spot on. Well said.

  • Comment number 34.

    There are far too many liberals on here that would have us sharing our own hard fought for human rights with these terrorists, the very people who themselves wish to remove said rights completely. Just to clarify this to all the human right do-gooders this is a control of someone who has done something that gives serious concern that they may commit or aid an act of terrorism and not just your every day person. They will be involved deeply in at least supporting whatever deluded group they follow and in most cases activists in these groups. If the human rights people who complain about this act ever lost someone to these sickos or even spent a day in the real world then they may change their minds about allowing them the freedom they claim they are entitled to.

  • Comment number 35.

    The only real justice would be for those maimed and killed in any future outrage as a result of the pathetic and lax security arrangements now in place are the family and friends of those wishy-washy spineless liberals responsible for creating such a state of affairs except they won't be.

  • Comment number 36.

    "Should control orders be abolished?" you ask. Yes, because in our society we believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty. "Do you agree with the changes?" you go on to ask - no, they've not gone far enough.
    If there's enough evidence to withhold someone's liberty, then go to court. In other words, the government and security/police services should either put up or shut up. The same arguments that they put forward to justify the control orders, or the replacement 'control orders lite' as I heard them described this morning on BBCR5Live, could equally apply to conventional offences. Indeed they would probably do so without the constant vigilance of those of us who believe in Civil Liberty.

  • Comment number 37.

    As I understand it there is no choice but to scrap these orders or we risk massive fines from the EU. Jack Straw admits he knew this situation would arise but sat on it.

    In light of this I am at a loss to see how this is the 'fault' of the coalition. Labour brought the control orders in. Labout relaxed border controls and allowed in both terrorists and those who recruit them. Labour knew that the EU were ordering control orders to be scrapped. Labour gave the EU the right to rule over our parliament on these orders. Now they are sat in the wings sniping, and to top it all their followers are prepared to forgive them for bringing about this mess in favour of somehow laying the blame at those they left to clear it up. Are they the sort of people who shout at the ticket office staff when their train is late?

    I worry about the illiberal stance of Labour on a whole raft of issues. While agreeing that we need to restrict the activities of individuals who are a threat to our society I worry that these orders were intended for other purposes.

  • Comment number 38.

    [Bauer]

    "The next time people die because of this"

    The people who did the 7/7 bombings weren't under control orders. The next time someone who isn't subject to a control order commits an act of terrorism please make sure you make an invalid point about control orders again.

  • Comment number 39.

    What is the alternative? I don't see any sensible proposals, what I see is a government pressured into this decision by those that believe that everyone should have freedom to do as they wish and that muslims are being unfairly targeted, they are not. Muslims with extreme views need to be controlled, and in the absence of any sort of help from the so called moderate muslim community then our country needs to deal with it, either that or get them out of our country and in to one that will accommodate their views. I doubt very much if I could wander around spouting and threatening as these people do and still expect to have my freedom.

  • Comment number 40.

    Bauer’s post makes an excellent point.

    How liberal we all are when 'all is quiet on the Western Front'.

    Me. Being old I would rather not have my country blown up every day thank you so very much. Being old I would also like to believe that our High Court judges did not issue any control orders just for the hell of it.

  • Comment number 41.

    At 11:53am on 26 Jan 2011, thomas wrote:
    The citizens of this country deserve to be protected whatever the civil rights supporters say.

    My answer to those who are offended by control orders, tags or whatever is that I hope and pray no one they love is killed or damaged by those who call us the enemy.

    ______________________________________________________

    As you say, citizens deserve to be protected.

    As such I hope you or a loved one never get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up tagged, incarcerated or strapped blindfolded to a wheel barrow in Guantanamo without trial, conviction or the right to appeal.

  • Comment number 42.

    Do these people really pose a threat? Or is this just the ongoing paranoia falling out of 9/11 and 7/7.

    If they do then does the control order actually lessen that threat? It certainly causes great damage to civil liberties, our moral position and to community relationships etc. Does the benefit outweigh the damage?

    I can't judge the balance of this without knowing whether they really pose a threat and whilst I have great respect for our security services I also remember the evidence they offered in terms of WMD prior to the Iraq affair and perhaps the killing of Menezez on a lesser and more local scale. Trust is damaged already.

  • Comment number 43.

    "23. At 12:02pm on 26 Jan 2011, wvpTV wrote:
    We should keep the whole issue of terrorism in perspective...

    1. Roughly 3,000 die on UK roads each year, do we subject wilfully reckless drivers to tags and control orders, NO

    2. Roughly 36,000 die early in the UK due to air born pollution, do we subject polluters to house arrest, NO, did we take action against the falsification of air pollution evidence for the third runway at Heathrow proposal, NO

    3. Do we subject suspected negligent hospital staff to control orders, NO

    4. Do we take action against those doing serious harm to the UK economy which damages countless lives, NO

    What has the actual acts of terrorism really cost us?"
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    This hyperbole is basically saying to me that you're pro terrorism. you know what? my cash flow situation is far mor preferable than what happened.

    people die on our roads? yes, we have laws and punishments for those caught. what's your point? oh, that reckless drivers INTENDED to kill hundreds. OK. And that we need time to gather evidence and accomplices for these crimes? OK

    Air pollution? Yes, this clearly is equivalent to a terrorist attack isn't it. Oh you are so clever

    Negligent hospital staff get punished as neccessary. Oh wait, yes, targeted attacks on people - they certainly need an eye kept on them. maybe they work in cells?

    your last group (eceonomic terrorists) get away with it. but i'm not sure they attribute directly to deaths in the UK, nor s their aim to kill people

    Instead of using hyperbole to "keep terrorism in persective" think about the actual world you live in.
    You go outdoors and breathe without the threat of suddenly dropping dead due to pollution. You use the roads without fear and let me know what you're going to do when you get seriously ill - NOT go to hospital?

    people die from stairs and from waking up or falling over, so whats your point? Terrorism is such a small issue we should do nothing about it? We should be REACTIVE rather than proactive?

    Please do not try and offend people that have lost family members in terrorist attacks. "Terrorists aren't all that bad really" is such a stupid tone to give.

    And no, i think control orders probably aren't the right incarnation of what is needed but something is needed and it's NOT perspective

  • Comment number 44.

    38. At 12:38pm on 26 Jan 2011, Simon Harpham wrote:
    [Bauer]

    "The next time people die because of this"

    The people who did the 7/7 bombings weren't under control orders. The next time someone who isn't subject to a control order commits an act of terrorism please make sure you make an invalid point about control orders again.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    By your twisted logic you actually raise a very valid point - we need more control orders not fewer.

    Personally I would rather see 500 would be terrorists deported wrongly than 1 single innocent person killed, but this counrty is just to wishy washy to address the actual problem!

  • Comment number 45.

    3. At 11:25am on 26 Jan 2011, Bauer wrote:
    The next time people die because of this, you make sure that you post this exact same question again.

    ==================================================

    This post says everything I wanted to so I am copying it - thanks Bauer.

  • Comment number 46.

    It is always better to detain one innocent civilian than allow one terrorist to kill many.

    Civilian law cannot cater for military actions and naive views of individual civil rights wil only be used to make military attacks by terrorists easier.

  • Comment number 47.

    Yes, their imposition meant that the Terrorists had won, as was usual with the previous government.

  • Comment number 48.

    Control orders must go.

    What can be simpler than the law that if someone is believed guilty of a crime, or planning one, that they be prosecuted for it and, if found guilty, punished?

    If insufficient evidence exists for a conviction then they be allowed to go free.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

  • Comment number 49.

    Control orders will not solve the problem of terrorism. Nothing will. There will always be fanatics who lead people into pointless conflicts where resulting diplomatic complexities stir up even greater difficulties. Even on the supposedly 'good' guys side.

    The history of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Israel and so on, was not built on any particular day, and when we choose to fight with or against them we would be wise to remember ALL our yesterdays not just the ones that fit our especial argument at the time.

  • Comment number 50.

    If current anti-terrorism laws are over the top and 'unfair', then why can't we deport the 125 or so Pakistani nationals over here in the UK that our Security Services say are a menace to us?

    They manage to remain here because Human Rights Laws do not allow us to deport aliens to countries where they may face torture. These people knew that when they came over to the UK - there is a massive lack of personal accountability in our Human Rights Laws. The Human Rights Laws need either amending or need to be applied differently as currently we are NOT protected against people who want to hurt us.

    I despair at the lack of sovereignty that we have when it comes to making decisions that protect the general public. It appears that some alledged terrorists have more human rights than the UK public at large. Shocker.

  • Comment number 51.

    "Security chiefs say the power is an essential tool in cases where there is intelligence that someone is involved in extremism but has not yet committed a crime, such as someone associating with known plotters."

    If they associate with "known plotters", then these "known plotters" must be known to have been involved in plotting to commit a crime - otherwise they wouldn't be "known".
    Why aren't these "known plotters" in jail?

  • Comment number 52.

    But where does CONTROL ORDER start and end??....unfortunately some innocent people have been victims of this legislation with no fault of their own.
    A garden refuse collector was placed under this order by mistake because he was seen talking to a person under suspicion from the Authority. The poor chap was only negotiating to collect refuse from the other guys premises. Yes, you can guess what happened, he looked like what a "terror" suspect should look like - ethnic background and all that stuff. Sad to say some people in authority are only too quick to stereotype, jump to conclusion, without checking their facts. Still remember Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, who was accused of having a Mongoloid look, or that Scotsman who was carrying a table-leg but being accused by a member of the public(who phoned the Police) of being an armed IRA terrorist?? On both occassions, the Armed Police Squad turned up, with no attempt to verify first, BANG BANG BANG,... they are dead. And the Authority got away with murder !!

  • Comment number 53.

    45. At 12:47pm on 26 Jan 2011, JonDM wrote:
    3. At 11:25am on 26 Jan 2011, Bauer wrote:
    The next time people die because of this, you make sure that you post this exact same question again.

    ==================================================

    This post says everything I wanted to so I am copying it - thanks Bauer.


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Keeping The Fear Alive:
    I guess someone's got to do it.

  • Comment number 54.

    As long as the security of th UK and its citizens is not lessened.

    We also need to make it clear that being British means the British way of life. If anyone is unhappy here and want to make the UK an Islamic State and Buckingham Palace into a mosque, we need to use the same language as the Australian PM, Julia Gillard.

    If you dont want the British way of life and speak the language, there are plenty of nations that can offer you that.

    I just want a safe Britain for all Brits, regardless of your sex, religion, sexual preferences etc...

  • Comment number 55.

    "41. At 12:43pm on 26 Jan 2011, bambam75 wrote:

    As you say, citizens deserve to be protected.

    As such I hope you or a loved one never get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up tagged, incarcerated or strapped blindfolded to a wheel barrow in Guantanamo without trial, conviction or the right to appeal.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    But this is one of the points isn't it? That most of us have nothing to do with any extremism - i'm not travelling back and forth to pakistan or making calls to dodgy people or hanging around in groups that can be suspected of something dodgy.

    It is simple - like when i lived in london, i was never worried about "black on black" crime (ie being shot or stabbed), simply because i had nothing to do with crime, drugs, dodgy people, dodgy places etc.

    If you dont want to get carted of to guantanamo, as you suggest, then you avoid dodgy people and places and activities. We can dance around what we can and cannot say in public, but the authorities have a list of suspects and know what suspicious behaviour is and should be allowed to act on it.
    We can't always wait until a bomb has gone off before an investigation - terrorism is far from just a handful of nutters; there are organised cells and groups and hierarchy

    I don't know about you, but when i see suspicious behaviour, say, someone trying car doors along a street, i notice it and report it; i don't think "maybe i should respect that person's freedom and right to play with car doors".

  • Comment number 56.

    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither, and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

  • Comment number 57.

    Yes

    If the evidence is there then prosecute.

    If there is no evidence then there is no basis for any action


  • Comment number 58.

    Control orders are not issued 'without evidence'. They are issued by a high court judge on seeing evidence that should not be in the public domain due to various reasons. Does an undercover inteligence agent stand in court as a witness in front of the general public and then go back to his/her undercover job? Of course not. Sources need to be protected so they can be utilised further. We don't know if the control orders are reasonable or not as we dont have the benefit of knowing what the evidence is. Maybe mistakes are made and the orders should be reviewed from time to time to ensure the threat was genuine or not, but to remove them is very short-sighted. We're not talking hundreds of people either, its a very small number. The control orders are not perfect but they are better than nothing. Unpleasant but necessary.

  • Comment number 59.

    13. At 11:40am on 26 Jan 2011, RightWingIDBanned wrote:
    "I am VERY happy to say that in a society where at one extreme we are all chained up in case we might be terrorists, and on the other extreme we have freedom and terrorists blow up a city centre every day I would rather live in the second."

    --------------------------------------------

    What about the middle group were those which fit the terrorist profile are monitored while everyone else is free. If the Terrorist would simple abide by the rules of the Geneva convention and wear a uniform so they can be identified as military personal then it would be a lot easier, but instead they dress as civilians.

    I guess you must think Baghdad is the greatest place in the world to live as they have terrorist attacks all the time, oh how free the people of that city must be.

  • Comment number 60.

    At 12:46pm on 26 Jan 2011, pzero wrote:
    38. At 12:38pm on 26 Jan 2011, Simon Harpham wrote:
    [Bauer]

    "The next time people die because of this"

    The people who did the 7/7 bombings weren't under control orders. The next time someone who isn't subject to a control order commits an act of terrorism please make sure you make an invalid point about control orders again.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    By your twisted logic you actually raise a very valid point - we need more control orders not fewer.

    Personally I would rather see 500 would be terrorists deported wrongly than 1 single innocent person killed, but this counrty is just to wishy washy to address the actual problem!

    ___________________________________

    So you would be ok with your own husband/wife/son/daughter being punished without trial just so long as we are all 'safe'?

  • Comment number 61.

    21. At 11:53am on 26 Jan 2011, thomas wrote:
    The citizens of this country deserve to be protected whatever the civil rights supporters say.


    So to protect you, you want your civil rights removed. Isn't that what the terrorists want in the first place? Why give in to their demands?

  • Comment number 62.

    1. At 11:21am on 26 Jan 2011, Mike from Brum wrote:

    Yep, Liebour went way too far with their paranoid delusions.
    It's about time some balance was restored.
    Of course we wouldn't be such a target if Bliar hadn't taken us to war on the back of a dodgy dossier. But there you go, he's rich and the taxpayer pays for protection for him and his family until they all peg it.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm quite sure the Lockerbie bombing, 9/11, the death sentence placed on Salman Rushdie all pre date the war. I think you will also find that the war is only one excuse they have for attacking us, another is that there are non Muslims living in Muslim countries, that's the reason one of the 7/7 bomber gave. Also we don't execute adulterers, homosexuals, Apostates of Islam, those who insult Islam, oh and we don't let Israel's enemies finish off the final solution.

    Interestingly since we went to war, less people in the UK have died at the hands of Islamic terrorists than had done under the previous government.

  • Comment number 63.

    "Should control orders be abolished"? is the HYS question.

    NO.

  • Comment number 64.

    So Iran executes two people for protests, but it's suspected terrorist having restrictions on there lives which really get up the human rights atavists noses?

  • Comment number 65.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 66.

    50. At 1:01pm on 26 Jan 2011, Notanothernutter wrote:
    If current anti-terrorism laws are over the top and 'unfair', then why can't we deport the 125 or so Pakistani nationals over here in the UK that our Security Services say are a menace to us?

    They manage to remain here because Human Rights Laws do not allow us to deport aliens to countries where they may face torture. These people knew that when they came over to the UK - there is a massive lack of personal accountability in our Human Rights Laws. The Human Rights Laws need either amending or need to be applied differently as currently we are NOT protected against people who want to hurt us.

    I despair at the lack of sovereignty that we have when it comes to making decisions that protect the general public. It appears that some alledged terrorists have more human rights than the UK public at large. Shocker.


    The operative word is "alledged" [sic]. You do not remove someone's liberty based on allegations but on evidence and judicial process. In that respect you have EXACTLY the same human rights as any alleged terrorist: you cannot be detained and imprisoned on allegations but on evidence and lawful process. If you believe the authorities should have the right to detain anyone they like without evidence and without lawful process, then you are not protecting the general public at all but removing their civil rights and exposing us all to the arbitrary power of the state. Wars have been fought and tyrants overthrown over the centuries to assert, uphold and defend these rights.

  • Comment number 67.

    Be OK if the stupidity which stops us marching these people into Court and locking them up legally was sorted out....but it won't be.

    So asa far as I can see publicv safety still comes a long way second to PC Human Rights Non-logic

  • Comment number 68.

    @56 - couldn't agree with you more.

  • Comment number 69.

    I have no doubt that Control Orders have been a rather clumsy instrument of law by which a few people have been badly treated but the fact remains that we in this country are under constant threat of terrorism and let's not forget that some of the worst cases in recent times have been from home grown terrorism such as 7/7 and the incident at Glasgow airport. Perhaps those people who attract the attention of the security services should be required to face a panel comprising both security experts and leading members of their own community to explain their actions, beliefs and behaviour? Too often the local community are not fully aware or involved in what are critical investigations and this causes resentment towards our legal system. Such a procedure might put a stop to the perceived notion of victimisation.

  • Comment number 70.

    38. At 12:38pm on 26 Jan 2011, Simon Harpham wrote:
    [Bauer]

    "The next time people die because of this"

    The people who did the 7/7 bombings weren't under control orders. The next time someone who isn't subject to a control order commits an act of terrorism please make sure you make an invalid point about control orders again.

    -------------

    I don't think your logic holds true here. You can't catch all the terrorists but you must do everything you can to prevent loss of innocent life. If that means sacrificing the freedoms of a few "would be terrorists" then so be it. They don't just make this stuff up out of nowhere, they don't just arrest people for the sake of it.

    If only we knew how many legitimate attempts were thwarted every year it might open a few peoples eyes just a little more.

  • Comment number 71.

    55. At 1:11pm on 26 Jan 2011, Moderator Friendly Unoffensive Nickname wrote:

    But this is one of the points isn't it? That most of us have nothing to do with any extremism - i'm not travelling back and forth to pakistan or making calls to dodgy people or hanging around in groups that can be suspected of something dodgy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This simply isnt true. You work on the logic that you are able to notice a "terrorist". If it was as easy as you make out to avoid being accedently part of a social group that may be part of some sort of anti Uk group, then there wouldent be any. Police would use this "Magic" skill you talk about to detect them all.

    I personally know a friend who was taken to that hell bay just because he accedently knew a person who knew a person etc.

    The facts are simple, these legislations concern rights, our rights. We should decide on our rights not some pencil pusher. These laws are giving to much power to an abstraction rather thne to the people who it effects.

  • Comment number 72.

    My general view is that the UK should live by the rule of law, and a decent set of principles. There are always reasons to to bypass things like the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence, and to use "secret" evidence to deny liberty. But where do you draw the line? When someone does something? When they plan it? When they talk about it? When they think about it?

    Playing by the rules does not mean being weak. Terrorists should be hunted down and dealt with, absolutely. And funding and resources should be directed where needed. However, many of the measures put in place simply seemed expeditious; short cuts in the absence of proper action. They are well due a review.

  • Comment number 73.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 74.

    It's hard to defend a measure that is not lawful under our own laws. Control orders have to go because this is their weakness.

    And it doesn't matter what your pewrsonal politics are: this is how the law works.

  • Comment number 75.

    "Control orders are likely to be scrapped but suspects will still be tagged and have their movements restricted."

    So, in other words, they will still be under a form of control order but with a different name. What is the point of that.

  • Comment number 76.

    It's such a pity that those in favour of more stringent measures have so quickly fallen to personal insults and snipes. Comments along the lines of wishing the family of "liberals" harm is nasty bullying, and not fit for this discussion.

    When growing up I remember how we were touted as being a free society, unlike the Soviet Union, with its KGB and people who disappeared for saying the wrong thing. Around this time there were troubles in Northern Ireland, and we had bombers on the UK mainland. I don't recall hearing about control orders then. We were proud of our freedom.

    My biggest issue with control orders is that these are placed on people without recourse to "due trial", with individuals not actually arrested so without explanation of what their "crime" is and without an ability to defend themselves. Actually, it's a big step toward the old Soviet policing, and I wonder if any of these people have simply been disappeared.

  • Comment number 77.

    51. At 1:03pm on 26 Jan 2011, Mysturji wrote:
    Why aren't these "known plotters" in jail?

    ---------

    Evidence (or lack thereof).

  • Comment number 78.

    67. At 1:32pm on 26 Jan 2011, Sepenenre wrote:
    "Be OK if the stupidity which stops us marching these people into Court and locking them up legally was sorted out....but it won't be.

    So asa far as I can see publicv safety still comes a long way second to PC Human Rights Non-logic"
    -----
    You mean we only need to remove the burden of proof.

    Great idea. Removing this burden of prrof will streamline things and allow us to send you to jail for a crime you never committed.

    I think this is the only way you may learn the lesson, Sepenenre.

  • Comment number 79.

    At 1:11pm on 26 Jan 2011, Moderator Friendly Unoffensive Nickname wrote:
    "41. At 12:43pm on 26 Jan 2011, bambam75 wrote:

    As you say, citizens deserve to be protected.

    As such I hope you or a loved one never get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up tagged, incarcerated or strapped blindfolded to a wheel barrow in Guantanamo without trial, conviction or the right to appeal.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    But this is one of the points isn't it? That most of us have nothing to do with any extremism - i'm not travelling back and forth to pakistan or making calls to dodgy people or hanging around in groups that can be suspected of something dodgy.

    It is simple - like when i lived in london, i was never worried about "black on black" crime (ie being shot or stabbed), simply because i had nothing to do with crime, drugs, dodgy people, dodgy places etc.

    If you dont want to get carted of to guantanamo, as you suggest, then you avoid dodgy people and places and activities. We can dance around what we can and cannot say in public, but the authorities have a list of suspects and know what suspicious behaviour is and should be allowed to act on it.
    We can't always wait until a bomb has gone off before an investigation - terrorism is far from just a handful of nutters; there are organised cells and groups and hierarchy

    I don't know about you, but when i see suspicious behaviour, say, someone trying car doors along a street, i notice it and report it; i don't think "maybe i should respect that person's freedom and right to play with car doors".
    ______________________________________

    Nobody is suggesting investigations should stop, in fact I think much more time, money, effort and man hours should be spent bringing people to justice and preventing attacks before they happen. But this should be done within the legal framework of innocent until proven guilty. You don’t need to wait until a bomb has gone off; there are plenty of criminal acts which police can act upon, that go into planning and organising a terrorist attack, not just the actual attack itself.

    As for your 'I'm alright Jack' response to getting caught up in something. All it takes is a prolonged conversation with the wrong apparently nice normal person, the delivery of a seemingly innocuous item to an innocuous house or getting a lift from a seemingly nice work-mate or neighbour before he nips off to B&Q for half a tonne of fertilizer. All of a sudden you are in police notebooks, part of the investigation and one step away from a control order without any legal process, which you as an innocent person can do nothing to appeal against.

  • Comment number 80.

    Although you can see why such orders would be useful to protect the public,government does itself no favours because it uses such orders to demonise innocent people and not just regards terrorism,thats merely a side show. Its well known government loves to promote so called laws to protect the public so it can slip in others to use against the very public its supposed to be protecting.Those laws being an extension to an existing law or anything which might allow further erosion of our hard fought freedoms.What the British people want is less law and more freedom.You cannot protect against terrorists but democracy is the strongest ally we have because religious bigots who believe they can change this country are deluded,we are made of sterner stuff than their twisted beliefs.

  • Comment number 81.

    I think the answer is STILL yes, the current replacement are clearly not what is required. What is required is that people who are guilty are charged, tried, and if convicted punished. The rest of us - as in people not guilty - should be free to go about their normal lives without let or hinderance.

    This idea that someone could suspect you, a cosy relationship between a politician, a couple of judges and few behind the scenes policemen is all that is required to deprive people of their liberty is totally against everything this country has ever stood for. I'd rather someone blew me to hell and back than see our country ruled like this.

  • Comment number 82.

    62. At 1:23pm on 26 Jan 2011, Andy wrote:

    I'm quite sure the Lockerbie bombing, 9/11, the death sentence placed on Salman Rushdie all pre date the war. I think you will also find that the war is only one excuse they have for attacking us, another is that there are non Muslims living in Muslim countries, that's the reason one of the 7/7 bomber gave. Also we don't execute adulterers, homosexuals, Apostates of Islam, those who insult Islam, oh and we don't let Israel's enemies finish off the final solution.

    Interestingly since we went to war, less people in the UK have died at the hands of Islamic terrorists than had done under the previous government.

    ---------------------------

    They will always find a reason to recruit with. Any quote they can take out of context or even our existence will be enough of a reason for them to kill.

    In both iraq and afghanistan these people justify killing each other often around their religion. Soldier, police or civilian is irrelivent in their eyes and yet people here still try to judge them as we do ourselves. We dont blow up police recruitment centres, segregate by religion/version or oppress such sections due to the group they were born to.

    You make a good comment Andy. Well put.

  • Comment number 83.

    21. At 11:53am on 26 Jan 2011, thomas wrote:
    The citizens of this country deserve to be protected whatever the civil rights supporters say.

    OK, I can see how you could be protected...
    Lock you up in a padded cell so you can't possibly hurt yourself, get run over, catch a nasty disease, be shot at.....


    Frankly you've really got it wrong. You are protected when the government - or anyone else - doesn't have the right to just lock you away and chuck the key without good and provable reason. The guys locked up under control orders - and those that will be under the new regime ARE INNOCENT - in the UK at least because they HAVEN'T BEEN PROVEN GUILTY. We passed a law many hundreds of years ago which said that people couldn't be locked up on a whim. These control orders and their replacements are just a total reversal of that. Its not civil liberties its our history, its the freedoms my grandads and great grandads fought to preserve. To throw it away because you are too stupid to look at the facts is to insult their memory. The people who were on control orders who have been charged have been shown to be innocent and released.

    Control orders/control orders lite should be scrapped as incompatible with English law. If you would like a totalitarian regime to 'protect you' at the expense of civil liberties may I suggest North Korea????

  • Comment number 84.

    I see NO point in making a comment on this board BECAUSE this load of rubbish we have as Government have NOT got the guts to impose the right way to deal with these people and will NOT do what IS requuired
    SEND THEM BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM it does NOT metter what happens to them there NOT our business
    This Government and previous ones are TOO soft that's why we have the problem we have NOW

  • Comment number 85.

    51. At 1:03pm on 26 Jan 2011, Mysturji wrote:
    "Security chiefs say the power is an essential tool in cases where there is intelligence that someone is involved in extremism but has not yet committed a crime, such as someone associating with known plotters."

    If they associate with "known plotters", then these "known plotters" must be known to have been involved in plotting to commit a crime - otherwise they wouldn't be "known". Why aren't these "known plotters" in jail?

    #####################################################

    This to me goes to the heart of this question.

    If someone has broken the law then arrest and try them, if necessary hold them on remand if they pose a threat whilst on bail.

    If someone is 'plotting' surely they are breaking the law by 'conspiring with others' to break the law, then arrest them.

    If they have not 'ploting' or 'conspiring with others' how do we know they are a threat? If it is because of what they have previously said or done, then why are these people in the country?

    If you want to get rid of control orders - and to me they seem to be just a lazy politicians quick fix solution to a problem - then get to the core problem of why these people are a) allowed into this country and b) cannot be deported.

    It is not too difficult to stop trouble makers comming into this country. (I saw a documentry about Heathrow and immigration stopped a young Australian entering the country on a tourist visa as the last time he was in the UK on such a visa he was found with pay-slips from a department store in his luggage - he was not supposed to work, so they wouldn't let him in).

    Find a country which will accept troublemakers, if there isn't one then just do not let anyone in without snowy-white proof that they are firstly who they say they are and secondly they are not, nor have ever been 'political'.

    The trouble seems to me that politicians (particularly torees) are too preoccupied with their own image and do not want to be denounced by the 'all asylum seekers are saints' brigade of the Lib Dems.








  • Comment number 86.

    I despise terrorists of all ilks, and we need to do all we can to prevent them from operating, without infringing on our personal freedoms.

    There are far too many people who long for the nanny big state to protect them from the bogey man(whoever the government has decided fits that bill at the time). They are afraid, and this makes them easy to control, and more willing to part with their cash (in terror taxes).

    On the other hand a lot of us would like as little government interference in our lives as possible. Having a propper view of the threat posed by terrorism helps. I'm far more concerned about my life being cut short on our roads as opposed to terrorism. It's borne out by the statistics.

  • Comment number 87.

    Yes, but only if we can have a deportation system that allows us to sling trouble makers out as soon as they become a problem rather than one that keeps being over turned by the courts.

  • Comment number 88.

    Having watched Panorama this week when a stalker has been recorded threatening his ex-partner for 2 years & actually beating her up 3 times in her own home & the police refuse to lock him up makes me wonder as to what level of proof do they require before a a threat to a person or persons is taken seriously.

    If hundreds die than the lawyers, civil rights workers should be held responsible - just as the police would be held responsible if they prove to be inefficient.

    Serious foreign suspects should be sent home - we really can't take the risk.

  • Comment number 89.

    @3. At 11:25am on 26 Jan 2011, Bauer wrote:
    The next time people die because of this, you make sure that you post this exact same question again.


    And when they do I will post EXACTLY the same response. I'd rather be blown to hell several times a week than allow our historical liberties and laws be crushed by a government and police state that thinks locking people up without proof is a fine thing to do.

  • Comment number 90.

    @4. At 11:25am on 26 Jan 2011, Freedomknight wrote:
    Sometimes when I hear the rant against control orders I wonder if we are discussing slavery or flaying people alive. Certainly


    We are talking about seriously restricting peoples liberty - punishing them - without proof. I think you - from your handle - a Knight - might be part of a secret order or be carrying offensive weapons (a sword) so lets make it so you can't go to work, go out at night, use the internet, phone people..... try it for a month, see how you like it?

  • Comment number 91.

    The BBC understands the new orders would give the security services the power to ban:
    - suspects from travelling to locations such as open parks where surveillance is hard
    - allow suspects to use mobile phones and the internet if the numbers are provided to the security services
    - suspects from travelling abroad
    - suspects from meeting certain named individuals.
    Under the planned new orders, the security services would lose the power to impose overnight curfews, force suspects to phone into a monitoring company every time they entered or left their homes and lift the ban on them using mobile phones and the internet.
    These changes are not good enough!
    But some in government are pushing for the security services still to have the power to tag suspects simply so they can keep tabs on them by knowing if they are no longer sleeping regularly at one particular address.
    These changes are not good enough. They are anti-democratic, and I suspect against human rights.
    The Coalition Government ought to get its act together and treat all persons equally - if and until there is some specific, documented, proven reason to do otherwise.
    David Cameron: Control orders "haven't been a success" but there needed to be a "proper replacement". What would that be? It looks to me a lot like the old "control orders".
    I agree 100% with Shadow home secretary, Ed Balls: that the process had "descended into a shambles...With daily leaks, briefings and counter-briefings, this is a chaotic and disorderly way in which to decide national security policy."
    For once I also agree 100% with Nick Clegg: It is deeply regrettable that the future of control orders has become first and foremost about a political negotiation, or a 'deal' to keep The Coalition together.
    You know what?
    If I was in the UK, this type of stuff would not make me feel safe, though I might feel somewhat embarrassed.

  • Comment number 92.

    This was discussed on HYS on 3rd January 2011 under the heading "Should control orders be scrapped".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html

    Yet more repeats on the BBC.

  • Comment number 93.

    I don't think Control Orders should be abolished, but I do believe there needs to be more restrictive guidelines on when they can be used.

    Very few people that Control Orders have been placed upon, have actually never been of segnificant risk, meaning, most of the people on Control Orders are INNOCENT..

    A prime example of the abuse of these powers and our liberty, 2005 - the frail 82year old Labour member (Walter Wolfgang) who heckled Jack Straw at a Labour conference regarding Iraq, he was arrested and detained under the then newly updated Terrorism Act, later all charges were dropped and Blair and Straw apologised for the Police's abuse of this power..

    Protection should never overcome our Liberty, no matter how essential these powers may be. We must ensure the Courts protect the Liberty of the British people.

  • Comment number 94.

    @8. At 11:30am on 26 Jan 2011, haripotir wrote:
    I feel that the coalition government have made the UK a soft touch on criminals and terrorists.


    It made me cringe when Labour started making us all criminals - you can't walk a kid to school without getting police permission, you can be locked up because you spoke to someone you shouldn't (even if you were only asking the time of day), you could be fined because someone thought you were a bit loud on a street corner, kettled and arrested for demonstrating against a gross abuse of power...

    Lets be honest, control orders - or whatever they are now to be called - are actually punishment for crime without proof. Thats something that Stalin had in Russia, that exists in North Korea, that we invaded Iraq about (well that was really oil, but there we go)...

    I don't like terrorists, they should be caught and hung, but I do appreciate the freedom that my granddads and greatgrandads fought to protect, something that clearly many people have been scared into forgetting. Your chances of winning the lottery are greater than your chances of dieing at the hands of a terrorists. This is nothing to do with the police locking some people in their houses it is to do with the fact that there are very few of these extreme nutters - probably far less extreme Muslim lunatics than the extreme Irish folk that tried to bomb London each Christmas, more over the way the Muslims do their bombing means theres one less lunatic each time.

  • Comment number 95.

    Yes

  • Comment number 96.

    44. At 12:46pm on 26 Jan 2011, pzero wrote:
    38. At 12:38pm on 26 Jan 2011, Simon Harpham wrote:
    [Bauer]

    "The next time people die because of this"

    The people who did the 7/7 bombings weren't under control orders. The next time someone who isn't subject to a control order commits an act of terrorism please make sure you make an invalid point about control orders again.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    By your twisted logic you actually raise a very valid point - we need more control orders not fewer.

    Personally I would rather see 500 would be terrorists deported wrongly than 1 single innocent person killed, but this counrty is just to wishy washy to address the actual problem!


    You may not agree with the principles underpinning the system of justice in this country, but it is based on preferring to let the guilty go free than on punishing the innocent and on punishing people for what they actually do not for what they might do or might want to do. Both principles have been in place for centuries.

    If you strongly do not like this system of justice then there appear to be plenty of places where one you might find one more amenable to you. North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, Burma, Belarus, Egypt, Saudi Arabia to name a few. The number of such states has been getting smaller in the past 20 years or so as Latin American and East European states remove authoritarian regimes. Maybe we're starting to see North African states follow them.

  • Comment number 97.

    3. At 11:25am on 26 Jan 2011, Bauer wrote:
    The next time people die because of this, you make sure that you post this exact same question again

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Oh dear,

    I suppose you believe that there's a Paedophile on every street corner waiting to steal your children away and do unthinkable things to them....

    Do you really believe that imprisoning six people in their own homes is going to stop the next wave of suicide bombs?

    Do you not think these people are part of a highly sophisticated network?

  • Comment number 98.

    Simple answer is deport them. The rest of Europe have no qualms doing the same even thought they are governed by same human rights legislation as we are. The courts in Europe just put the rights of their own citizens before those of other nationalities.

    If necessary opt out of certain parts of the legislation. Let common sense be taken into account. If you support terrorist organisations you cannot expect to live happily rasinig funds in target countries.

    Unrelated but if you commit a crime you should lose all recourse to human rights protection.

  • Comment number 99.

    #60. At 1:21pm on 26 Jan 2011, bambam75 wrote:
    At 12:46pm on 26 Jan 2011, pzero wrote:
    38. At 12:38pm on 26 Jan 2011, Simon Harpham wrote:
    [Bauer]

    "The next time people die because of this"

    The people who did the 7/7 bombings weren't under control orders. The next time someone who isn't subject to a control order commits an act of terrorism please make sure you make an invalid point about control orders again.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    By your twisted logic you actually raise a very valid point - we need more control orders not fewer.

    Personally I would rather see 500 would be terrorists deported wrongly than 1 single innocent person killed, but this counrty is just to wishy washy to address the actual problem!

    ___________________________________

    So you would be ok with your own husband/wife/son/daughter being punished without trial just so long as we are all 'safe'?

    ========================

    In answer to your question, perhaps you might like to read the comment below:

    55. At 1:11pm on 26 Jan 2011, Moderator Friendly Unoffensive Nickname

  • Comment number 100.

    77. At 1:46pm on 26 Jan 2011, Khuli wrote:
    51. At 1:03pm on 26 Jan 2011, Mysturji wrote:
    Why aren't these "known plotters" in jail?
    ---------

    Evidence (or lack thereof).


    I'd be perfectly happy for interception evidence to be made available in court as it is in many other countries.

 

Page 1 of 5

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.