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

Should control orders be scrapped?

11:09 UK time, Monday, 3 January 2011

Ministers will not be forgiven if the proposed abolition of control orders on terror suspects leads to another 7 July-style attack, a Lib Dem peer has warned. Should control orders remain?

Lord Carlile, who is stepping down as the government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, claims there is no alternative to the measures which can include curfews, electronic tags, and travel and mobile phone curbs.

A review of counter-terrorism legislation was due to be published before Christmas, but has been delayed due to ongoing negotiations between ministers. The issue has divided the coalition as the Lib Dems had promised during the general election campaign to abolish control orders.

Do you agree with Lord Carlile? 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 6

  • Comment number 1.

    For once I agree, they should not be scrapped.

  • Comment number 2.

    Definitely not, if these people are a danger to the public and are British citizens, they should be held in secure accommodation until they are no longer a danger. If they are not British citizens then they should be deported either to their country of origin or to any country of their choice which will accept them irrespective of any claims of infringement of their rights.

  • Comment number 3.

    Control orders should remain as an option in countering the threat of terrorism.

  • Comment number 4.

    Should control orders be scrapped?

    Yes, they are one of the most serious violations of natural justice in a developed democracy and they do nothing to increase the safety of the general population.

  • Comment number 5.

    One cannot tackle terrorists as though they are civil criminals. They exist somewhere between civil criminals and military enemies. They attack citizens en masse but do not wear uniforms.

    They do not simply impinge on civil laws but many civil-liberty engaged lawyers of course try to argue they should be granted civil levels of ‘human’ rights which do not however protect the population from military levels of terrorist threat.

    Additional laws are therefore required and fewer rights can be granted to terrorist suspects than if we are talking about mere civil offence suspects. Groups like Amnesty etc. must try to understand that the rights of people en masse have to come before the rights of individual human beings.

    Errors made when erring on the side of civil liberty are too dangerous when mass terrorism may be the result. The precautionary principle in this case then must be that control orders, imprisonment without civil levels of evidence and other waivers of normal civil law and human rights are a common sense requirement to deal with terrorism.

  • Comment number 6.

    They should not be scrapped. Moreover, since the vast majority of terrorists are young muslim males - a statistical fact however unpalatable to the PC crowd - there is a strong argument for selective security measures rather than general as applied at airports and elsewhere. If the moderate muslim majority find this idea oppressive they should be more active in condemning co-religionist extremism. At the moment too many enjoy the liberties of liberal western society whilst ignoring or even giving tacit approval to extremist actions. It's also unjust that the muslim community can say whatever they want about western society - including declaring war on our ideals and specific individuals - but anything said in return is judged and condemned to be racist. I am definitely not the latter having Anglo- Indian ancestry and a detestation of intolerance. However, it's a fact the vast majority of terrorists are muslims and at war with western liberal society. I bet this will be moderated out. The BBC doesn't like the truth. Shameful for a once great news gathering organisation.




  • Comment number 7.

    Control orders must stay. The government has to balance the possible inconvenience or injustice to a few individuals against the risk of mass murder of hundreds (maybe thousands) of innocent citizens. Preventing the latter must be the top priority, and objections from the courts, the EU and the 'human rights' lobby must be overridden by whatever means.

  • Comment number 8.

    There are a huge number of comments about 'they must stay' based on the assumption that the people being 'controlled' are a danger to the public.
    The UK has had a long history of innocent until proven guilty. These reverse that assumption (in the way the Labour government reversed that assumption for people in all sorts of walks of life from 'speeding', through working with children to terrorism).
    Put simply these are used to lock innocent people up in case they might be a terrorist. Nothing is ever proved. This is the WRONG way of going about things. Go and PROVE they are guilty and then lock them up properly.

  • Comment number 9.

    I dont know the meaning of "control orders". I doubt that they do. If they knew, at least there wouldnt be such an emberassing chain of questions generated from a lordly level down to us little idiots who dont even understand what control orders mean.

  • Comment number 10.

    HYS - "Should control orders be scrapped?"

    No! - it will be FAR too dangerous. PC must not be allowed to put us into even greater danger - Ridiculous...

  • Comment number 11.

    4. At 11:34am on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    Should control orders be scrapped?

    Yes, they are one of the most serious violations of natural justice in a developed democracy and they do nothing to increase the safety of the general population.
    --------------------------
    Not nearly such a serious violation of natural justice as the indiscriminate murder of large numbers of innocent citizens. Why do you say control orders don't improve the safety of the general population? You can't possibly offer any evidence to support that assertion. Personally I feel safer when potential terrorist suspects are under close surveillance or behind bars - there are good reasons why they are suspects even if they've done nothing illegal yet.
    Suppose we gave up these orders and subsequently some of those suspects managed to set off a 'dirty bomb' which killed thousands and destroyed a large part of our economy ... would you still bleat about violating their human rights? Wake up, there are nasty evil people out there who will happily kill you regardless of your views on justice, politics or religion.

  • Comment number 12.

    In a perfect world, these control orders would not be needed. However, this is not a perfect world and there are people (mostly, it must be said, radicalised Muslims) who want to see me dead. To this extent I trust the powers that be to make the right decision on my behalf.

    In fact, I wish the government would do a damned sight more of this kind of thing than suggesting we should get vouchers to encourage healthy living.

  • Comment number 13.

    8. At 11:47am on 03 Jan 2011, anotherfakename wrote:
    There are a huge number of comments about 'they must stay' based on the assumption that the people being 'controlled' are a danger to the public.
    The UK has had a long history of innocent until proven guilty. These reverse that assumption (in the way the Labour government reversed that assumption for people in all sorts of walks of life from 'speeding', through working with children to terrorism).
    Put simply these are used to lock innocent people up in case they might be a terrorist. Nothing is ever proved. This is the WRONG way of going about things. Go and PROVE they are guilty and then lock them up properly.
    =============================================================
    People subject to a control order are not 'locked up', they have restrictions placed on their movement/communications etc. Since they were introduced in 2005, there have been 45 orders issued (by the Home Secretary) and they are time limited. Control orders are used where it would be inappropriate to put the evidence in the public domain as it would compromise the work of the security services (and given the number of foiled plots, they seem to be doing a good job).

  • Comment number 14.

    yes, they should be scrapped. These control orders weren't really meant to safe guard us against terrorist but rather, they were put in place as an excuse to control us ALL further. Our governments simply don't like us masses and they don't want becoming all disobidient if we don't like what they are doing. Remember; some of the terrorism acts were caused by individuals who were allowed to fly without a passpor. Reminds me of the Amsterdam bomber. In that case, our control orders look pointless.

  • Comment number 15.

    11. At 11:58am on 03 Jan 2011, Rabbitkiller wrote:

    4. At 11:34am on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    Should control orders be scrapped?

    Yes, they are one of the most serious violations of natural justice in a developed democracy and they do nothing to increase the safety of the general population.
    --------------------------
    Not nearly such a serious violation of natural justice as the indiscriminate murder of large numbers of innocent citizens. Why do you say control orders don't improve the safety of the general population? You can't possibly offer any evidence to support that assertion. Personally I feel safer when potential terrorist suspects are under close surveillance or behind bars - there are good reasons why they are suspects even if they've done nothing illegal yet.
    Suppose we gave up these orders and subsequently some of those suspects managed to set off a 'dirty bomb' which killed thousands and destroyed a large part of our economy ... would you still bleat about violating their human rights? Wake up, there are nasty evil people out there who will happily kill you regardless of your views on justice, politics or religion.


    I think you watch too much TV.

  • Comment number 16.

    Fire is effectively fought with fire. I think detention orders are a very small infringment of the liberties of a very small minority especially viewed against what these people seek to perpetrate on innocent people in this and other countries going about their normal lives.
    Whatever it takes is my view. Never mind more nanny state human rights intervention. The less we do the more they achieve.

  • Comment number 17.

    8. At 11:47am on 03 Jan 2011, anotherfakename wrote:

    ... Go and PROVE they are guilty and then lock them up properly.

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

    And if that's after they have detonated their bombs on the underground or on a bus? What are you going to day to the families? "Sorry, we thought they were bombers but as we couldn't prove it we had to let them get on with it"?

  • Comment number 18.

    Control orders! Heck they can't even control what happened at HM Ford. The type of intelligence gathering required to infiltrate specific communities is quite thin on the ground so I'm guessing these control orders are pretty much hit & miss so perhaps quite a few never hit their target! This is a diffrent type of war and will always be difficult to combat, there are ways but won't be used in a mass scale.

  • Comment number 19.

    8. At 11:47am on 03 Jan 2011, anotherfakename wrote:
    There are a huge number of comments about 'they must stay' based on the assumption that the people being 'controlled' are a danger to the public.
    The UK has had a long history of innocent until proven guilty. These reverse that assumption (in the way the Labour government reversed that assumption for people in all sorts of walks of life from 'speeding', through working with children to terrorism).
    Put simply these are used to lock innocent people up in case they might be a terrorist. Nothing is ever proved. This is the WRONG way of going about things. Go and PROVE they are guilty and then lock them up properly
    =========================================================================

    What like guilty after the next 7 July debacle? 20 years in jail after they murdered 20 or 30 people? I think contribution @ # 5 is about spot on with the necessary if unpaletable action required.

  • Comment number 20.

    8. At 11:47am on 03 Jan 2011, anotherfakename wrote:

    There are a huge number of comments about 'they must stay' based on the assumption that the people being 'controlled' are a danger to the public.
    The UK has had a long history of innocent until proven guilty. These reverse that assumption (in the way the Labour government reversed that assumption for people in all sorts of walks of life from 'speeding', through working with children to terrorism).
    Put simply these are used to lock innocent people up in case they might be a terrorist. Nothing is ever proved. This is the WRONG way of going about things. Go and PROVE they are guilty and then lock them up properly.

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

    You're forgetting that doesn't really apply to military personal during wartime. In WW2 then Allied force came across Axis forces, they didn't gather evidence, hold a trial before engaging them

  • Comment number 21.

    8. At 11:47am on 03 Jan 2011, anotherfakename wrote:
    There are a huge number of comments about 'they must stay' based on the assumption that the people being 'controlled' are a danger to the public.
    The UK has had a long history of innocent until proven guilty. These reverse that assumption (in the way the Labour government reversed that assumption for people in all sorts of walks of life from 'speeding', through working with children to terrorism).
    Put simply these are used to lock innocent people up in case they might be a terrorist. Nothing is ever proved. This is the WRONG way of going about things. Go and PROVE they are guilty and then lock them up properly.
    ---------------------
    That's a very simplistic view, but in reality it's much more complex than that. Suspects may be known to associate with terrorist sympathisers, hold extreme views and make suspicious visits abroad, yet it's still difficult to gather enough hard evidence to convince our liberal-inclined justice system that they are guilty of a defined offence. Clearly, though, they are a risk, and may well be involved in a terror attack while evidence is being gathered. 'Innocence' here is rather a technicality; I don't want these people completely free to plot, assist or carry out attacks on truly innocent citizens.
    Remember, our long history of 'innocent until proven guilty' has been overtaken quite recently by the capability of a few individuals to commit indiscriminate mass murder of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens. They have moved with the times, so must our response.

  • Comment number 22.

    Regardless of the fact that a determined terrorist will easily circumvent control orders, they should be maintained at the very least.

    There is no way that their movements and mobile phone usage can be monitored without locking them up in solitary confinement prior to their deportation. Instead of relaxing their terms, they should be tightened in such a way that their freedom in every sense is denied. Keep them at Ford prison, where its really tough on inmates.

    To that end, recourse to human rights legislation needs to be withdrawn and all opposition to their treatment ignored.

  • Comment number 23.

    14. At 12:02pm on 03 Jan 2011, JustinRUK wrote:

    yes, they should be scrapped. These control orders weren't really meant to safe guard us against terrorist but rather, they were put in place as an excuse to control us ALL further

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

    Really? Last time I checked I wasn't under a control order, nor is anyone in my family or at work/ Hum, why are you trying to use lies and fear to force people to think your way?

  • Comment number 24.

    Control orders should be made much tougher,and if any one is found guilty, life long prison min 40years for any terrorist crime, commited the U.K any part of the E.U.or America. The law should allow full deportation of all family members {pennyless} and all they assets' should be auction off, and the moneys, used to pay for any one injured in a terrorist attack.

  • Comment number 25.

    Liberal Democrat deputy leader Simon Hughes said no decision had been made.

    "We have a commitment as a party in our manifesto to scrap control orders, but there is absolutely no way that we would scrap control orders and leave the country less safe," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

    "We will do nothing that will compromise or prejudice the security of the UK, but we do need to balance again the civil liberties of the citizen against the state."

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

    ERM, I suppose scrapping the Ark Royal & HARRIER FORCE & REDUCING & leaving UK WITHOUT some VERY VERY important defensive capabilitys as well as TOTALLY UNDERMINING our ability to protect and INSURE the MANY resources from around the world etc which OUR nation NEEDS to EXIST & SURVIVE is NOT considered by Lib Dems or Torys as an ATTROCIOUS DAMAGING UNSAFE policy which THREATENS our VERY BEING & EXISTANCE.

    What these military cuts FACTUALLY mean, is that with LESS military ability/capability we FACTUALLY become MORE reliant on our NUCLEAR weapons for defensive purposes and also for leverage, as well as making attrocious deals with obnoxious governments which in themselves add to futher long term instability and unreliability as is factually shown by Wilki leaks and the secret double crossing two faced beliefs/stances of arab/middle east nations in their demands for bombing Iran, while being all jolly and happy and peaceful in public and of which some of these countrys ACTIVELY attempt to undermine our nation & others via religious indoctrination education books as supplied by these very same governments to groups within the UK.

    We are dealing with countrys like Saudi Arabia, who on one hand as reported on UK TV & in press supply authorised religious education books which basically educate AGAINST our nation and our beliefs in some TERRIBLE ways and in FACT are a SERIOUS PART of muslim EXTREMIST beliefs.

    It's outrageous that we trade & act so nice with the VERY nations who STILL seek over the LONG TERM to extend Islams power into our own nation and that of other western nations and whos FACTUAL purpose is to create a worldwide TOTALITARIAN Islamic regime.

    How is it then, that we deal & trade so easily with these nations who FACTUALLY want to remove our very way of life from the face of this planet and replace it with Islamic indoctrinated society and who constantly and mainly in secrecy, go about this world Islamic totalitarianist plan, while chuffing & back slapping at banquets of which our politicians attend.

    If you REALLY want to do something about HOME-GROWN or other terrorist activity in UK then FIRST CUT OFF/STOP the ability of those who are DIRECTLY involved in subversion of UK citizens/people via such vile and hate filled Islamic religious "education" books & lectures & teachings etc.

    Lets NOT forget that the "enemy within" gets much of its substance of learning from countrys such as Saudi Arabia, and also indirectly MONEY which goes to terrorist groups from Saudi groups.

    One thing, Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia. There is already substantial evidence that much money etc comes directly from Saudi Arabia to various terrorist groups.

    Its like Saudi Arabia is playing a double double dealing game, of which I personally trust LESS than the Iranian regime.

    I personally see and understand Saudi Arabia governing nationals to be more of a threat to our way of life than arms length terrorist groups and I doubt that control orders will have any long term positive effect due to the double dealing nature of so many countrys which we deal with.

  • Comment number 26.

    These outrageous breaches of natural justice, the rule of law and - yes - human rights (which seem to be dirty words to most HYS participants) should definitely be scrapped.

    If there is evidence that someone is a terrorist then that person should be brought before a court, the evidence properly presented and tested in accordance with the rule of law and with due judicial process. If the evidence stands up, then the person should be dealt with, again in accordance with the law.

    These orders are executive orders imposed on scant or specious grounds and offering little opportunity for proper legal challenge. They are wholly inimical to our democratic way of life based on the rule of law, the (unwritten) constitution and the proper separation of administrative, executive and judicial powers. If we allow our systems to be undermined in this way then indeed terrorism has won.

    I am a passionate believer in human rights but I also wholly acnowledge that there is often conflict between one person's rights and another's. I would also accept that someone who is convicted (but really convicted, not condemned by hearsay and other dubiously sourced information, including torture) has forfeited many of their human rights. The problem with these orders are that they miss out those vital intermediate steps - putting a proper case and examining it in accordance with due legal process.

  • Comment number 27.

    Should control orders be scrapped?

    No. Of course not.

  • Comment number 28.

    Control Orders have not proved to be effective in restricting the wearabouts of those they want to restrain. David Davies MP said 3 of those on this order just disappeared, therefore the order does not appear to be fit for purpose, where the restricted person does not wish to be compliant. One assumes they are out and about using a new identity. It is my opinion that Lord Carlisle is therefore wrong on this occasion. The tool has to be fit for purpose and this act would appear not to be.

  • Comment number 29.

    Scrap the control orders only if you keep suspects incarcerated until they are tried in a court of law. The trial should be timely though, because if they're found not guilty, they deserve compensation for the disruption to their lives and the stigma of being arrested without due cause.

  • Comment number 30.

    I do not believe it is a good time to stop such laws as there are to many dangerous people out there wanting to kill us and cause mayhem.

  • Comment number 31.

    So if control orders are scrapped what other measures can we use to keep in check that element of our society that breaks the rules? The PC brigade bang on about civil liberties and yet offer no solution as to how to guide those who think they know better than this countrys tried and trusted methods of order.

  • Comment number 32.

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

  • Comment number 33.

    I believe that control orders should be scrapped. Every british citizen has a right to habeas corpus and the right to be brought before a court of law. If the police have proof then this should be the course of action. Punishment without charge or trial cannot be acceptable in any democracy and is the mark of despots. Give the police the resources to continue evidence gathering until such time as enough proof is collected to take the suspect/s to trial. We all scream about our rights being eroded yet are complicit in restricting the rights of others.

  • Comment number 34.

    keep them and bring back internment - the intelligence services are well aware of the 'enemy within' this country

    only their 'uman rights' permit their freedom to plan death and destruction!

    you left wing yogurt knitters will be up in arms about the suggestion of internment but when the first city is 'lost' to a dirty bomb you will see things from a different perspective!

  • Comment number 35.

    "33. At 12:31pm on 03 Jan 2011, corncobuk wrote:
    ...Every british citizen has a right to habeas corpus and the right to be brought before a court of law...We all scream about our rights being eroded yet are complicit in restricting the rights of others."

    Well said.
    This matter is not what it looks like. To provoke the public with predigested questions is not fair...


  • Comment number 36.

    30. At 12:19pm on 03 Jan 2011, mercury10 wrote:
    I do not believe it is a good time to stop such laws as there are to many dangerous people out there wanting to kill us and cause mayhem.
    -----------

    I am amazed by the imagination of the bbc folks this time.they are really thinking the greatest of terorists is carrying a bomb inside their clothes.
    Thats exactly what I think. What can be more terrorizing than falling in love with that hot piece who looks as if she is carrying a bomb inside her clothes. Who the hell can control that anyway?
    You should better control yourself away instead of the woman. At least she is hot but you are simply too dumb.

  • Comment number 37.

    Without question the vast majority of people would support any measures to protect the public from these individuals. But as usual they are the silent majority!. The vocal minority shout long and hard about civil liberties etc; I dont recall any politician, judge, or civil liberties lawyers being amongst the dead and injured on that dreadful day.
    Just delete the AV question from ballot papers in May, and insert a yes /no question on control orders,length of detention for questioning etc; I know what the answer will be!!

  • Comment number 38.

    34. At 12:39pm on 03 Jan 2011, locust wrote:

    keep them and bring back internment - the intelligence services are well aware of the 'enemy within' this country

    only their 'uman rights' permit their freedom to plan death and destruction!

    you left wing yogurt knitters will be up in arms about the suggestion of internment but when the first city is 'lost' to a dirty bomb you will see things from a different perspective!


    Someone else who watches far too much TV. Was it "24" or Spooks?

  • Comment number 39.

    Yes !
    And replaced with expulsion from the United Kingdom, regardless of where you were born.

  • Comment number 40.

    5. At 11:38am on 03 Jan 2011, Paul J Weighell wrote:

    Total agreement well said Paul

    Control Orders should remain in operation.

    Potential terrorists especially those who are young and easily lead are becoming the main threat to our Country, not only with regard to the devastation they bring given the chance but also the future they plan with others of their like against our Culture and way of life.

    Control Orders bring a minimal form of disruption to the offenders lives, but in all such Control Orders will not protect Civilian life in the UK, the existing Control Orders should be upgraded to a level that reflects the seriousness of the situation, human rights on this issue should also be addressed, many would say (should you intend to take Human Life) then your Human Rights should become none existent.

    Our Government is far to lenient on this issue, it’s about time they began doing their job properly protecting their taxpayers from the terrorists within and from afar.

    To fight this fight we must start at the top and remove the hate preachers from British streets, only then can we begin weeding out the threat a threat that will continue to grow should we not initially remove the preachers who tell others to die but fail to take up the gauntlet themselves.

    Those who turn to terrorism in our country should think twice about the lives they lead, I’m sure their lives in our Country is far better than the life they would lead in the Country for which they show support?

  • Comment number 41.

    38. At 12:43pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    34. At 12:39pm on 03 Jan 2011, locust wrote:

    keep them and bring back internment - the intelligence services are well aware of the 'enemy within' this country

    only their 'uman rights' permit their freedom to plan death and destruction!

    you left wing yogurt knitters will be up in arms about the suggestion of internment but when the first city is 'lost' to a dirty bomb you will see things from a different perspective!

    Someone else who watches far too much TV. Was it "24" or Spooks?
    ===============================================
    Are you saying that 'dirty bombs' are not possible or just not effective?

  • Comment number 42.

    Nothing will prevent another terrorist act, somewhere, sometime, someplace, and it is quite ridiculous to believe we have the intelligence to prevent it. However what Lord Carlile may be right about is the type of target chosen for such an attack since the more secure a 'thing' is, the harder it is to hit. But does that have anything to do with control orders on people who are considered to be potential terrorists? I think not. Sophisticated people do not get caught before completing their tasks.

    At present a large number of people believe we are a 'terrorist' state having invaded two countries illegally and still at war with one of them, whilst the other teaters on the brink of civil war. Our actions are seen as totally offensive and that, more than anything else, is why we have a problem with terrorists. We cannot justify our stance.

    I would suggest politicians of all parties and both houses deal with the cause of the issues rather than the symptoms.

  • Comment number 43.

    39. At 12:47pm on 03 Jan 2011, yorkshire News wrote:

    Yes !
    And replaced with expulsion from the United Kingdom, regardless of where you were born.


    So if they are English and born in Leeds where would you expel them to?

  • Comment number 44.

    They should stay, otherwise what else is there?
    Human rights?
    what about those of us who are not terrorists? Do we have any?
    Those who seek to destroy or enact their own agenda and philosophy on a country and culture that is alien to their own, should face harsh repercussions for what they do. There is no earthly reason why anyone of any faith or culture should hold and handle and distribute books/literature or frequent websites pertaining to how to make bombs or home made weapons to kill or injure.If you make a threat through religious and cultural rhetoric to kill or maim because your beliefs dictate it, all this and more, If people do then it should be taken for granted that they mean to use that information/the threats are real and the means to carry them out, all that should be stopped by any means necessary, if it means control orders or jail then so be it. I personally dont care about any human rights of anyone who does any of the above in this country, there is no repression here, no wars to escape and no ethnic cleansing. This is a land of very significant freedoms and frankly anyone who wishes to curtail or harm our freedoms should have no human rights whatsoever.

  • Comment number 45.

    43. At 12:54pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    39. At 12:47pm on 03 Jan 2011, yorkshire News wrote:

    Yes !
    And replaced with expulsion from the United Kingdom, regardless of where you were born.

    So if they are English and born in Leeds where would you expel them to?
    ====================================================
    Well, Leeds. That's not in the UK is it? It's God's own country apparently

  • Comment number 46.

    44. At 1:00pm on 03 Jan 2011, twistywillow wrote:
    "Human rights?
    what about those of us who are not terrorists? Do we have any?"
    ----------
    Thanks for confirming that you do NOT understand what a human right is.

    At which point, you can either (1) find out, or (2) trot out more drivel on the subject of human rights. Well, what's your choice?

  • Comment number 47.

    If they work, keep them. If they don't, scrap them. So far, there's little convincing evidence they actually work.

    At the moment, they are rather like a law for keeping elephants off our streets: the government insists it must be working, because there are no elephants on our streets!

  • Comment number 48.

    41. At 12:51pm on 03 Jan 2011, forclarification wrote:

    38. At 12:43pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    34. At 12:39pm on 03 Jan 2011, locust wrote:

    keep them and bring back internment - the intelligence services are well aware of the 'enemy within' this country

    only their 'uman rights' permit their freedom to plan death and destruction!

    you left wing yogurt knitters will be up in arms about the suggestion of internment but when the first city is 'lost' to a dirty bomb you will see things from a different perspective!

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

    Someone else who watches far too much TV. Was it "24" or Spooks?
    ===============================================
    Are you saying that 'dirty bombs' are not possible or just not effective?


    Anything is possible. The real question is, is it probable that the story lines in TV shows such as "24" and Spooks are going to come true and if it is probable will control orders stop it from ever happening?

  • Comment number 49.

    Certain "faiths" encourage the killing and destruction of the now minority people in this country. Until such time that these dangerous elements in our society have been rooted out and destroyed or deported then the control orders should stay. However, the use of such orders must not be left in the hands of our corrupt politicians and incompetent police services. All orders must only be granted and reviewed on a weekly basis by a panel of very senior judges.

  • Comment number 50.

    47. At 1:07pm on 03 Jan 2011, Graphis wrote:
    If they work, keep them. If they don't, scrap them. So far, there's little convincing evidence they actually work.

    At the moment, they are rather like a law for keeping elephants off our streets: the government insists it must be working, because there are no elephants on our streets!
    ================================================
    Does the number of foiled plots and lack of successful attacks not at least point to some of this working? You won't see the 'convincing evidence' for the very reasons that control orders were introduced

  • Comment number 51.

    Whilst, in the ideal world, civil liberties groups would have a point the problem is that it is a balancing act between civil liberties and public safety and getting it wrong with the current threats could result in the deaths of many innocent people.

    The balance must always be in favour of the majority interest as opposed to the ideals of dreamers.

  • Comment number 52.

    49. At 1:10pm on 03 Jan 2011, Bob wrote:
    'Certain "faiths" encourage the killing and destruction of the now minority people in this country.'
    ----------
    You make mincemeat of out facts: it's a ridiculous post you have just made.

  • Comment number 53.

    So I take it anyone saying "no, we must keep control orders" would be perfectly happy to be locked up without trial, would you?

    And before you say "but that's different, I haven't done anything wrong", how do you know the people who are subject to control order have done anything wrong? They have not been convicted of any crimes.

    Once we have a system where we can bypass fair trials and deprive people of their liberty on a whim, then the terrorists have won.

  • Comment number 54.

    I don't know how many attacks control orders have prevented. If somebody can tell me that, I'll be able to offer an opinion as to whether they should stay or go.

  • Comment number 55.

    48. At 1:10pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    41. At 12:51pm on 03 Jan 2011, forclarification wrote:

    38. At 12:43pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    34. At 12:39pm on 03 Jan 2011, locust wrote:

    keep them and bring back internment - the intelligence services are well aware of the 'enemy within' this country

    only their 'uman rights' permit their freedom to plan death and destruction!

    you left wing yogurt knitters will be up in arms about the suggestion of internment but when the first city is 'lost' to a dirty bomb you will see things from a different perspective!

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

    Someone else who watches far too much TV. Was it "24" or Spooks?
    ===============================================
    Are you saying that 'dirty bombs' are not possible or just not effective?

    Anything is possible. The real question is, is it probable that the story lines in TV shows such as "24" and Spooks are going to come true and if it is probable will control orders stop it from ever happening?
    ===============================================
    I don't watch Spooks or 24 so not entirely sure of the story lines but dirty bombs are indeed possible. The probability will likely only be known by the security services. Control orders won't by themselves stop it from happening but they might play their part

  • Comment number 56.

    On a daily basis I wonder what this government will try its clumsy hand at fixing, when it ain't broke. They make irrational decisions from their secure ivory towers that affect this country's population - but hold no adverse effect on the implementers.

    I agree with Lord Carlile. Control orders appear to be maintaining national security, impeding another 7/7. What else has this inept government got hidden up its sleeve to inflict on us all? If control orders are abolished, it's nothing less than lowering the drawbridge to any terrorists waiting to pounce on the general public. Then who will the government blame? The man on the moon? This isn't a coalition government but a demolition one.

  • Comment number 57.

    Control Order Scrappage Scheme...wonder how much we get back???? Freedom of the General Public is not affected as generally the General public do not adhere to 'extremist views or connections within them'.

    Do the public feel that control orders are not enough, by some of the comments they are not controlling enough and some advocate incarceration until deportation.

    Controls Orders I think should be tightened as I think they do not stop communication with organisations or those who hold extremist views.

    Detention does not work either as it just means more legal battles with the Do Gooders, with sorry excuses.

    If a person is seen as having terrorist connections then they must be dealt with in a better manner.

    Keep, but tighten control orders.

    In Denmark a cartoonist is attacked by an axe wielding activist, this activist fits certain profiles, I have not seen a terrorist that does not match this description, have you.

    Look arounfd and see the UK is not the only place suffering at the hands of a minority who want to use young radicalised people to cause mayhem. If we have to watch these people what does it cost? Millions I suspect... the day will come when these people will have a chip inserted that follows their movements and this will happens because do gooders will scrap this scheme and the result will be more blasts and the the hue and cry that will arise will lead to more 1984 type monitoring of everyone.

    Better to do it right now to the minority and do it well than to all of the public at large.

  • Comment number 58.

    55. At 1:20pm on 03 Jan 2011, forclarification wrote:

    48. At 1:10pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    41. At 12:51pm on 03 Jan 2011, forclarification wrote:

    38. At 12:43pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    34. At 12:39pm on 03 Jan 2011, locust wrote:

    keep them and bring back internment - the intelligence services are well aware of the 'enemy within' this country

    only their 'uman rights' permit their freedom to plan death and destruction!

    you left wing yogurt knitters will be up in arms about the suggestion of internment but when the first city is 'lost' to a dirty bomb you will see things from a different perspective!

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

    Someone else who watches far too much TV. Was it "24" or Spooks?
    ===============================================
    Are you saying that 'dirty bombs' are not possible or just not effective?

    Anything is possible. The real question is, is it probable that the story lines in TV shows such as "24" and Spooks are going to come true and if it is probable will control orders stop it from ever happening?
    ===============================================
    I don't watch Spooks or 24 so not entirely sure of the story lines but dirty bombs are indeed possible. The probability will likely only be known by the security services. Control orders won't by themselves stop it from happening but they might play their part


    No, the Government has the population living in fear on events that are unlikely to ever happen. Personally, I choose not to live in fear.

  • Comment number 59.

    Yes, Control Orders should be scrapped; actually, I'm a little shocked that such things exist in the UK.
    Apparently, control orders are based on "secret" information which because it is secret cannot be challenged by the victim. To me this seems Stalanistic or even Hitlerian.
    It's always been a principle of the highest court in the United Kingdom that people have the right to know the information used against them to impose control orders, or indict, or bring to trial.
    When some people have rights, but other people do not have the same rights, it's time to take a close look at restoring equal rights to all people.
    People should not be victimized because the Government ALLEGES they are involved in terrorism-related activity. Let the Government lay its evidence on the table. Is this not what you would want if you were about to be subjected to an imposed controlled order?
    The Law Lords, as far back a year, recognised that: if such information is kept secret from the individual, s/he is unable to contest the allegations against him.
    Lord Hope of Craighead: “This right to a fair trial is a right that belongs to everyone...even those who are alleged to be the most capable of doing us harm by means of terrorism...The controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective instructions...This is the bottom line, and it cannot be shifted."
    Control orders are also offensive to Amnesty International's longstanding concern that the control order imposes restrictions on some individuals' right to free movement – and, "in some cases these restrictions have been tantamount to a deprivation of liberty".
    On what basis?
    Secret information?
    Withheld information from these individuals and their lawyers.
    Despite the Law Lords’ ruling, it has appeared over the last year that there has been no concrete government strategy to end the seemingly indefinite renewal of control orders against some individuals who the government CLAIMS are involved in terrorism.
    Amnesty International, Nicola Duckworth: the most effective ways to counter-terrorism are by ensuring the effective protection of human rights of all persons and respect for the rule of law, not by eroding those protections."

  • Comment number 60.

    Control orders shouldnot be scrapped unless an effective alternative is available. It is only a matter of time before some lunatic actually suceeds in killing a large amount of people so every available tool in the anti-terrorism toolbox needs to be available.
    Yes it means some infringements and a restriction on some everyday rights, but Everything changed on the day the maniacs flew planes into buildings.

  • Comment number 61.

    Any non-British citizens found guilty of a crime that involves a prison sentence should be taken from the court and deported immediately with no chance of ever coming here again. If they have family here or face torture in their home country they should think about that before committing a crime in the UK.

    If people don't want to be subjected to a Control Order all they have to do is not associate with terrorists or do something stupid that could provoke the Control Order response.

  • Comment number 62.

    I just wonder.
    If you think that you can't be made a "terrorist" at will under specific conditions, think again...

  • Comment number 63.

    On which planet would it be logical to conclude that making a trivial procedural change would make a bunch of would be bombers sitting in their subsidised house and living on benefits suddenly decide that it would suddenly be OK to go and blow some people up?

    Their motivations may be twisted, but I doubt they are that twisted.

  • Comment number 64.

    60. At 1:37pm on 03 Jan 2011, paul wrote:

    Control orders shouldnot be scrapped unless an effective alternative is available. It is only a matter of time before some lunatic actually suceeds in killing a large amount of people so every available tool in the anti-terrorism toolbox needs to be available.
    Yes it means some infringements and a restriction on some everyday rights, but Everything changed on the day the maniacs flew planes into buildings.


    Ah the old, you flew planes into our buildings so we have invaded your countries so you blow up our tube trains so we introduce control orders argument. And so it goes on and on.

  • Comment number 65.

    "Everything changed on the day the maniacs flew planes into buildings."

    I disagree. Nothing changed.

    Any terrorist, doing anything terrorism-related, was still undertaking criminal activity. And our governments still rule by the rule of law, so things like control orders which break our laws, are still a no-no.

    We don't need to destroy our rights to protect them.

  • Comment number 66.

    Of course they should stay - when will the Government face the fact that we cannot afford to be magnanamous where suspected terrorist violence is suspected - how many more of US have to be killed or maimed, or lose loved ones, before the Government start to take their responsibilities seriously regarding national security - stuff the PC brigade! we need to be safe not sorry !!

  • Comment number 67.

    If Control Orders are the only way to protect me and my fellow citizens from potential terrorist attacks on my Country then that's a price worth paying. Civil liberties are also something we value in this Country but the people who we are trying to stop don't give a dam about our liberties so why should we care about theirs? If this was any other Country the control orders and even stronger sanctions would stay and no one would scream about the civil liberties of those given an 'order' but as usual those who worry more about their so-called liberty and less about protecting our Country always want to put their obsession before everything else. KEEP THE CONTROL ORDERS.

  • Comment number 68.

    61. At 1:39pm on 03 Jan 2011, Le Powerful wrote:

    If people don't want to be subjected to a Control Order all they have to do is not associate with terrorists or do something stupid that could provoke the Control Order response.


    The point is that, in a number of cases, there has been no evidence to support the allegation that they have associated with terrorists or done something stupid.

  • Comment number 69.

    Yes but only in favour of immediate deportation to a place they belong which is not in our country.

  • Comment number 70.

    Should Daryll be on a control order as he *might* commit a crime?

    I'd be happy to see him lose the "so-called liberty" he values so little if it leaves me safer.

  • Comment number 71.

    This is pure scaremongering.
    Are they honestly trying to tell me a determined suicide bomber couldn't find any number of easy targets in the UK?
    Are they honestly telling me a control order is going to deter someone who is ready to die?
    The only things we have to stop these people (If they exist) in the UK is strong co-operation from the Muslim community and the SAS.

  • Comment number 72.

    63. At 1:42pm on 03 Jan 2011, Steve the chauffeur wrote:

    On which planet would it be logical to conclude that making a trivial procedural change would make a bunch of would be bombers sitting in their subsidised house and living on benefits suddenly decide that it would suddenly be OK to go and blow some people up?

    Their motivations may be twisted, but I doubt they are that twisted.

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

    Unfortunately that is exactly what has happened Steve. What makes a student want to blow up parts of Sweden when they have a family in the UK? What makes a Somali man want to axe murder a cartoonist.

    Housing and benefits that you are paying for each day with higher taxes and hidden charges only allow them to survive until the time is probably chosen for them by some other 'controller' to commit this crime against the general public.

    If you have a pet in the garden and you take away the fence what happens??? One day the pet will do what it wants and when yours neighbours complain what do you say...the fence infringed their rights....what about your neighbours rights????

    Control Orders must tighten up. I see comments of secret information being made used against persons unknown. Only if links can be shown then Control orders should be used. Out in public view all 'evidence'should be aired.

    Terrorists, no matter which race or religion they belong to have to be dealt with. How exactly I am not sure but we have a method, flawed as it may seem, but everything evolves so don't throw the bathwater...etc...

  • Comment number 73.

    They are serious violations of civil rights for those who value a civilised and terrorist free society. Those who aspire to terrorism and support it in any way are naturally excluded from these rights.

    Control orders are inefficient and knowing the record of the security services, they will be used against animal rights activitists and assorted tree huggers.

    But ask anyone outside of HYS, the Socialist worker party, and the far right multiculturalists, and they will tell you to whom the control orders and deportation should be applied.

    So until this country improves its security and intelligence services control orders are the best of a bad job. Use them wisely, increase surveillance of suspect populations, and make it clear that deportation is to be expected.

  • Comment number 74.



    65. At 1:45pm on 03 Jan 2011, Phosgene wrote:
    "Everything changed on the day the maniacs flew planes into buildings."

    I disagree. Nothing changed.

    --
    I disagree. Somethings changed. I myself have confirmed that verbally hours after the event from across the continents and with few information relating the particular case. But I dont know how related that change was with that day alone.

    I think we all need reference points because they keep us alert in our memory structure.Like heart beats. Perhaps some intelligence decides that there needs to be a change and these sort of things happen along with all other parellel incidents completing that one event. Perhaps that intelligence is entertaining itself by creating such reference points and combining them throughout history..like a kid making a "combine the dots" puzzle.
    Dont look at me that way, it is no more a bizzare theory when compared with your control ideas.

  • Comment number 75.

    1. people here need to distinguish between muslims and terrorists otherwise there is an illegal presumption
    2. home grown terrorists are not real bona fide terrorists just screwed up kids and amateurs

  • Comment number 76.

    Anyone who places "rights " over the security of the country and population at large is wrong-headed.

    But does anyone measure control orders? Does anyone count the proportion of these orders where it does turn out that the subjects are actually found to be planning or carrying out s potentially terrorist act. If so what are the numbers? Frankly if the proportions are small then one has to question whether the technique works well enough and propose an alternatibve that is more incisive. If the proportion is high then the its likely both that the orders are reducing completed incidents and that the judgment of those applying the orders is pretty good.

    I don't think what the Lib Dems promised before the election is remotely relevent. They didn't get the most votes, and their promises are not what the country chose on the day. It is more than reasonable that the bulk of coalition policy should be driven by the conservative agenda- this is not a coalition of equal parties. If the Lib-Dems don't realise that being the minority party in a coalition means that they'll spend much of their time inplementing the policies of another party in return for their seats at the table, they are deluding themselves.

  • Comment number 77.

    Er, but

    "Control Orders must tighten up. I see comments of secret information being made used against persons unknown. Only if links can be shown then Control orders should be used. Out in public view all 'evidence'should be aired."

    is exactly WHY control orders are used ... ie so the evidence remains secret.

  • Comment number 78.

    British Intelligence would strongly oppose the removal of control orders if it made their job more difficult. In the world of subterfuge and deception things are never what they seem at face value. Letting the traitors out of their boltholes could make them and their co-conspirators extremely vulnerable. Just remember what the SAS did in Gibraltar.

  • Comment number 79.

    I think it would be folly to abandon control orders until we are confident that we have an alternative which stands a reasonable chance of preserving our collective security. I seem to remember that control orders were brought in as an alternative to locking people up and I doubt that the civil libertarians amongst us want to go back there, so I would suggest that the status quo is probably the best option for now.

  • Comment number 80.

    74. At 2:00pm on 03 Jan 2011, NameAgain wrote:
    "I disagree. Somethings changed. I myself have confirmed that verbally hours after the event from across the continents and with few information relating the particular case."
    ----------
    I am sure it was a fascinating verbal experience, however I'll repeat:
    "Any terrorist, doing anything terrorism-related, was still undertaking criminal activity. And our governments still rule by the rule of law, so things like control orders which break our laws, are still a no-no.

    We don't need to destroy our rights to protect them."

    I have stated why you are incorrect. Maybe you would like to state why I am incorrect?

  • Comment number 81.

    LIB DEMS had promised during the general election campaign to abolish control orders.

    Well that is a surprise LIB DEMS.

  • Comment number 82.

    64. At 1:44pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    60. At 1:37pm on 03 Jan 2011, paul wrote:

    Control orders shouldnot be scrapped unless an effective alternative is available. It is only a matter of time before some lunatic actually suceeds in killing a large amount of people so every available tool in the anti-terrorism toolbox needs to be available.
    Yes it means some infringements and a restriction on some everyday rights, but Everything changed on the day the maniacs flew planes into buildings.

    Ah the old, you flew planes into our buildings so we have invaded your countries so you blow up our tube trains so we introduce control orders argument. And so it goes on and on.
    ******************************************

    Okay lets just send them a box of chocs and let bygones be bygones eh !!
    Only, who do you send them to, what do they want, are they reasonable people (strapping explosives to oneself and heading off into the hereafter in search of Virgins seems to invalidate this train of thought).
    You can roll over if you wish, there are people out there that seem to want all of us to worship the way they do or die (not much hope for us non believers).
    It's too simplistic to say it's because of Iraq, or Afghanistan and if we hadn't been involved there everything would be a bed of roses. Fundamentalism is dangerous no matter what faith !!
    Like it or not our way of life has changed in many ways, just hope you or your kin are not anywhere nearby when one of these lunatics suceeds.
    Turn the other cheek and you will be slapped on both sides.

  • Comment number 83.

    Control Orders should not be abolished unless or until something better can be put in place to protect UK citizens from folk who wish to do us harm.We should however abolish the Human Rights Act,or whatever the wretched legislation is called,which currently prevents foreigners in this country, who can reasonably be seen as a threat to our security and safety,from being returned from whence they came on the grounds that they might suffer harm back in their own native lands.Whoever thought up this nonsense needs to spend a long time in the puzzle factory in the company of men in white coats.

  • Comment number 84.

    77. At 2:01pm on 03 Jan 2011, Phosgene wrote:

    Er, but

    "whether a British citizen or foreign national – who the intelligence services suspect of "involvement in terrorism-related activity" on a domestic or an international level."

    I read the word 'suspect' not secret intelligence. Evidence gathered creates the debate under the Terrorism Act 2005 as to whether a person is a risk to the community.

    If Intelligence Services are suddenly aware of you their efforts will be in secret to determine the risk.

    The reports from The Justice Briefing state...
    "5. It is a basic principle of English law that no person shall be deprived of their liberty without due
    process of law,6 and chief among the guarantees of due process is the right to a fair trial.
    These guarantees are reiterated in the terms of articles 5(4) and 6(1) of the European
    Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) respectively. Article 5(4) provides:
    Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take
    proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a
    court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."


    Therefore each person under a Control Order has the Legal Right to challenge the evidence and if they cannot successfully do so then they remain a threat and the control order stays.

    I would challenge the information as stated and so would anyone I think, however if all you complain about is the lead that holds you and not show you are not dangerous then so be it.

  • Comment number 85.

    Control Orders keep us all under control by keeping us all frightened. The fear of terrorism is a powerful tool that politicians are happy to use, because it works.

    Many people on here are saying that Control Orders keep us safe, but we are all subject to them. So, what if the police suspect YOU of being a terrorist and YOU are then subject to curfew, tagging, travel restrictions, etc? Will it still be OK then? Do you really want this power in the hands of the Home Secretary, with no means of appeal?

    The problem with accepting laws for ‘others’ is that those same laws may then be used against you.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • Comment number 86.

    "Whoever thought up this nonsense needs to spend a long time in the puzzle factory in the company of men in white coats."
    ----------
    That would be eminent British lawyers just after World War 2.

  • Comment number 87.

    It is a widely accepted fact that a number of persons held on Control Orders have skipped the Country or are currently missing. This is as much an indictment of the Police as of the system, but at a time when we are reducing Police numbers is it sensible to ask them to keep a check on these people? Another question is: Why, if a person is such a high risk to National Security do we simply say 'just pop down to your local Police Station at the alloted time each day/week to prove to us that you're still here?!' National Security? As Jim Royle would say "My a**e". Why not bring these people before a court? The answer seems to be that phone tap evidence is not admissible...well then, change the Law!!!

  • Comment number 88.

    No we should keep the orders and CCTV should be increased.
    The public have to be lucky all the time but the terrorist only have to be lucky once. Internment should also be brought back and special terrorist
    courts set up with soft judges replaced by military personnel.

  • Comment number 89.

    As Chairman Mao said, "The function of terror is to create terror". As most of what I feel is a certain ennui as the IRA were a great deal more efficient than the the current crop of shoe bombers, underpant bombers and assorted own goals, can I suggest, contrary to the Daily Mailerrati, that we actually don't need all this nonsense. The anti-terrorist industry has to convince government that we are all terrified of islamists to justify their ever increasing budget and power. We are all in this together Mr MI6 man so cut your budget and stop posing.

  • Comment number 90.

    82. At 2:12pm on 03 Jan 2011, paul wrote:64. At 1:44pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    60. At 1:37pm on 03 Jan 2011, paul wrote:

    Control orders shouldnot be scrapped unless an effective alternative is available. It is only a matter of time before some lunatic actually suceeds in killing a large amount of people so every available tool in the anti-terrorism toolbox needs to be available.
    Yes it means some infringements and a restriction on some everyday rights, but Everything changed on the day the maniacs flew planes into buildings.

    Ah the old, you flew planes into our buildings so we have invaded your countries so you blow up our tube trains so we introduce control orders argument. And so it goes on and on.
    ******************************************

    Okay lets just send them a box of chocs and let bygones be bygones eh !!
    Only, who do you send them to, what do they want, are they reasonable people (strapping explosives to oneself and heading off into the hereafter in search of Virgins seems to invalidate this train of thought).
    You can roll over if you wish, there are people out there that seem to want all of us to worship the way they do or die (not much hope for us non believers).
    It's too simplistic to say it's because of Iraq, or Afghanistan and if we hadn't been involved there everything would be a bed of roses. Fundamentalism is dangerous no matter what faith !!
    Like it or not our way of life has changed in many ways, just hope you or your kin are not anywhere nearby when one of these lunatics suceeds.
    Turn the other cheek and you will be slapped on both sides.

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

    Well said Paul. This is not a game where one side smacks the other and back again. Terrorist killing in the name of a religion of peace is worldwide and not exclusively related to the invasion of any particular country. Christians with no connection to the wicked west are being murdered in their churches, children are being murdered on their way to school, and people have been murdered for drawing cartoons. Threats of terrorist violence determine what shall not appear in our theatres, novelists and newspaper reporters, and critics of the religion of peace live under protection from terrorists. No. This is not a tit for tat game as Magi likes to think.

  • Comment number 91.

    I'm rather inclined to slap a few Control Orders on government officials in agreement of abolishing such orders as that choice holds a 'terrorising' nature to the public. Their motives for wishing to do so are highly questionable.

  • Comment number 92.

    #80

    "Protection" has its own standarts relating each particular case. You cant offer me protection for instance,simply because you fail to speak sweetly with me.

    You didnt state that I am incorrect. You just made your path more visible in comparison with mine, for yourself.I have helped you clarify your path. Now you know where you can better look for your own dots to combine...Since we both are stupid, we are tempted to swim in shallow dots. I am reminded of the value of Arts as a deviation from current path but I cant go clear on that at the moment.

  • Comment number 93.

    the perpetual journey from the safety of sanity to the presipice of madness,is where this condem party is taking our nation.the lib dems lack the stomach to stand by there pre election convictions pertaining to wellfare,health and education and the tories reward them by allowing this nonsence towards the security of the citizens of our country.if in the not too distant future people(god forbid)are maimed or murdered by there incompitance then every person of every political persuasion should demand heads to roll.if it takes the left and right to come together to stop this farce,then count me in......

  • Comment number 94.

    84. At 2:16pm on 03 Jan 2011, John Mc wrote:
    "Therefore each person under a Control Order has the Legal Right to challenge the evidence and if they cannot successfully do so then they remain a threat and the control order stays."
    ----------
    Simple point... the secret evidence is almost unchallengeable because it is kept SECRET. That is precisely WHY it is a control order and why it is basically unlawful.

  • Comment number 95.

    Yeah! lets give would be mass killers compo, rights etc etc etc!!! No, why not just convert the country to islam, that way these miserable cowards might vacate the area! Oops, forgot, that would be pandering to them...something government is very good at!

    It's about time government stopped being so damn spineless with these animals! if they want to kill for their religion - ship them back to Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iraq wherever they came from. Oops, another problem - that would be contra to their human rights!!

  • Comment number 96.

    We are being advised by the most experienced people in the country, with massive amounts of intelligence to support their advice, that scrapping control orders would be a bad idea. The first PM that allows this idiotic policy to go ahead will be remembered badly if any terrorist atrocity ensues as a result of their decision.
    The individuals under control orders are suspected of TERRORIST activities. Maybe they are not proven, but these are clever individuals fully capable of leaving no "footprints".
    Having spent many years in military intelligence, this is perhaps the most idiotic decision I have come across in years.
    Clegg will be a hero to the Terrorist community. He has plummetted in my estimation.

  • Comment number 97.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 98.

    Hi NameAgain,

    You lost me in your last post. The swimming in shallow dots bit to the end makes no sense to me. The bit before that left me none the wiser as well.

    Phos

  • Comment number 99.

    reloadede any chance of page getting updated the same problem every time you log on???????

  • Comment number 100.

    4. At 11:34am on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    Should control orders be scrapped?

    Yes, they are one of the most serious violations of natural justice in a developed democracy and they do nothing to increase the safety of the general population.15. At 12:02pm on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    11. At 11:58am on 03 Jan 2011, Rabbitkiller wrote:

    4. At 11:34am on 03 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
    Should control orders be scrapped?

    Yes, they are one of the most serious violations of natural justice in a developed democracy and they do nothing to increase the safety of the general population.
    --------------------------
    Not nearly such a serious violation of natural justice as the indiscriminate murder of large numbers of innocent citizens. Why do you say control orders don't improve the safety of the general population? You can't possibly offer any evidence to support that assertion. Personally I feel safer when potential terrorist suspects are under close surveillance or behind bars - there are good reasons why they are suspects even if they've done nothing illegal yet.
    Suppose we gave up these orders and subsequently some of those suspects managed to set off a 'dirty bomb' which killed thousands and destroyed a large part of our economy ... would you still bleat about violating their human rights? Wake up, there are nasty evil people out there who will happily kill you regardless of your views on justice, politics or religion.

    I think you watch too much TV.
    I think you need to go and HUG A TREE Magi, get real, live in the real world. For what its worth any so called British Citizen who commits an act of terrorism against their own country needs to be locked away until they grow very old. I would say more but the moderator may veto me.

 

Page 1 of 6

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

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.