Does this mean 'The Terrorists Have Won'?

Generali

Labour used to argue that if you stood against their laws intruding into your lives then the Terrorists had 'won'. So have the Con Dems handed them victory?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-clegg/7738343/Nick-Clegg-tell-us-the-laws-that-you-want-scrapped.html

The reordering of power will sweep away Labour legislation and new criminal offences deemed to have eroded personal freedom. ...

This Government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state. ...

Taking people’s freedom away didn’t make our streets safe...

Blacklight

No

They're always wallhacking on de_dust.

roddydogs

Yes

"Terrorist" cant be deported cause he might be "Tortured"??????????? who gives a **** that he might be tortured?? You couldn't make it up.He shouldnt have come here to bomb us.

mbga9pgf

No

Easiest way is to just make the b@stards "dissapear".

vivatifosi

On the wider issue of allowing people to say what laws should be changed, I think this is unashamedly populist. Honestly, I haven't got a clue for the most part what laws govern my life so I wouldn't be able to say which ones to get rid of and would imagine most people are in the same boat. So in that respect this is just good PR.

However with regard to the "terrorist laws" or whatever they are called, I have to wonder if they were poorly drafted if they allow councils to spy on whether we use them for recycling without allowing intelligence evidence to be admissible in court (wire taps for example) which - as has been widely reported here this morning - may have allowed a potential terrorist avoid deportation on human rights ground while he can't be prosecuted on evidential ground. Not good for the country, not good for security and possibly not good for a man who hasn't been proved either innocent or guilty. This is one set of laws that at the very least need a re-draft.

kennyboy66_2

Strange days we live in.
Once upon a time Sinn Fein leaders appeared on the BBC and although speaking their words had to be spoken by an actor.
Labour used to regularly vote against the Prevention of Terrorism bill (the Northern Ireland one). I'm sure there was an annual vote on this.

Now it is Labour imposing draconian legislation and the Tories repealing it.

All these measures (the repeal that is) seem sensible, although I hope they keep the DNA database (for convicted criminals) as I imagine its amazingly useful.

As an example 84% of rapists have previously been convicted of another offence eben if it was trivial.

It shouldn't be for people who have been found innocent, cautioned or merely interviewed.

I don't really have a problem with CCTV cameras either - the difficulty with new legislation on this is that it imposes burdens on small business who might have camera's in their premises.

I wonder if Cameron will move his party to support the Human Rights Act as well (they have always opposed so far) and drop plans to weaken the Data Protection Act (1998).

Pennywise

No

When you've been told off and threatened with arrest simply because your 9 year old son has been taking photos of trains at a railway station, you know that the anti-terrorist legislation has gone too far.

Likewise when you're allowed to take a 50cl bottle of liquid on a plane, but not a 51cl bottle, or when a group of you can each take a 50cl bottle (potentially a few litres of liquid) on a plane, you know the legislation was badly written.

The "scatter gun" approach will never work - let's have some strong laws, but let's have them "directed" at high risk targets, not the easy options.

lostinrates

kennyboy66 wrote: »

All these measures (the repeal that is) seem sensible, although I hope they keep the DNA database (for convicted criminals) as I imagine its amazingly useful.

As an example 84% of rapists have previously been convicted of another offence eben if it was trivial.

It shouldn't be for people who have been found innocent, cautioned or merely interviewed..

as an aside, I wouldn't mind voluntarily giving a DNA sample so they had it if hey wanted it, but I would mind being mandated to. I can't work out why I feel that way, but I very strongly do.

lemonjelly

vivatifosi wrote: »

On the wider issue of allowing people to say what laws should be changed, I think this is unashamedly populist. Honestly, I haven't got a clue for the most part what laws govern my life so I wouldn't be able to say which ones to get rid of and would imagine most people are in the same boat. So in that respect this is just good PR.

However with regard to the "terrorist laws" or whatever they are called, I have to wonder if they were poorly drafted if they allow councils to spy on whether we use them for recycling without allowing intelligence evidence to be admissible in court (wire taps for example) which - as has been widely reported here this morning - may have allowed a potential terrorist avoid deportation on human rights ground while he can't be prosecuted on evidential ground. Not good for the country, not good for security and possibly not good for a man who hasn't been proved either innocent or guilty. This is one set of laws that at the very least need a re-draft.

My feeling is that legislation has for quite some time been very poorly drafted.

In example, the legislation covering the role of the CSA child maintenance was so poor it had to be amended 11 times in 10 years. That is pretty inefficient. Plus I'm sure we all know of some one who had a nightmare experience with the CSA from both sides.

The Powers under RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ) are under review for the very reasons you raise Viva. This is less of a problem with the spirit of the laws, but more about how they are being used by local authorities. How they are used is very important I feel. In example, they are & can be used to combat fraud. This may be fraudulent benefit claims, or false blue badge claims, or falsely claiming a single person discount with council tax. It has also been used against people trying to get their children into particular schools (when it is disputed whether or not they live in the catchement area).

What concerns me more is that rules/regulations are used to hide behind. Decision makers tend to forget that there is a spirit in which these laws are intended for use. What happens is decision makers try to make so much fit within their remit, which is worrying, as it is contrary to the spirit of the law, thus devaluing it.

In example, I experience a lot of problems relating to the Data Protection Act, where a lot of companies will refuse to speak with me regarding a mutual client. They forget that I'm actually trying to help both sides (in example, a debt client to get out of debt, & arrange regular sustainable repayments to the creditor). They will hide behind the Data Protection Act, conveniently forgetting that section 35 actually explicitly confirms that there are occasions where a company must co-operate with an agent of the person.

I've gone on too long to start on the Human Rights Act. However, I feel that the vast majority of the populace don't know it, understand it, or how it applies. They merely wail about their "human rights". In general I find that usually means they don't like what they've been told - little else. It really isn't the problem some make out.

michaels

No

Viva - sadly ignorance of the law is not a defence - might be worth finding out what is and isn't allowed before falling foul and then you might realise that may be we have too many laws?

lemonJ agree entirely about badly drafted laws - for political reasons there has been a criminal justice bill almost every year often duplicating existing laws and resulting in so many offences that the average police officer can not have anything other than an overview of al the possible offences they are supposed to be detecting. This legislative overload has of course resulted in rushed badly implemented legislation. Given the political imperative and returns from this approach I am not sure it will be easily stopped - the press love to highlight crimes and applaud 'tough' home secretaries. I was hoping the coalition would choose a libertarian like David Davies for this post but not to be.

lynzpower

Personally i THINK this is far too populist and the government will realise that a lot of measure that they want to do will come undone due to the removal of these laws.

there is a damn good reason for contact point, it came out ( amongst others) the victoria climbie case. As some of you know i used to work in a social work team in a hospital, most of my clients had a number of aliases, false docs, trying to evade the authorities. Children do consistently slip through the net and I know for a fact that I was working with a wanted offender ( for a v serious crime) yet i couldn't be made aware of this due to data sharing issues and aliases.

Yet they can walk 2 mins down the road and be in a different authority, AND a differnt health authority and be invisible all over again no matter how many hours that staff member has put in.

I have no problem with my DNA stored and I think we should all be open to that- obviously we know thats not going to be the case but I dont know what the problem is. . At the end of the day when you or your daughter gets raped thats the data that is needed. We have one of the lowest levels of rape conviction in the world. ( example only).

I also dont see the problem with CCTV particularly, I live in one of the dodgiest parts of london and I have also been to a CCTV control centre and seen crimes being committed and people being arrested "live on screen" - as others say it is about the spirit, CCTV shouldn't be used to spy on you putting your rubbish in a bin.