The Law Lords make Britain unsafe yet again

Andre

It is not the law lords who are at fault. They do not make the law they apply it. We have a government, indeed a political class, which is unwilling to fight Islamic terrorism. Neither Cameron nor Brown understand this. Until we have our own Geert Wilders in power we must suffer the consequences of are own political foolishness. Our leaders in parliament are knaves and charlatans. Those who seek to destroy us and our judeo-christian culture walk the streets and seek public office. wake up Britain!

Original Tony

Britain has become like a prostitute; you can do anything you like to her and get away with it.

When will this madness come to an end?

Terry

And EU membership has no effect upon British sovereignty? Maybe their Lordships should order trains full of commuters to be blown up by the British government as a way of avoiding having to deal with any outside party who might be planning murder and mayhem. If the government sponsors terror, maybe the terrorists will stay away.

Sick world, terminally sick Britain.

DD

Which is why the election of Nick Griffin (despicable as it is) is actually a step in the right direction. The irony is chilling, but thinking people must take notice.

David Bouvier

I do not trust the state enough to think that house arrest on secret evidence is acceptable.

Better to fix the original problem - the inability to expel these people - than to throw away our freedom.

David

Oh rubbish. They just upheld the principle that the accused needs to beable to see the case of their accusers.

It's absolutely right to do so, anything else is smacks of totalitarianism. Which is I suppose why you like it. You seem incredibly keen on the arbitrary locking up without trial of people you don't like. There are examples of people like that through history, one of whom we went to war against.

leo solomon

Andre got it right.
Bereft of a constitution Britain's Parliament has no restrictions on what kind of laws it can make and Britain's courts are obliged to uphold whatever the parliament decides is right for the country. Britain is consequently; a country governed by men not laws.What Britain needs now, and may soon get, are new men in Parliament-men who will make laws that protect the safety of britain's citizens and not its enemies.

Paul Freeman

Keep voting UKIP, people. The main political parties will soon get the idea.

Terry

This is not just a problem in Britain - it is a problem in all Western countries. By concentrating on ''individual rights'' the rights of the collectivity to self-defense are ignored. The potential innocent victims of terrorism have no rights. Behind all the legal rhetoric, however, is one principle only - appeasement, the fear of ''offending'' Muslims.

Geoff M

The UK is so screwed.

Is it any surprise that the BNP is doing so well?

Meanwhile our politicians just sit on their hands while the ship goes down.

PS If Labour only got 15% of the vote and there are about 10% ethnic minorities in the UK (who nearly all vote Labour) doesn't that mean that hardly any white Britons voted for them?

It would be interesting to see some stats.

Raymond Joseph Douglas

Can our idiotic judiciary not see not see the bigger picture here ? Apart from making us less safe , they are a recruiting agent for the BNP ! What is worse , we turn away perfectly decent people , in favour of those who would do us harm ! Barmy.

Johnnydub

Melanie, your perfectly understandable anger is directed in the wrong place.

The judges are interpreting the law accoring to the ECHR simple as that.

Thus we cannot be safe until we leave the EU. QED.

Raymond Joseph Douglas

Can our idiotic judiciary not see not see the bigger picture here ? Apart from making us less safe , they are a recruiting agent for the BNP ! What is worse , we turn away perfectly decent people , in favour of those who would do us harm ! Barmy.

Commonasmuck

Don't know why we don't just legislate so that terrorists have an unmarked police car escort to the bomb site in the dead of night timed to go off at the busiest time in any given major city. Let's call it freedom of speech and inviolable human rights.

Common sense must come before any stupid dinner party ideology. You may wish to jeopardise your own safety with your cloud-cuckooland idological beliefs at the expense of common sense, but don't presume to think that gives you the right to jeopardise mine. Show some common.

I don't agree with much of what Melanie Phillips says but she usually shows a lot more common sense than the dolts who wash up to object so loudly to what she does say.

Rhoda Klapp

David Bouvier is right. Why can't we chuck them out? Or indeed try them for a crime, if they have committed one.

Although I certainly do not understand how as a UK citizen I have by law (foreign law at that) no rights not possessed by the last dodgy creep to slide out from under a truck's tilt at Dover.

Ian G

The right to face your accuser and to know the charges against you is fundamental to UK law and those nations whose law follows ours. I am surprised that the EU has manged to learn this lesson. Is there hope?

The definition of terrorism has been rewritten by Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi to exclude the real enemy and include anyone who disagrees with them, especially anyone to the right of them, married, with children, Christian, vaguely Zionist, etc.etc.

The point being that if the Government defines you as a terrorist you lose your rights.

Our current crop may be dangerous, but if they are not guaranteed their rights, then sooner or later we will lose ours.

The 1000 guilty men argument sounds good, but it ignores the MILLIONS who actually live in this country. The argument is fallacious as it is based on an unreal situation.

We must obey our own laws otherwise we will become what we fear.

Ian C

The truly liberal conscience is the ultimate source of the problem. It is fundamentally right that accused must be enabled to understand any legal case against them. It is also fundamentally right that the state must protect its citizens. Hard cases always make bad law.

Surely we can find a wiser way through the problem than have some non-accountable judicial body (the ECHR) making generalised pronouncements that do not deal with this inherent conflict.

I would be the first to assert the supremacy of the individual over the state for just the reasons expressed above - the state cannot be allowed to be all powerful.

At least Lord Hoffman has at shown some wisdom in describing why the problem exists - it is in the eternal 'rule book' (the resulting application of bad law) that bureaucrats employ themselves to write which then results in powers of fiefdom wielded by those of their number who gain the acquired unaccountable power. And so it snowballs.

Please would common sense and decency return to this (European) planet?!

MchaelB55

Geoff M makes a very good point, highly germane to Straw boasting about the Labour vote increasing in Blackburn. But what hope is there when a government allegedly committed to combating terrorism allows Tamil Tiger supporters to disrupt central London?

fellow traveller

"...that control orders were a breach of the suspects’ right to know the crime of which they were charged, a fact concealed from them in such cases on the grounds that they might be able to work out from such information the identity of the informants who had led the police and security service to them and thus compromise intelligence operations."

1. as has been the risk with criminals through history, where the risks of disclosing evidence to the accused are balanced against the assumption that they are, at that point, innocent. There are existing mechanisms to withold disclosure for national security reasons.

2. I keep hearing about our "Judeo-Christian" heritage here. Doesn't that include the right to know your accuser and the crimes of which you are accused, and the presumption of innocence as well?

Or is the part of this heritage which we're trying to preserve only the bit that includes the witch trials and the Spanish inquisition - that is, to condemn people we fear by using quasi-judicial processes which can have only one outcome, because of the way in which they are constructed, so that we feel safer.

Maybe we are assuming that our Judeo-Christian rights apply only to Judeo-Christians? in which case they're probably not very Judeo-Christian at all.

Terry

Rights are not an absolute - something the Law Lords seemingly cannot grasp. Law is not some abstract concept of Platonian purity existing in the ether with the heavenly spheres. Law has consequences in the real world, where we all live.
All rights have limitations. We balance off the rights of the collectivity with the rights of an individual. We look at consequences & outcomes. Sometimes rights must be curtailed for the greater good.
I have a right, as do you all, to stay alive. I have a reasonable expectation that I am safe when I get on a bus, when I take the metro, when I go to a cafe or nightclub, when I get on a plane. I have a right NOT to be blown up. My family, friends, co-workers & co-citizens - they all have this right.
The Law Lords do NOT have a right to take away this right from us (collectively) for the benefit of an individual.

Bill M

This is so completely sick. It is slow suicide. Where is Truth in Britain? Is there no one with a backbone to speak Truth?

steve

Terry: How do you know that these individuals under control orders threaten our safety? Because the government tells us so? Based on what evidence?

Anthony Posner

I wonder whether The UK would take all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?

After all, Guantanamo Bay is a hell-hole. And some of the incarcerated, without human rights, are having problems finding a refuge.

What sayeth David Milliband?

Geoff M

In response to my comment MchaelB55 refers to the fact that Blackburns Labour vote increased.

Perhaps these articles explain why:-

Blackburn:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/straws-seat-is-a-hotspot-of-postal-vote-fraud-claims-495025.html

And in Birmingham:-

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2008/04/28/asian-village-politics-and-its-effect-on-postal-voting-65233-20830149/

Sergey

What a strange thing British law is! In Mandate Palestine, as far as I know, Brits practiced administrative detention for indefinite time, without any charges and any trial, to curb Arab terrorism. Was this practice legal? And how about death squads? Do agents 007 with a licence to kill exist only as art fiction, not as reality?

David Lindsay

I am of course delighted at the decision on control orders (which should be abolished outright), just as I was at the decision to drop the loathsome proposals for secret Coroner's Inquests.

We now need to rid ourselves of convictions on anonymous evidence alone, of both pre-trial convictions and pre-trial acquittals by the Crown Prosecution Service, of the secrecy of the family courts (although that is improving), and of the anonymity of adult accusers in rape cases. Just for a start.

But we also need to get over the Human Rights Act, an incorporation into our domestic law of a Convention which rules out both trial by jury and magistrates' courts. We don't need it. We have our own tradition of open justice. We should stick to it. And we should get back to it.

Peter

We've worried so much about what torture might await these people if they are returned to their homeland, but seem to care naught for what they might do here. Does this mean that our legal system is no longer legitimate, and that we can inflict equal wounds on it to those inflicted on us, in the event that one of these individuals kills one of our number I ask rhetorically. As I do I remember those already slain on our own territory.

In recent times I've heard hard words said about our legal system (as it stood) during the war years. Those criticising it seem to have forgotten that this country was at war, and is to an extent now. If we are prepared to gamble - because that is what it is - to play Russian roulette with other peoples' lives, or perhaps our own, then we truly have become weak and decadent. There are times when a social group must stand up for itself or pay serious consequences. To now say that the London tube bombings were a one off, or on the other to say that we can neither detain nor expel those whom our intelligence indicates to be a threat is the kind of sluggardly thinking that I associate with lotus-eaters.

They are either dangerous or they are not; if they are dangerous they must either go or be confined. There is no in between here, there is no shall we shan't we yes we won't. These people mean business, and have already had a modicum of success.

Ruth

Bill M, this country's judiciary gave up the plot a long time ago.

Terry

Steve - You ask me how I know these individuals are dangerous, a threat to security. What evidence, you say. In the real world, where most of us live, it is generally known that many security services use unusual methods to discover spies, terrorists, etc. - such as counter-spies, double-agents, paid informers, perhaps illegal wire-taps, perhaps some coercive intimidation or even blackmail, maybe a few pay-offs, a ''deal'' to get an informant off the hook in return for some spying, whatever. These cannot be used as evidence without compromising sources of information or cannot be used as evidence in a court of law.
But THEY KNOW with a high degree of certainty.

John hunyadi

Its time to reject Human rights legislation altogether and remove the priviledged liberal political elite (which includes the judicary)which together are doing so much to damage this nation. If not for our sake then for the skae of our children.

Peter

As I worked away a way of encapsulating the debate occurred to me, a way that rises above mere utilitarianism.

By banning control orders or the detention rights of government, based on intelligence, we increase the probability that someone will kill people; if we apply control or detention orders we may increase the probability that someone will lose minutes, hours, days, months, possibly even years of their freedom, but they will live and, if innocent, the probability of release is greater than the probability that a bomb victim will survive unharmed.

People who argue otherwise behave in a manner reminiscent of tobacco addicts; because they see no harm they mistakenly believe there is none or could be none. The tube bombings, including as they did seemingly innocuous people, exemplify this point.

Remember that, at the root of this debate, there is a question over whether or not many of these people would be harmed on return to their own countries, and one is prompted to question why such ill will exists in the first place.

cuffleyburgers

It is the duty of the lawlords to interpret the law in an impartial manner.

This governemt's record in terms of producing good quality legislation is appalling, and the fault in this case lies with the government.

A repeal of European human rights legislation would also be appropriate (if possible which it probably isn't), on the basis that englosh common law protects human rights perfectly well (which is almost true).

Of course we need to be able to deal effectively with suspected terrorists, but this has to be in the context of a legal system that works the same for everybody, and not re-interpreted arbitrarily in cases where it produces an unwanted outcome. That is the basis of tyranny, and I presume you don't want that.

Boudicca

We have the EU, the European Convention on Human Rights and specifically the Human Rights Act to thank for this.

We should repeal the Human Rights Act and inform the EU that we will, in future, be deciding on an individual's "rights" according to the British Rights Act, which will state in the first paragraph that in the UK British Nationals' Rights come above those of non-British nationals.

Hopefully, once we get rid of Labour and with UKIP growing ever stronger, the Tories will see sense and do something about this.

Greg

Safety from terrorism is (like Law itself) a Good. But Law does not exist to deliver other Goods, such as safety. If you crave safety, you need to purchase it by giving up overt aggressions and stockpiling defenses you can deploy without violating the rights of others.
If you keep yourself safe, the Law will justify your actions. If you try to twist the law to make others foot the bill for your security, you won't be safe and nature's true Law will turn against you. Especially if once given some protection, you proceed to attack others with impunity.

C. Gee

This ruling is a perfect example of jurisdictional and jurisprudential confusion.

The fundamental confusion is the applicability of civil law - whether national due process rights accorded to citizens or international due process rights accorded to all individuals - to cases which should be viewed as acts of war.
What is desperately needed is the codified understanding that the law enforcement paradigm must be replaced or modified by the war paradigm when acts of mass destruction are plotted or perpetrated. The individuals should be regarded as enemy combatants, albeit unaffiliated with a state, even if not found on a battle-field in conventional war. The "battle-fields" , after all, are our city streets, and the enemy is amongst us.
The expectation of due process accorded to enemies in war is severely diminished. They can expect summary "execution" at the battlefront or indefinite detention without most of the civil rights of a hearing, representation, confrontation of witnesses etc.
The jurisprudence of this hypbrid between criminal and enemy has yet to be refined, although the Americans under Bush were making valiant efforts.
To those who fear that innocent individuals will be randomly selected as enemies, I believe that certain safeguards should and will be put in place, though not the full panoply of human rights. After all, mass destruction is a crime against humanity, so some at least of those human rights are forfeit.

The death penalty should be reinstated.

Mrme

Neither the European Court of Human Rights nor the European Convention on Human Rights has anything to do with the EU. They spring from the Council of Europe, an entirely different body. The Convention was drafted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, later a Conservative Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor, and hardly an obvious candidate for criticism as a wolly liberal intent on undermining ancient British freedoms.

Augustus

It was bound to be an inevitable consequence of incorporating the European Convention law into the British historical common law system that a threat to the advantages of this tradition would sooner or later arise. Our common law holds an immense richness of accumulated experience in the form of legal decision making over hundreds of years. Tradition and experience together have more to offer than
modern principles with no secure rooting in history.

There is also the important argument that the independent institution of judges is itself
risking politicisation if Parliament loses its sovereignty
as the protector of rights and freedoms. This will only serve to confuse the legislative power of Parliament and the judicial power of the courts and judges, and in consequence judicial power will lose its authority as a 'watchdog' in relation to the activities of Parliament.

One of the most fundamental doctrines of the common law is the sovereignty of Parliament. This sovereignty is partly based on the idea of seperating powers in order to let the executive, the judicial, and the legislative power hold each other in check. Since international law is another often conflicting legal system, it is bound to be a drag
on the system whenever a judgement is delivered or a statute drafted. What, for example, can then stop some judges acting like politicians and yield to popular or ideological opinions, and powerful authorities. If the ultimate aim of incorporation of the ECHR is to protect any individual from arbitrary encroachment by the state, most weight will be given to interpreting the principles of the foreign rules or standards in question, and less, if any, interpretation will be given to the dangers which threaten society as a whole. The safety of British citizens is in real danger of being sacrificed for a principle - human rights as a common moral standard - which has been more evident in the UK throughout its history since Magna Carta than was the case elsewhere.

Emmet Sweeney

When the catastrophe comes, as it surely will within a decade at most - a nuclear suitcase bomb - then the public in Europe will see the folly of allowing the leftist political and "intellectual" class to lead them up the garden path so long. The tragedy is, they have only themsleves to blame. In exchange for government handouts, the populations of Europe have allowed leftist governments to subvert the moral foundations of the continent for 50 years. We will all pay a heavy price for this.

Suki

Why the hell should the security services disclose all they know about these people?

They don't have to do the same for organised criminals.

Sounds like more examples of calls for special privileges for Muslims.

steve

Terry: Do miscarriages of justice ever occur? How about the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4? Many of the individuals subject to control orders are being held based on evidence supplied by foreign intelligence services which is why this material can't be used in UK courts (it is not necessarily the simplistic situation that Melanie Phillips suggests). Some of these foreign intelligence services are based in countries that are not democracies and not subject to any scrutiny. Some countries (China, for example) label opposition to their regimes as terrorists. Some of the individuals under control orders are held not because they are a threat to the UK but because they would be a threat to another country. I'm not saying that these individuals shouldn't be held. I am saying that this situation is more complicated than Melanie Phillips lets on and that there should be more transparency and scrutiny.

Richard

Am I wrong, or could these people simply not get out of prison and the rest of it by simply agreeing to leave the country and go elsewhere? Indeed, I seem to recall the chap now under consideration attempted to flee and was, believe it or not, held back and stopped! Why? I mean, if I was imprisoned in some country and given the chance to leave the country and go elsewhere, I wouldn’t hesitate. Or is it simply that no other country on the planet would have them, except those where they are wanted, and they don’t want to go back? And those countries know why they want them….

Roy

This exemplifies the tension between individual rights and the abrogation of those freedoms sometimes necessary to enable authorities to detect and disrupt terrorists. The fundamental problem is the intelligence v evidence dilema. Information from some foreign agencies is always suspect (the Chinese are a good case in point) BUT the vast majority of it against foreign terrorist suspects is also questionable in that it cannot be proven - and would not by any stretch constitute evidence. The best one can hope for is intel corroborated from at least one or more separate sources. In the intelligence game, such intel is very rare. The point is that this can be good enough to allow authorities to identify a terrorist or potential terrorist. Sometimes you know from such good intelligence (remembering a phone tap is not admissible in a UK court) that someone is a terrorist or potential terrorist. But you can’t convert that intel into evidence for legal and/or source protection reasons. So what do you do? Physical surveillance is both costly and resource intensive so the answer was initially to imprison foreign suspects under Immigration legislation. But after derogation from the EHCR that got canned by the Law Lords. The only thing left was the imperfect Control Orders. Not ideal but something. Until now. For her part Melanie may have been simplifying a complex issue but she is entirely right on the potential consequences of this decision. With Control Orders now gone, it cannot be long before there is another major terrorist incident in the UK.

Anthony Posner

It seems that Foreign Office is ambivalent about upholding the human rights of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Very strange when you consider the Law Lords ruling.

I refer to The BBC website..

'A diplomatic spat has broken out over Bermuda's acceptance of four Chinese Muslim Uighurs released from the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay.
Britain has told Bermuda, which is one of its overseas territories, it should have consulted London before agreeing to resettle the Uighurs."

Merlyn

We have gone off the rocks here, but in Obama 'Change'USA, a bill was just passed, via Monsanto, to outlaw organic farming, even in your own back yard.
Sorry to change the subject.

Terry

Steve - Of course there is a chance of a miscarriage of justice. No system is ever perfect, especially one run by gov't. This does not negate my argument. Courts sometimes free the guilty, sometimes convict the innocent. We don't therefore propose to junk the whole system. Penicillin can cause death to some, we don't ban penicillin. Some medical procedures carry risk, we do them anyway. In war, sometimes innocent civilians are killed or otherwise harmed - but when this is unintentional or when civilians are deliberately used as human shields, we accept collateral damage. This is reality. You won't agree with me, I'm sure, but I think that terrorists forfeit all consideration - innocent lives are worth more than the rights of terrorists. We in the West have already gone much too far in the appeasement of people who wish us harm.

Terry

Steve - By the way, I'm originally from an Arab country. I know all about human rights abuses, repression, lack of law, torture & illegal imprisonment, corruption, bribery of judges, intolerance, the ''disappearance'' of political opposition,lack of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, & all the other charming aspects of dictatorships. But, in our reality, sometimes these practices were justified since the alternative was much worse.
So, I understand your concerns.
But, I now live in Israel & we have much sad experience with terrorism against our civilian population, experience which you, fortunately, do not have as yet.

darsan

absolute power corupts absolutely.by elevating the judiciary as oriental sultans u'k gets what it deserves. darsan

Florence

Pity these 'Human Rights' weren't about in September 1939 then we could have all been speaking German now.
War declared at 11 am and my old Dad was back in the Army by 11.15 am.(the police having turned up at home and taken him away as he was an ex.regular soldier).No one around in those days to worry about your b******g rights !
I dare say,while he was sitting in various holes in France, North Africa,Sicily,Italy etc. he would have spent many a happy hour thinking about his 'Human rights'until his demob. in August 45.
A pox on the EU !

Zebedee

Steve .."some countries label opposition to their regimes as 'terrorists' ...
fair enough, but I ask myself why do some these opposers have to end up in UK threatening our way of life.Perhaps a majority of the British public have now had enough and feel it is time for a change in government policy irrespective of what those pillocks in funny suits think.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

Do we have Al Qaeda in Britain asks this woman the other day? their were few people sitting near by her and they all said yes we do, is the liberal government telling us anything about this? the answer is no, are the left wing society aware about this? no, and if they are do they care? the answer is also no, I think we all have to be careful and protect ourselves and our communities, not the government or the lefties will help if anything happens to the people of Islamic Republic of Great Britain

steve

Terry: I understand your perspective and I agree that terrorists deserve no mercy. But that brings me back to my original point: how do we know these people are terrorists? They are not being held because they have been convicted under the Terrorism Act.

simon

Precisely.

But you are not hitting home with this focus on UK politics, when we need you to be advancing the cause of Israel, defending the settlements, and preparing ground again for a new assault which we must surely plan in Gaza and Iran.

Raymond in DC

Anthony Posner writes, "After all, Guantanamo Bay is a hell-hole. And some of the incarcerated, without human rights, are having problems finding a refuge."

The reason they're having problems finding refuge is that most recognize them as unrepentant terrorists and fear what they might do. (Indeed, Obama had to promise Palau some $200 Million to take a few Uigers off his hands. He forgets it's the Congress that has the power of the purse.)

As to that "hell-hole", they get first-class food (all halal) and medical care - better than most of us get - and their every religious demand is met. Most get exercise, TV and phone privileges. Some even get laptops. Our own prisoners of war should get such treatment.

Jonny Mac

Quick point to all those referring to the EU: the EU and the ECtHR are entirely separate. If we had left the EU 5 years ago, that would have had no effect whatsoever on this judgment.

Cheetawatch

steve
June 12th, 2009 10:44am
"how do we know these people are terrorists?"

The answer is we do not know. Any more than the Guan Bay suspects are terrorists, for example. But it is important to know WHY we do not know. That is because the methods, activity, purpose and - importantly - ideology differ from normal suspects which the legal system has grown to accomodate over the decades. For example, if you find a man with a suicide note and his all body hair shaved off, do you arrest him or say he has technically committed no crime.

What would you do? (This is a real case).

Merlyn

Yet again I digress a little. Today I read - The Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM) estimated that in 2008 around 3,917 civilians were killed, over 6,800 were wounded, and around 120,000 were forced out of their homes.[16][19]
Where are the graphic front page images,outrage etc over this, or is it only Israel that has to be spotless.

Derek BLADES

Cheetawatch,June 12th, 2009 1:31pm asks "if you find a man with a suicide note and his all body hair shaved off, do you arrest him or say he has technically committed no crime."

What is the significance of his having no body hair? I don't understand the point you are making.

Derek BLADES

I agree almost entirely with simon (June 12th, 2009 12:21pm) when he telss Ms Phillips "But you are not hitting home with this focus on UK politics, when we need you to be advancing the cause of Israel, defending the settlements, and preparing ground again for a new assault which we must surely plan in Gaza and Iran." Just add "fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria" and I would agree 100%

David Ossitt

Original Tony
June 11th, 2009 9:33am
"Britain has become like a prostitute; you can do anything you like to her and get away with it"

What an awful picture your example above conjures up.

I am not familiar with prostitutes or any of those who pay for their services but I feel sure neither side would be happy with what you suggest.

In the Wilderness in America

The lords were interpreting the law. Well, in some cases, as Dickens once said: "The law is an ass."

Laws are made by men and women and can be changed as well they should in Britain to protect as many citizens as possible from terrorist attacks. The rights of individuals when they come up against this have to be considered, but the rights of society and its survival take precedence. Otherwise, all is chaos.

Hopefully, Britain and America will not feel the pain of placing the individual over society.I'm afraid we are heading down that road in both countries.

Ideally, laws should be crafted to protect both the individual and society. That doesn't always work especially when terrorism is involved. But, again, society must be protected at all costs from anarchy and tyrany. If not, there will be no individuals left.

davod

"Bereft of a constitution Britain's Parliament has no restrictions on what kind of laws it can make"

Rubbish:

The problem is the law is governed by RU law and the EU law says you cannot do what wasbing done.

Serfs in the new world.

Stephen Collins

This might come as a shock Melanie, but the Law Lords are doing their job.

INTERPRETING THE LAW CREATED BY OTHERS.

And how can any of us agree to stopping the accused seeing evidence against them? Doesn't that make us the same as other states like the USSR which would fake evidence to have people executed?

All of you who are moaining about this should stop. Those who want security at the expense of liberty frankly deserve neither. Go live in North Korea if you want. Very secure but you won't have any rights at all.

Terry

Steve - How do we know they're terrorists? At some point, we have to simply have faith that security services know what they're doing. Agreed, this is sometimes hard to swallow especially when we know how gov't. agencies so often bungle things up. There are no easy solutions & there are no perfect solutions.
I would add one point, however.
You see terrorism as a legal problem related to criminality.
I see terrorism as a tactic used by people with whom we are at war.

Derek BLADES

Boudicca,June 11th, 2009 6:14pm wants to "repeal the Human Rights Act and inform the EU that we will, in future, be deciding on an individual's "rights" according to the British Rights Act,"

Informing the EU would not make much sense. To quote Wikipedia "The European Convention on Human Rights is a convention adopted by the Council of Europe." Nothing to do with the dreaded European Union.

Martin

In the face of boundless Islamic terrorism, where the criminal wants to die, there is no protection except arrest as enemy combatant, even though
the crime is only partly committed. When our troops rounded up Nazis in WW2, they were not given "Human Rights" lawyers to force us not to
stop them killing us.

I regret to say that these reckless lawyers will have left our security forces with few legal options to defend us. As so often in recent years,
I have come to think that the political classes
(especially Labour,Lib & Green) hate the indigenous British.

Martin

M. Tene

From a highly regarded nation and people, this country turned into a bunch of cowards hiding behind 'human rights' rights for inhuman creatures and wrongdoers. Europe should not be an example for justice and/or wisdome anymore as it fell asleep when it was taken over by radical minorities and is now bending backwards to accommodate them. The judicial system in the UK turned to a mockery and not only in the terrorist prosecution section, ist spread all over. Only God can save the Queen and Country now. Disconnect now!British Law was good for this country for so many decades, why change?

DavidM

M Tene. What do you mean, decades? British law has served us well for centuries.

TroyB

Prime example of how democracy and human rights are in essence self-defeating concepts. Past history of our human affairs shows that every so often political systems need someone to come with a large broom, or stormtroopers, to crack the whip and clean up the mess. The date with destiny is quickly approaching.

James Hodson

Derek BLADES: Informing the EU would not make much sense. To quote Wikipedia "The European Convention on Human Rights is a convention adopted by the Council of Europe." Nothing to do with the dreaded European Union.

Quite right. But as far as I know new EU entrants have to sign up to the court. I have no idea whether or not countries already in the EU such as UK of GB & NI necessarily had to sign.

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

THEORETICAL TUNNEL VISION

This is a story about THEORETICAL TUNNEL VISION....
where there has been an nth degree theoretical analysis of every nook and cranny as to whether one’s rights may or may not be violated in umpteenth different possible scenarios...

However: Where is the fluidity of mind, the openness of mind, and the experience of mind to then step back from all these permutations and combinations and apply PRACTICAL and WORLDLY COMMON SENSE and DISCRETION???....important
intellectual devices sadly lacking in present times, and particularly appalling as these poor imitations of Father Christmases are influential in setting the direction of Britain’s welfare and future!!!

david turnbull

Bloody, and i mean bloody, revolution is inevitable.

Drakken

I am afraid this will not end up well for you Britain. As David said,,, it will end up a very bloody revolution, then all you lefist idiots will see Darwin at its worst.