Britain's Terrorism Derangement Syndrome

JD

... also in the Telegraph this morning: "Home Office says that Islamic Extremists should be given counselling rather than prosecuted": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2068366/Islamic-extremists-should-get-therapy,-Home-Office-tells-local-councils.html

Presumably 'they' only want the 42 days for the counselling to take effect! What the hell is this government playing at ????

Acid O'Trashy

Meanwhile this week in the house of lords the end of the UK as a nation is being debated. What fortunate timing.

Not like you to fall for a red herring Melanie

Frank Pulley

All this political posturing over detention without charge doesn’t wash. Yet another attempt by a weak and grossly inefficient government and a police force also weakened by years of modified Marxist conditioning to convince the public that it is lack of legal powers that causes their ineptitude in dealing even with serious crime (Islamic murder and mayhem included), never mind domestic disorder and anarchy on the streets ( the majority of which is perpetrated by kids who should be in school, FCS). They have more than enough powers, they need more resolve, more real police rather than careerists (and unqualified and poorly trained substitutes) and less red tape. A firmer grip on our borders is also essential and ruthless deportation of all criminals who are not citizens or subjects of our country, when they are active in or incite subversive activities.

The biggest threat to this nation is not from the nutters who conspire (mostly unsuccessfully) to blow us all up. It is from the so-called ‘Muslim moderates’ who are inexorably replacing our indigenous culture, already severely damaged by half a century of stealthy erosion by the disciples of Gramsci and Foucault et al. Pretty soon, even the most deranged of the bombers will have no cause to do what they have been trying to do; the indigenous stock have their heads up their fundaments and sliding into Dhimmitude with hardly a whimper.

The proposed measures are Orwellian: I distrust our government, our police forces and our judiciary. Each entity is riddled with people whose interests lay with an internationalist Utopia and if that isn’t obvious by now, then it’s probably too late to do anything about it, because it means most of us are too blind to see the noses on our own faces.

Use the powers you already have to better effect you idle dogs, rather than continually wasting resources clamouring for more and wider powers that you have no intention of using, except it seems, against people who put the wrong rubbish in the wrong dustbin. This latest piece of legislative rubbish should defintely be put in the dustbin of history. The so called 'concessions' are merely designed to save Brown's ass.

Glad you haven't made up your mind yet, M. Keep your powder dry for a little while, yet.

David

"The inescapable implication of the opponents’ argument is that they will only change their minds when there is conclusive proof that the current limit is inadequate "

All right, let's go for two years then, just to be on the safe side. After all, the inescapable logic is that you will only argue against that time where until there is proof otherwise.

Verity

Well said, Melanie. This country sinks deeper into illusions, delusions and alternate reality by the day.

The latest "idea" - and whoever thought it up should be sectioned - is "counselling" for extremists. From The Torygraph: Islamic extremists could escape prosecution and instead receive therapy and counselling under new Government plans to "deradicalise" religious fanatics.
"The Home Office is to announce an extra £12.5 million to support new initiatives to try to stop extremism spreading.

This is a mirror image of "Let's all sit down around the negotiating table and talk it out over a glass of mint tea."

It is alarmingly delusional and bears absolutely no relation to reality. Could they be given a drug that would erase their memories of N Ireland. They are stuck in that warp, which bears absolutely no relation to Islamic extremism. They are thick, smug, and living in the past and they are as dangerous as any terrorist.

TD

Peter Clarke was absolutely superb in his role and has enormous credibility, so let's hope his opinion carries weight with the Brown cabinet.

The sad fact is that while the majority of muslims will not reveal if they support or object to extremists, they will not stand in the way of the ummah being established within a weak democracy such as the UK. Indeed, their 'religion' compels them to place their countries a distinct second, compared to Islam.

The enemy seeks to destroy our way of life. Why can't politicians accept this fact and act accordingly?

Ray

Now, Melanie, why might the public suspect the police of political partiality?
Can I suggest you revisit your previous blog on 'dhimmocracy' in Alum Rock "where in the heart of England a British police support officer, employed by the British state to enforce the law of England, aggressively prevents Christians from preaching the established faith of England on the grounds that this is now a ‘hate crime’"

Clive Masterton

I agree with Frank Pulley. Not terrorism itself, but the so-called "War on Terrorism" is totally bogus. Its actually a war against us, the people. Our government lies to us about everything else - why should we believe them when they tell us this proposed extension of detention is for our security. Make no mistake - militant Islam is a massive threat to this country, but it is so primarily because the Fabians who are the real power in Britain (and USA!)desire it so. For the present it suits their agenda, which is maximum disruption and dislocation of our society i.e. for the social engineers, crisis equals opportunity.

Verity

I agree with Frank Pulley - so no surprises there, then - and Clive Masterson. I have said for the past few years that it is the Gramscians/Fabians - however you style these traitors - who are using radical Islam as a weapon against the British. Even their importation was a tool for causing uncertainty and unrest.

Some of these radicals are now second-generation born in Britain of immigrant grandparents. They should have been comfortably integrated by now.

Regarding "counselling" for terrorists, here are a few words that drooled down Jacqui Smith's chin, "We are investing at local level to build resilient communities, which are equipped to confront violent extremism and support the most vulnerable individuals."

I wonder if she wears body armour when she goes out into these "resilient communities", as Harriet Harmon does in her own resilient constituency?

Kevyn Bodman

I am both surprised and disappointed that a post I submitted disagreeing with Melanie's view on this hasn't appeared .
It was sent at about the same time as Verity's first post.

I am fully aware of the ambitions of Islam;I am fully aware of the threat it poses and of the dangers of dhimmitude.
And I want it resisted.
But increasing police powers in the way suggested is not the right way to do it.
I don't trust the police or the government.
They have made many misjudgements over the years, and now they want more power.
NO.
These are my liberties, and yours, under threat.
Have a look at the 42 day detention thread over at CoffeeHouse.
Melanie, who is still the greatesy columnist in Britain, is wrong on this issue.

(It's interesting how commenters' opinions are so different on 2 threads on the Spectator site, isn't it?)

Mark

Peter Clarke's article is just the same old stuff. The only example he now gives - relied upon to justify 90 days before, but now 42 - was one where the police needed just 14 days to assemble sufficient admissible evidence to bring charges.

Mr Clarke's example is Dhiren Barot, arrested in 2004 and convicted - on an admission of guilt - in 2006. The police investigation was, apparently, the largest before the 2005 London bombings.

According to the BBC it took the police 14 months to open up all the garages and lockups for which he had keys (600 sets). But (i) nobody - not even Ms Phillips - is suggesting detention without charge for 14 months and (ii) the police were able to charge him 14 days after arrest. They would now have up to twice as long.

And yes, the police worked around the clock to get into the various computers. But the need to see what Mr Barot and any associates were up to was urgent independent of any limit on the power to detain him.

Note that Mr Clarke does not suggest that extra time is needed for questioning ("The vast majority of terrorist suspects maintain their right to silence, however long they are in custody.")

That Mr Clarke does not refer to later investigations is very telling, not least given the constant refrain that terrorist plots are becoming ever more complicated. His best example is still from 2004 and it shows what could be done in 14 days then - haven't the police advanced in their technological capability since then?

C Powell

I'm afraid Mel that you're wrong on this. The authoritarianism of this Government, its assault on civil liberties and the abuse of those powers which it does have are frightening. I simply do not trust what the Government or the police say when they claim that these powers are essential. I fear that if this measure goes through it will not be used against terrorists but will be used against the rest of us, just as other powers have been misused in the past. (Look at the way the Extradition Act with the US has been used to get bankers and businessmen not terrorists.) Furthermore, if the Government were serious about tackling terrorism it would take the necessary steps to control borders, deport those evildoers who are here and the many other small steps necessary to combat the ideology of the terrorists and to make Britain a much less hospitable place for Islamo-fascism (e.g. closing down those mosques which are used for sedition, prosecuting imams and others who preach jihad, keeping a much closer eye on those Asian youths travelling to Pakistan for extended periods, preventing schools/mosques/charities here from being funded by overseas organisations peddling the ideology behind the terrorists etc.,). But those would involve hard work, confronting some of the multicultural shibboleths this Government is so fond of and might even involve them speaking some hard truths to some of their supporters, which is why they won't happen, at least under this Government. But that's no reason for the rest of us to agree to a serious assault on our freedoms which will do nothing to protect us from the threat we face.

Nik

Melanie, I am surprised by your logic sometimes. You seem to agree with Clark's suggestion that even if there is no compelling case for a longer detention period at the moment, we should have the law on the statute books anyway just in case we do in future. It's like saying we should have a law against Zionist conspiracies even though there is no evidence that one exists but to avoid bringing one in in a panic, "just in case!" You don't have to be a bleeding-heart liberal intellectual to believe that one of the great things about living in Britain is its long-held tradition that the government may not lock you up without giving you a damn good reason why. Accusations are cheap to make and suspicions easy to raise and it's for that reason that we have until now not allowed the police to lock people up for three months (lets call a spade a spade) while they go and look for a reason for keeping them there. Any proposal to go back on this founding principle must be subject to the most rigourous examination of the facts. So to now say that we should have such a long detention period even if the facts aren't there is quite bizarre, especially coming from someone who repeatedly mourns the loss of traditional values.

I can perhaps take it that you have never spent any time in custody or prison on account of a crime you didn't commit? Try talking to a few that have!

Tom

Sorry Mel your arguement doesn't wash; why do you continue to believe that for all the other illiberal things this government has done; enhanced the abortion laws, undermined civil liberties in social areas, scuttled our schooling and healthcare system - once the envy of the world, do you insist that this is the way forward?

Brown and NuLabour are socialist by their very nature and so believe that the state knows best, despite all the manifest evidence to the contrary. All that laws like this will allow is for more and more injustices on innocents to be committed, over an increasingly longer period of time. This is not an issue of arresting guilty men but of persecuting those not given due process by the law; for the sins of these terrorists they deserve to face justice and should do so, but that does not excuse an incompetent security and police service from having their job made any easier just by proving you believe that the state does know best.

It'll be the muslims first Mel, then the Christians, the Jews, the libertarians and anyone else they think are in need of re-education and for internment, then eventually they'll deal with the "problem" of democracy.

Nick Kaplan

“The fact that we have been able to convict more than 60 terrorists in the last year or so is irrelevant.”

Has the whole world gone insane; how can this be irrelevant? It is the only possible evidence there can be for how unnecessary this vile bill is. There is quite clearly no way to provide evidence for the question Mr. Clarke wants answered “Is it likely that there will come a time when the present 28-day limit is insufficient?”What a ludicrous way for government to conduct policy; to ask the question “might we need it in the future?” and then because might it such a vague word just assert that yes it “might” be necessary so let’s go ahead and do it. It might also be necessary to lock people away for 3 years sometime in the future so let’s go the whole hog and do that too. Oh... and what about if we need a war time economy at some undefined stage.... well just to be on the safe side.....

Has anyone considered that if the police are given a deadline they will work towards it? If the deadline is 28 days the police will work flat out for 28 days to find sufficient evidence to charge someone. If the deadline is 42 days the police will work less hard to find that same evidence as they will have more time to do so. My prediction is that if this ludicrous bill is passed the average number of days it will take to charge a potential terrorist will increase significantly and the government will then claim this as evidence for the fact that they made the “right” decision.

The idea is a disgrace, an affront to hard won liberties, no other civilised country in the world feels the need for such draconian laws and the labour party are going to sit back and let it happen to gratify the ego of Mr. Brown. Shocking!

Tiberius

I am surprised at Melanie's take on this matter.

This piece of legislation represents the dying embers of Blair's attempt to make Michael Howard look soft on terrorism. It is tainted by the random nature in which "42 days" has been arrived at. Furthermore, the police have been politicized by New Labour, and as long as the disreputable Sir Ian Blair remains in post, they will continue to be so. Moreover, the points that Melanie concedes are too important to remain side issues.

"42 days" is but a gesture by this failed government to deal with the terrorists. I am in full agreement with Michael Burleigh that David Cameron and his front bench are far more aware of the existential threat posed by Islamism than Brown's crew of no-hopers.

It is therefore right to oppose this cack-handed legislation because it does not offer a comprehensive set of measures required to take the security issue further.

With legislation already on the books to extend detention beyond 28 days in extreme circumstances, and which it goes without saying should be used, the government should instead focus on: banning Hizb ut Tahrir; ensuring the disciplining or sacking of police who fail to uphold (or who abuse) the law - this would include the two renegade members of the West Midlands force in the news lately and anyone caught applying the law assymetrically between different groups of citizens; and changing the law so that even our judiciary could not release convicted enemy aliens back on to our streets.

Those are some serious anti-terrorism measures rather than the ineffective, ill-conceived pap typical of a political party imploding under the weight of its own contradictions and intellectual inadequacies.

Wilf

I agree with some of what Frank Pulley says, but not with his assessment of the police.

I used to be a member of the legal profession, working in the area of criminal law. Over about 12 years, I was on first name terms with perhaps 40% of the Glos Constabulary's officers, and knew many of the rest of them very well, having to work with and alongside them on a daily basis.

Even though they were the opposition, so to speak, my abiding memory of this group of normal men and women is that I was endlessly thankful that our police force was still staffed by so many fine, upstanding, professional and capable individuals. And, indeed, that the culture within this force was such that any officer or probationer who went astray or proved to be not upto it, would vanish from the scene, never to return - apart from one reject who obtained some qualifications and ended up working for a local law firm, but hey there's a surprise!

(I also remember the problems posed by the necessity of obtaining the services of a Serbo-Croat translator in Gloucester over the course of a weekend.)

As for 42 days, I would ask those who object to this proposal so vehemently (a) WHY they have such strong feelings over such an arbitrary number, and (b) what OTHER arbitrary number they would feel more comfortable with.

AndrewSouthLondon

Stand by your words Mel. This "Libertarian" fashion politics wont wash. We keep being told its no longer about Left vs Right, its now Libertarian vs Authoritarian. More emperors new clothes, hot on the heels of green cloth.The people chanting "my precious civil liberties!" are hoping they have found a new faultline in political discourse. Fear of "databases", "surveillance society" - toffee.

Fact of the matter is the Government couldn't run a bath let along opress you. Your greatest cvil liberty is not to get blown up on your way to work.

phil

I am not normally ambivalent but I am swayed by the passionate plea,s to keep our way of life and then I ask myself what do we do when genuinely the police cannot do the necessary investigation .of the computers ,make the foreign journeys, and question all the suspects in order to come to a decision whether to charge or not-do they make a charge which may fail but then oppose bail and keep the suspect in custody ,and if it does fail then charge them with another offence after further questioning or do we allow them to do it properly in the first place .with safeguards of course-it probably seems obvious that I am not sure 42 days is enough ,but who am I to say anything I am just one poor sucker dodging the bombers and hoping our way of life will not be taken away from us by these lunatics that we are all striving to protect -sorry if my legal knowledge is not up to scratch,and yes I am willing to take the chance that I will get 42 days or more for overfilling my dustbin . The point I am trying to make is that we are not in a tickling contest ,the enemy is real and truly wicked ,he is not fighting under our rules and we did not beat Hitler by being nice .I expect a pasting for saying this but sorry guys I respect your opinions and your morality but I believe in pragmatism in times of war.

Verity

Wilf, I believe I'm correct when I say that Frank Pulley was a copper all his working life and therefore knows whereof he speaks.

Verity

Phil, who wrote a sentence that may have given the shivers to Gibbon, why not tell us what you really think? In snappy sentences.

steve

I agree with Tiberius that this is not about security but about politics. It is about using the detention period against the opposition parties. The same point applies to identity cards. During the Crewe and Nantwich by-election Labour attempted to use identity cards against the Conservatives. By the way, the police are certainly not uniform in supporting the extension to 42 days. I was told last autumn by senior police officer with some experience in counter-terrorism that he did not believe the police needed to go beyond the 28 days.

David

From a technical point of view, if you can't break into someones computers in 28 days then you are certainly not going to do it in 42 days (or 90 or 14 months). Encryption is that good. Even the NSA/GCHQ can't defeat something correctly encrypted with algorithms such as AES.

Thankfully for the Police, very few people know how to use encryption properly on PCs. In fact, it's difficult to clean all tracks unless you are an expert. But don't let the "Need 42 days to break into a computer" wash. Its a total untruth.

phil

Verity are you able to speak in English or is silly sarcasm what you are qualified in -the next time we see anything sensible from you will be the first time so I doubt that anyone is impressed by your unfailing rudeness -I can only assume you have not achieved fulfillment in your life and seek it here -but I have to admit if your desire is to be a comedienne then you win ,you do make me laugh -and thanks for that .

DH

It's also about money. Socialists are unnaturally obsessed with money, that's why they always waste it. Prodicus on his blog makes the terse point that, if the police need more time, why not increase the number of police. But this government has other priorities.

field

It's utter nonsense. 42 days is an assault on our liberty.

How many judges would throw out of court a terrorist charge straight off in any case? There's plenty of scope for charging and then investigating because in this sort of case there's bound to be something you can charge them with. Investigation doesn't stop with a charge.

We are going about this all teh wrong way.

First we aren't closing down the breeding grounds of terrorism - the Saturday schools for Muslim children where they are taught to hate the infidel. We aren't using hate crime legislation to prosecute Muslim booksellers propagating Jew hatred etc.

Secondly we got rid of all our effective conspiracy and treason laws some years ago. We need to introduce modern equivalents.

Thirdly we aren't promoting our values and exposing the values of our opponents.

Fourthly we aren't stopping the Saudis using their money to advance Wahaabism in this country.

If we start doing some of the above, we will be getting somewhere.

Verity

2:36 p.m. Field - to your last point first: Fourthly we aren't stopping the Saudis using their money to advance Wahaabism in this country. Why? Because Wahaabism is a handy rod to beat the backs of the British, of course! It could easily be stopped, so that it is not is clear evidence that this malign government wants it this way.

The same goes for the Saturday schools and the bookshops selling hate literature. Yet Canada, another socialist hellhole, has banned its most famous son, Mark Steyn, from writing about Islam. Needless to say, his name will never elevate sales of any other Canadian publication as he won't be back.

From the beginning of the trickle into Britain of these people who hold beliefs directly opposed to liberal Western thinking, their purpose was that of tool.

phil

Field --yuor quote-"It's utter nonsense. 42 days is an assault on our liberty"

with respect
it is not our liberty ,it is that of the terrorist suspects ,and I don't think the man on the clapham omnibus is in much danger of being arrested .it is this sort of worrying that is the weakness in our system -I have no fear that either of us is about to be detained and I have no problem with those claiming to be going to a "barmitzvah" in Pakistan being questioned for however long it takes .I agree with the message you are sending regarding the pussy footing that our government's involved in ,but let us not deter them when they are showing strength

-I have to agree with Wilf that if we cannot trust the police it is a sad day for all of us ,for every bad apple there are hundreds if not thousands who are fantastic public servants and we should be grateful for the efforts they make to protect us -We need to back them up .

Wilf

Thanks Verity. Frank Pulley was a copper all his working life? Strange to spend a life's work in an organisation that one has such serious reservations about.

And because Frank was a copper, his experience rules out anyone else's? I can assure you that my own experience wasn't all a dream. Nor a figment of my imagination. And neither am I lying to you.

It is the case that the police are only able to abuse their position with regard to anyone in their custody when the lawyer representing the detainee allows them to (or fails to prevent the abuse). And we are all entitled to free legal representation whilst under police investigation.

Phil is right when he says we should support our police and be grateful for the work they do on our behalf. I believe it is a common misconception that the police are, in some way, a different and seperate entity to the rest of us. They are not. The police force is a body of entirely normal people (if there IS a difference, then they tend to be better than average - they frequently made my former profession look bad), and every police officer has non-police friends and relatives.

Verity

Wilf writes: "Strange to spend a life's work in an organisation that one has such serious reservations about."

It would be indeed, but when he was in the Police Force, it was a respected pillar of Britain, not a tool of political manipulation and enforcer of lunatic thought fascism. I am certain you understood that Frank Pulley was referring to today's police "service", not the individuals who served before the whole organisation turned political.

Sadly, since the Labourites got in, all the merit accrued by the police in the previous hundred years or so has been drizzled away on social engineering projects.

David Raynes

What kept Peter Clarke so long Melanie is that he was no doubt playing politics. He is (unlike Sir Ian Blair) a respected professional police investigator. He no doubt kept his powder dry until his shot carried the most impact. He is wrong of course, as are you. Your tendency to villify conscientious and indeed knowledgeable opponents in a technical field is not pretty or edifying. The opposition, you say, is "bordering on the hysterical" or is said to be "shrieking". Sadly you often use words like that of opponents. It is a FACT that some of the most informed people on this subject in the country, believe the extension to 42 days to be fundamentally wrong, not made out and largely a political prank. It is very difficult indeed, as a professional criminal investigator to envisage a situation where I would argue for continued detention of a person for more than 28 days on JUST suspicion. It is rare, almost never, in serious criminality, that ALL the evidence expected in a particular case will be to hand before charge. That is not how investigation of serious criminality works. It is a FACT which may be uncomfortable to you and often is to the Police, or other Investigators, that under the English system of Justice, a charge MUST be preferred as soon as a sufficiency of evidence to support a charge is assembled. That is why the details of an indictment will so often vary from the original "holding charge". You can argue for the inquisitorial system of Justice if you wish. By all means let us have that debate. The 42 day suggestion, under the present system, is a bridge too far. It is wrong in principle and it does not even fit the current practice. 90 days was dreamed up in an ill thought out, knee jerk silly response, to a Home Office question about sufficiency of powers. 42 days is similarly trivial and arbitrary. Blair (Tony) thought it sounded good, thought it would capture traditional Tory high ground. It did not stack up then, nor does the present proposition. Win or lose, it will do the present government no good. At the margin, yes, because of the adverse publicity it may do harm.