Ken Jones is the head of Acpo – the chief police officers’ equivalent of a trade union. Ken Jones thinks it is okay to lock people up indefinitely without trial.
One of Britain’s most senior police officers has demanded a return to a form of internment, with the power to lock up terror suspects indefinitely without charge.
The proposal, put forward by the head of the Association of Police Chief Officers (Acpo) and supported by Scotland Yard, is highly controversial.
“Highly controversial”? No shit, Sherlock! This is imprisonment by the state without the evidence being brought before a jury. This is the behaviour of a police state. This is totalitarianism of the Stalinist kind. Damn right it’s “highly controversial”. It’s bloody criminal.
The Observer understands that the Acpo proposal has been discussed in meetings between Brown and senior police officers. Whitehall sources said the PM was receptive to the association’s demands, but believes an upper detention limit is essential to avoid a de facto Guantanamo Bay based in the UK.
That’s nice. Nothing about hearing the evidence in open court, nothing about locking people up based upon nothing more substantial than suspicion, nothing about the British citizen’s right to walk the streets free from state internment. Nothing about the rule of fucking law.
Ken Jones, the president of Acpo, told The Observer that in some cases there was a need to hold terrorist suspects without charge for ‘as long as it takes’.
No there fucking isn’t. If you have the evidence present it to the CPS and let the courts decide.
He said such hardline measures were the only way to counter the complex, global nature of terrorist cells planning further attacks in Britain and that civil liberty arguments were untenable in light of the evolving terror threat.
Bollocks! This threat is being hyped up so that nasty little totalitarian fucks like Ken Jones can get their rocks off locking people up without going through due process.
We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit.
Are we fuck! If you do your job properly, you will have the evidence to put before the courts. If you do not have the evidence – because, perhaps, your suspect is innocent – then you let them go. Or shoot them, I suppose; that saves time and effort and the cost of a trial. The biggest danger facing this country at the moment is not Islamic terrorism, it is totalitarian arseholes like Ken Jones who will eradicate our freedoms at the drop of a hat – all for our own safety of course. Words cannot describe the utter contempt I have for this man and the ideas that he espouses. A little over half a century ago we went to war to defend Europe from totalitarian fucks like this and now this noxious government provides them with the oxygen to flourish.
‘We need to go there [unlimited detention] and I think that politicians of all parties and the public have great faith in the judiciary to make sure that’s used in the most proportionate way possible.’
I have more faith in the judiciary than I do in Acpo.
The proposal has provoked anger among civil rights groups
Quelle surprise.
‘It is coming to the point when we have to ask serious questions about the role of Acpo in a constitutional democracy,’ said Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty.
That must go down as understatement of the year. This shabby little organisation is no better than Bob Crow’s RMT or any other union that thinks it has the right to manipulate government policy because we have a Labour government in power.
‘We elect politicians to determine legislation and we expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment.’
As is usual, Chakrabarti is bang on the button.
Jones said the increasingly international element of the terror threat made evidence-gathering a longer and more difficult process. He argues that a system is required where suspects can be arrested earlier than those suspected of involvement in more traditional crime.
This is pure nonsense. The word here is “suspect”. If they do not have enough evidence to bring charges, then there is insufficient evidence of a crime. To hold someone indefinitely on the basis of suspicion is outrageous.
‘We should never have got involved in the 90-day debate. In hindsight, we should have said that we needed an extraordinary mechanism to give us the ability to investigate these complex cases under judicial supervision,’ said Jones.
I don’t know where the fuck Jones thinks he is living, but this is still a parliamentary democracy – of course we fucking well should have had the debate! Who the fuck does this man think he is? A brief reminder might be in order – the police exist to serve us, the public, not to fucking well lock us up indefinitely. If Jones wants to campaign on political issues, then he should hang up his uniform and stand for election. If not, then he should shut up and do the job he is paid to do; upholding the rule of law.
While there is a threat to our society from those who would blow us (and themselves) up in the name of Allah, it is not they who are the biggest threat to that society, our liberty and our way of life; it is nasty little creeps like Ken Jones.
Thanks, that expressed my view pretty well. As a dedicated atheist, I now have more faith in god than I do in ACPO.
“While there is a threat to our society from those who would blow us (and themselves) up in the name of Allah, it is not they who are the biggest threat to that society, our liberty and our way of life; it is nasty little creeps like Ken Jones.”
I’ve been thinking this for Years now. Since Bush and Blair line that the terrorists want to destroy our way of life. (a) No they don’t, they want us to stop interfering in the middle bloody east and (b) the only fuckers trying to destroy our way of life is our fucking government (and now police).
Words are simply not up to the job. Cunts is the best I can do and its far from offensive enough for people like this.
Well, if internment isn’t the answer, what is? The criminal law? Didn’t work in Ulster. And internment does work when it is tried.
Well, firstly, there is no justification for it. This is not Ulster during the troubles – not even close. Secondly, before we go down the route of locking people up for indeterminate periods because they “might” be a risk, there are other options available. Namely; post charge questioning and the use of intercept evidence. If the evidence available is sufficient to determine real risk, but is not enough for a court then reconsider the use of evidence available to a court of law.
I am sorry but I don’t know what you mean by post-charge questioning and the use of intercept evidence. Use by whom and when and to what purpose?
I am also not sure why you think the Ulster analogy is so inappropriate. In terms of a terrorist organisation being able to find refuge in an unassimilated population it is spot on.
That you are puzzled surprises me. The reason I don’t accept the Ulster analogy is that the risks are different. The IRA was waging a vicious, competent paramilitary war. That is not happening today – not by a long chalk no matter how much government like to talk it up. Indeed, I am opposed to internment in all circumstances short of outright war and even then, I have my reservations. The Ulster experience taught us that it is a focal point for resentment and radicalisation; for recruitment to the cause.
As for the evidence points; if the intelligence services do not have evidence to charge, then they should let their suspect go. However, if they do have evidence, but that evidence is not acceptable in a court of law, then perhaps it is time to change the rules regarding acceptable evidence – intercept evidence is one such example. Also, an option that is worth pursuing is charging on the evidence available and bringing further charges at a later date following ongoing investigation.
What is not acceptable is imprisoning people on the basis of suspicion; that is an anathema to a civil, civilised society and there is no justification for it in peacetime.
On the point about Ulster I think I’ve addressed the point fully enough
here: http://www.instapatrick.com/index/insta/individual/internment_works1/
Do you wish to rephrase your comment about “vicious, competent…”? 7/7 seemed plenty vicious and competent to me.
But my main question is what will make you change your mind? What would
make you believe that internment was an effective security measure?
You say that there is no justification for internment in peacetime. I assume peacetime covers current conditions. What if it’s the difference between victory and defeat?
A one off is hardly the same as a systematic campaign carried out over several decades. It simply is not in the same league and the risks are lower. That does not mean that I underestimate those risks, I simply do not accept on the evidence that this is the same as the organised and efficient campaign waged by the IRA.
Yes, I do regard this as peacetime. We are not in the situation that we encountered during WWII for example – even if successive home secretaries would like us to believe is the case. So, yes, this is peacetime even though our forces are fighting away from home. There is not an army threatening invasion, nor is there an army waging a war against us – merely some disparate groups of varying degrees of competence.
The difference between victory and defeat? If we accept internment, we accept defeat for we have changed the nature of our society and that is the terrorists ultimate aim.
As to your main question? I would be pretty hard to convince that internment is an acceptable solution at all, quite frankly. We did it during WWII and I’m not convinced that it was necessary. The Americans alienated a significant proportion of Japanese Americans at the same time and for what?
I don’t.
*my emphasis*
“If we accept internment, we accept defeat…”
We accepted internment in WW2, did we also accept defeat?
We accepted internment in the Malayan Emergency. Does that mean the communists won?
We accepted internment against the IRA in the 1950s. Does that mean the IRA won?
WWII is a very different situation – we were threatened with invasion by a hostile army and a state of all out war existed in Europe, so no, in that situation the loss of civil liberties did not mean accepting defeat.
Malaya saw the effective end of British rule by the insurgency, so yes, we accepted defeat.
The IRA? Martin McGuinness is a minister sitting in the NI Assembly – I’d say they did okay.
If we bring about internment who would we intern and why? So far, the intelligence services have shot and killed an innocent man, shot and injured another innocent man. They have arrested and released others without bringing charges. We have been fed artificial stories by the home office about terror plots that turned out to be nothing of the sort (the ricin plot where there was no ricin and no plot spring to mind). This suggests that those interned are likely to be innocent. By what measure does a civilised society lock up someone and destroy their lives?
Better by far to look more closely at the rules of evidence and lock people up on the basis of that evidence presented to a court of law, than to lock up innocent people on the basis of suspicion.
I stand by my comment – when we give up our civil liberties, the terror is successful.
Judging by your comments you seem to be unaware of the IRA campaign of 1956-62. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Campaign.
Are you also sure that you want to classify the IRA campaign which started in 1970 as a defeat for the UK?
You’ve contradicted yourself: “…in that situation the loss of civil liberties did not mean accepting defeat.” and “..when we give up our civil liberties, the terror is successful.” Perhaps you meant “…unless the enemy controls territory.”
I noticed you rejected my examples of victory against terrorism. In that case, what are your examples? When has a democracy defeated terrorism?
You ask who would be interned and why. I would refer to the old internment laws and how they operated in practice.
You ask under what circumstances a state is justified in detaining someone without trial. The answer is that if that is the only way to defeat a terrorist campaign.
The IRA waged a campaign from 1916 onwards – it ceased only recently with the disarmament. I tend to look upon it as an ongoing campaign. The final outcome was not a clear victory for either side. Frankly, given their clear objectives, talking to them and reaching a settlement was not only pragmatic, it was obvious that sooner or later it would happen.
There are two types of terrorism here – that of organisations such as the IRA, ETA and so on; who are campaigning for a specific political objective (usually territorial). In that case, negotiation makes sense. Doing so means that a democratic society concedes defeat to a greater of lesser degree; we did in Israel, we did in Kenya, we did in Malaya, we did in Ireland, we did in Cyprus. Doubtless the government would spin it as bringing them to the political arena, but the reality is that terrorism succeeded – partly, at least.
Islamic Jihad has no specific political or territorial objectives, rather they are ideological, so is different in that we cannot talk to them – who would we talk to anyway?
So, do we lock up Muslims willy nilly because it might defeat terrorism? How would you like to be detained indefinitely for no reason other than that the authorities suspect that you might be sympathetic to a terrorist cause? Because that is what this amounts to. I wouldn’t and that is my yardstick – liberal democracies that lock people up under such flimsy circumstances are not liberal democracies. And, yes, I stand by my original assertion – when we clamp down on liberty we give the terrorists a victory as they have changed our society for the worst.
There is no contradiction in acknowledging that during a state of outright war a different situation exists. We were at war with another sovereign nation (territory or not). I understand why internment of Germans during WWI and WWII happened; the risk (though likely small) that enemy aliens could be agent provcatures was sufficiently real for the government of the day to remove them from the arena during hostilities. We do not currently have any such hostilities therefore there is no “duration” only indefinite.
Unless you are playing devil’s advocate, I must admit to being surprised that you are adopting such an illiberal stance.