Do more police powers lead to extremism?

[williamsbrandon16]

The money is the bottom line.

Good thing we live in a democracy then where parliment makes the laws based on debates over what is right and wrong?

The whole point about the third proposal is that they don't have the evidence and need the 90 days to get it. In the mean time they don't want the suspect to abscond. So lock 'em up then.

Wait a minute? Lock people away without evidence? Don't police states do that? Are we living in a police state? 90 days is actually a 3 month sentence being handed down by the police or who ever purely based on an unproven suspicion.

Violent criminals who are known repeat offenders are given lighter sentences.

Well it's not happening so someone with the power to take such decisions clearly does. Maybe it comes down the bottom line?

They already do. It's called stop and search.

Close friends and family might not but someone else will.

Don't we all?

Yes and then immediately set about destroying the infrastructure of the state. Would you like to go back to the three day week and live in that economic reality?

Why are we still talking about the NHS? Are they going to be given powers to stop and search too? Maybe they could perform cavity searches.

 

[portishead_22]

Really. As I said, and you ignored, they can only work within the law. No amount of money will allow them to do things they think are necessary but not lawful. For example, interview a suspect after they have been charged. It isn’t just about money.


Well they might have evidence which is not permissible in court or very good reason to be suspicious. I don’t think they should have a default 90 day detention, but I think they should be able to apply for it on a case per case basis if they can demonstrate it to be necessary.

Also, under the original 90 day proposal, and judge would review the detention every 7 says to see if it remained justified.

Here were some of the arguments they made




But unless they are being reported for a crime, the person doesn’t have to legally provide information, as per the Home Office information.


And your reason for believing this is?
Why do would you say they would revert to a 1970 policy which was only implemented due to shortage.

 

[KatherineD]

I think it's hard to judge the proposed legislation without looking at the specifics of the bill itself. However, I have to say that the way Homer's talking about it is a bit optimistic for my taste. If actually answering the question is voluntary, then that's no different to the current situation; I can ask you, in a personal capacity, any questions I like, but it's down to you whether you actually answer me, so I highly doubt the government would try to get legislation passed empowering police to do what they can already do. It's far more likely that there will be some kind of sanction they can impose for refusing to answer or provide accurate information in which case it IS a violation of privacy. It's not good enough to say "if you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" because innocent people have a right not to be harassed.

Of course it could be argued as some have here that sacrificing civil liberties is sometimes necessary for the greater good of security, but it remains to be proven that these new powers will actually assist the fight against terrorism, especially as we don't yet know what the bill specifically contains. I believe in minimalist government, and until we have been shown that what these powers are and how effective they will be for their intended purpose then I would argue that democracy and common sense dictate that we shouldn't accept them.