« Vince Cable's Strictly Come Dancing performance | Main | Employment minister Ed Davey explains why the end of the compulsory retirement age will boost jobs »

January 07, 2011



The dilemma is that either the Coalition Government is on the side of the law abiding public or on the side of the suspected terrorists.
Control orders suppresses terrorism amongst some very dangerous people who are known to be a threat to the community as a whole.
The Lib Dems are so concerned with rights and freedoms that they are complacent with regard to the protection of the British people from terrorism.


7% in the polls.. no one is listening to him.. so why not be quiet?


What is a “Suspected Terrorist” Robert ? It has hasn’t it, always been the case that your suspected terrorist is in fact and innocent man / women till such time a conviction has been served by a court of law.

We need to be very very careful in this country who we call a terrorist and when.

It doesn't add up...

Let's make it easy, Nick. Restore Habeas Corpus: charge, prosecute and sentence the guilty. Imprison them, and expel them if they are not British. Withdraw from the ECHR to make it all work.

Andrew Smith

Control Orders or anything like them are unacceptable.

It is said that some evidence against those charged with terrorist offences (or protection rackets, or violet criminal gangs et al), cannot be easily presented in open court solely because the identity of the investigators or the secret surveillance methods would be compromised. I can see no reason why courts could not deal with these situations by satisfying themselves there was a genuine worry of the sort mentioned and allow the evidence to be presented without its origin being disclosed, so long as the jury were satisfied it was sound.

Why should a defendant be able to undermine the secret recording of phone calls and special observation techniques by threatening to expose them in court? If the raid found the tools of his alleged trade in his house, it does not matter how the police knew it was there.

If this is the nature of the problem deal with it another way than Control Orders. If it is not - if there really is no actual evidence, just supposition, them free them as they must be considered innocent.

The problem seems to be as much with the open-door policy and the perverted lack of discrimination used by immigration and police officers, as it is the criminal justice system. But to admit that would be to admit the political class has been wrong for 20 years.


We need to be even more careful that the Lib Dem and British sense of fair play does not result in these dangerous people carrying out further atrocities and many more innocent people being murdered.

Denis Cooper

"We need to be even more careful that the Lib Dem and British sense of fair play does not result in these dangerous people carrying out further atrocities and many more innocent people being murdered."

Once again you simply discard the presumption of innocence as if it doesn't matter. You should be careful about doing that, in case one day it comes back to bite you.

There is a problem here, because the evidence available to the police and security services may be enough to support strong suspicion but insufficient to establish criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if all of the evidence could be used in court which may well not be the case, but on the other hand if the suspicion was well-founded then failure to act on it could have large scale and horrendous consequences.

There's no perfect solution, but whatever is done it must always be recognised that a fundamental principle of our system of criminal justice is being set aside as a rare exception and out of extreme necessity.


At what point does the security of the nation and us as citizens take precedence over an individual? Clegg should look at the wider picture and back down. In matters such as this the moral high ground has to be lowered.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Most Updated

Other Pages


  • Extreme Tracking