Saturday, 12 September 2009

Total Control of the State


An interesting snippet caught my eye this morning. Did you know that it is legal for the State to dictate who can mix with and where you must live? And then put you in prison if you don't do as you are told? Without a trial?

A terrorism suspect has won a High Court battle against an order which stops him from living in London.

The Home Office wanted to continue the ban to prevent him from associating with a south London-based network of Islamic extremists.

But his wife refused to live in Leicester, near where he grew up.

The judge ruled that ordering the man - known as AN - to return to live in Leicester would have an adverse affect on his wife and six-year-old son.

AN, a British citizen born in a small town in Leicestershire, is currently on remand at Belmarsh prison in south-east London charged with a breach of an initial control order after he attempted to abscond from Leicester.

AN was appealing under the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act against the home secretary's latest refusal on 3 August this year to modify his control order to allow him to live in London with his family.


I'll say it again. If you suspect him, charge him. Put him on trial. If you don't have enough evidence to convict him, let him go. When did we start building Gulags?

13 comments:

FTAC Watch said...

This is detention without trial is also the modus operandi of the FTAC. If they cannot find a law that someone has broken, so someone willing to make a complaint, then they will contrive some mental illness and instruct doctors to detain people in mental hospitals. Doctors in the NHS are all too willing to comply.

I was one of their victims and was held prisoner by a ‘doctor’ Ferdinand Jonsson at Mile End Hospital in London for five months until a tribunal saw through his lies and ordered by discharge. That tribunal was even chaired by the wife of a Labour MP, but still recognised that my imprisonment could not be justified.

The FTAC also runs without fear of
ever being brought to account as complaints to either the IPCC or the Healthcare ombudsman will never be investigated.

However, the fall of the New Labour regime is highly unlikely to change things as I have tried to get a statement of the intentions of the Conservatives use of the FTAC if they are returned to power and they will not comment so we can assume that they will continue to use them to detain the ‘undesirables’.

Anonymous said...

just throw the scum out. No sympathy from me.
Urban11

Shibby said...

Urban11, if they do this shit to you one day on grounds of "suspicion", remember those words.

Oldrightie said...

Well said, Shibby and great post, OH.

FireForce said...

Throw him and all his relations out of the country, that way we can be sure he will not bomb us here.
The trouble being that this commie government will not act gainst muslims is because 2-million vote for the labour scum.

Stuart said...

Deport the scum!

JuliaM said...

"If you suspect him, charge him. Put him on trial. If you don't have enough evidence to convict him, let him go. "

The problem is, they don't want to be on the hook for any mayhem he might commit if they do let him go.

Anonymous said...

I like this Blog, but at times I truely struggle with it. The comments are frequently intolerant and rabidly right wing, but often funny. The articles, by all the different contributors, are often informative, and at times alarming.

But I struggle with the political position. I admit to being disturbed at detention without trial. I really cannot agree that any person should be jailed merely for reading something. I was uneasy to hear today that a third attempt may be made to try some persons who have been unsuccesfully tried twice already. But all these cases involve the Muslim enemy within. They also all involved British born citizens. Why are you highlighting incidents of illiberal behaviour by the state directed at a group your readers clearly despise?

I do not believe that any migrant group of people should be allowed to stay in our society that wants to impose their way on the native born majority. I don't buy the Final Solution as a way of sorting the problem out, however. But I cannot understant how you take a "libertarian" stand on the rights of citizens, yet complain about those same citizens expressing illiberal views themselves.

I think you want to have your cake and eat it.

So which is it OH? Freedom is an absolute surely? Are we all for civil rights or not? And if we are then we just have to tolerate those who want to hurt us in the name of their particular superstition. Or does this site exist just to whip up anarchy but pretends its Libertarian?

Andy said...

Anonymous, there is no contradiction in disagreeing with and condemning those who wish to impose their views on others, and on the other hand allowing them the freedom to associate how they wish. "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

I dislike the vocal Islamic minority who wish to impose Islam on the rest of us (though I've never seen Muslims do this in reality, and have a small suspicion that these voices might be agents provocateur to promote further divides) - but as a libertarian I wouldn't dream of using government aggression to remove their right of association or freedom of expression.

Not that I speak for OH, but that's the impression I get from reading his work.

Old Holborn said...

Anon

Whatever powers they are using against him, they will surely use against me one day.

I am quite quite sure that Mandelson would love to see Guido in prison. If this Islamist has broken the law, put him on trial. He hasn't. So why is he in prison? What is to stop the Police using exactly the same powers against bloggers?

Rogerborg said...

My position remains thus: REDUX

If MI5/6 truly believe that Citizen X poses a clear and present danger to Her Majesty's United Kingdom, then they should take said Citizen to one of our (many, many) abandoned coal mines, put a bullet in the back of their head, and toss them down the shaft.

If that's not what the Security Services are for, then what is their purpose?

Anonymous said...

I agree with you on this one OH. Someone is either guilty or innocent & is meant to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (althought the corrupt & lying Labour govt have suborned that viewpoint). If he's guilty - jail him - otherwise, let him go free. And yes, 'laws' that they want to use against AN will, when necessary be used against you or I or anyone who dissents from their Stasi Socialist Hell.

The Beast of Clerkenwell said...

I bet the pajama wearing twat is on benefits
Ship the fucking lot of them out, maybe allowing some of the better looking women to stay.
They can knock up a good curry and do as they are told.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails