Folks in the last couple of days we have seen the BNP leader stopped from holding a press conference by protesters.

Now we have this.

Terror suspects win legal battle
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8092763.stm

The BNP most people hate, but freedom of speech is one of the corner stones of democracy so at one extreme I cheered him being egged but on the other I think, well what right do we have to stop him holding a news conference, answer none. He wasn't breaking the law. But if we don't minimise the BNP's ability to reach the mass audience and Brussels funding etc will it cause us major problems in the future?

In the terror story above the judges have quite "correctly" followed the law, as it currently stands, which its their job to do. Yet it could well be making life even harder for the security forces to protect us from terrorist outrages.

I guess what I'm asking is how do we want these grey areas, for most people, handled?

Does stopping the BNP from holding a press conference worry us regarding what we are doing to our selves in stopping free speech. Should the law be changed?

Should the law be changed in terror cases to remove some of the rights of the suspected terrorists? Lets not forget this is suspected we are talking about in the future rather than these specific people.

I freely admit I'm never quite sure which way to go on these issues in the cold light of day, obviously a knee jerk reaction after a terrorist incident would be different.

How can someone defend themselves, when that information that has put them in jail is kept from them?

If the cornerstone of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty then thats what we must abide by.
The law could be changed to remove the some rights of proven criminals/terrorsits but to remove rights before they have been given fair and just representation/trial is wrong.

As for the BNP, as long as they obey the law then they are entitled to do what they like. As are the protesters. As long as they stay within the law.

The law is the law and should be adminstered without favour or predujice.

The BNP should have all the rights and privileges that any other political party have - they represent the people that vote for them and everyone has a say.

Having said that I disapprove of their policies and views and wish that voting was compulsory - the kind of people who support the BNP are likely to be fanatical and therefore will definitely vote whereas the kind of people that support the "major" parties are more often than not uninterested in the political workings of the country as long as it works and therefore will not vote.

Long sentence, I apologise.

As far as criminals, terror suspects, the judicial system and law enforcement goes my views will probably cause a stir so i'll not share them for now.

As a "Baby boomer" and an honorary East-ender (after 20 year's residence) I'm afraid I have less than no sympathy for the BNP. If all Mr Griffin got was a few eggs then he is a lot luckier than the victims of his skinhead thugs, who tend to sign their "work" with bootprints to the face! The BNP is the less appealing offspring of Mosley's (Oswald, not Max) British Union of Fascists, and latterly the National Front (NF). All of these are\were virulently anti-semitic and\or racist in general.

The BNP has taken a leaf out of "New Labour"'s song book and re-branded itself, however, unlike New Labour, which is "old Tories" under the shiny label, the BNP is still a nasty fascist party underneath. The crux of this "Free Speech" argument is that deep down these people are NOT democrats. As everyone of my generation knows, Hitler was "elected" and once in power he trampled on the rights of everyone he or his coterie disliked. The likes of Griffin are happy to squeak "democratic rights" to get their obscene message across, unlikely to honour them if they ever got power.
Like Mosley in the 1930's and the Racists (NF) in the 1970's & 80's these people must be opposed wherever they appear. They will continually try to appear the "oppressed minority" fighting "old" politicians and particularly the "Liberal Establishment", but the truth is they're the oldest form of evil: ignorance and prejudice made flesh.


As to the rights of defendants: like "freedom" justice should be indivisible. The basic right of the British is to hear the evidence against them and have the right to examine it and cross-examine the witnesses providing it. To deny proper justice for one person on the basis of "National Security" is ultimately to deny it for all.

I've already made my feelings towards the BNP clear, so I'll just comment on the Control Orders.

Frankly, being able to control someone, restrict their movement, who they consort with etc based on "secret information" which no-one is allowed to see (even the person having a Control Order placed on them) is *extremely* dodgy in my book. It has long been held in this Country that a person has the right to see what charges stand against them and who is accusing them - and I hope this continues. If you're going to start locking people up based on secret information that no-one is allowed to see then that's oppression. It reminds me of McCarthy and his briefcase, or Communist East Germany...

To play devils advocate for a moment.

Were does everyone stand on a case of where the information is being supplied by an under cover operative who is still entrenched/involved with the terrorist? Exposing the source of the information being used to hold some one or justify a control order would most likely endanger the under cover person.
It could have taken months, years, perhaps even decades to penetrate a terrorist organisation to a level at which it becomes possible to seriously hamper it or even destroy it totally. How many people's lives should be put at risk or under control before the price is too high?

Anywho, back on topic. The BNP have the same rights as anyone else to make their point provided they stay within the law to do it. Equally, those who oppose the BNP and their ilk have an equal right to have their voice heard. It's a good sign that people aren't sitting idly by and letting the BNP spout their vile racism.

As for control orders and detention based on covert intelligence, in an ideal world the suspect would have the right to see the evidence against them (my point above not withstanding). The problem I think we face here is that the threat has changed from what we were used to dealing with in the past so the old rules no longer necessarily apply. It is easy under such circumstances to over react and head too far towards a true police state mentality in which case, as here, the judicial system has to safeguard our freedoms.

I'm not sure it has - that's just what "they" are saying. We've had under-cover ops for a very long time, and the Mob or IRA were just as likely to kill an informant.

Clearly, some information can't be made public in order to protect on-going investigations. My question is, why detain people before the investigation is complete? It may be the cheap option, but it's not good justice.

Even in circumstances where it would be bad for the defendant to become aware of the sensitive information, his legal team should still be provided with it. ow else are they supposed to mount any kind of defence or challenge? Also, surely the fact that these people are under a control order has given the game away with regards to information leaking?

This is something I completely agree with.

I think everyone who agrees with allowing people to be detained without knowing why should think about themselves.

What if you were detained?
You have no reason why, but you're locked up for 2, 3, maybe 4 years. You know you've done nothing wrong. What would you do? What would you want in this scenario?

There was a med student who was held under the terrorism act.
The muppet was researching pyrotechnics as a hobby and tried to obtain some samples of some appropriate materials through a website. He had no idea it was an MI5 website designed as a trap. They raided his house, grabbed his computers and some other stuff. He was held under the terrorism act for buying explosives and possessing terrorist related material. The 'explosives' he had wouldn't have blown up a paper bin. The 'terrorist-related material' turned out to be his stack of Times magazines, two of which had articles on 11/9/1. Dunno what happened to him. He had been detained for one year.


No doubt, no that I've mentioned 'terrorism, MI5, explosives, trap, and 11/9, I'll now be under surveillance!

I do think the threat has changed. The IRA frequently went after what one might consider legitemite targets in a war against an occupation - the police, the army and politicians. Not in every case obviously (Manchester city centre for one thing) and I'm not supporting what the IRA did or stood for but their target selection tended to be a bit different.

Now however the like of Al Quaeda will merrily try to kill as many 'infidel' civillians as possible and would quite happily wipe out an entire city if they got their hands on the materials to do it. That's a whole other ball game.

I'm kind of glad this is going this way. From the title I though it was a discussion about the OP crotch