I've created a poll so people can give their opinions and explanations should they wish on what they think about this.

Should the Home Secretary be able to put people under house arrest?

In what circumstances?

K x

No, only the courts should be able to put people under house arrest. The arbritary use of judicial-like power by the Home Secretary is a mediaeval left over of crown prerogative and should be got rid of.

no, anyone accused of a crime should be tried. If there is insufficient evidence then they should be left alone, or monitored as i'm sure MI5 do already.

If the evidence is sensitive then a restricted group of judges should hear the case.

Originally posted by Kristian
In what circumstances?

K x

I'll give you an example of how the proposals would probably work.

The Home Secretary has some 'intelligence' that somebody (UK citizen or foreigner) is a 'terrorist' (however that is defined). In the past, the Police and security services would put in place surveillance which would give them evidence to secure a conviction, and also pre-empt any attempts by the person concerned to conduct any terrorist acts.

Now, we are told, this is not good enough. Without process of law, without having to give any explanation, anybody can be held under house arrest, for an indefinite period and with no recourse at all to the courts.

Is that any clearer?

What you have said isnt entirely true. Each individual case would be put through parliament and voted upon within 40 days of it happening, with detailed explanation of why the person is a threat.

To be honest, I think its a good idea. Better than Belmarsh, anyway.

Stupid question time: would you be put under house arrest in your own home, or somewhere else they government chose?

K x

Please forgive my editing your post

Originally posted by kathythebean
What you have said isnt entirely true. Each individual case would be put through parliament and voted upon within 40 days of it happening, with detailed explanation of why the person is a threat.

I don't think this is true, where did you read it? Under the proposals unveiled today, the Home Secretary would have sole power to impose the orders.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050222/140/fczhw.html

In any case, Parliament doesn't have time to debate individual cases. It passes legislation; executive decisions are made by ministers.


Originally posted by kathythebean
To be honest, I think its a good idea. Better than Belmarsh, anyway.


First, house arrest may be preferable to imprisonment, but it is still arrest and a person's freedom is removed from them. Many people think that it should only be done by due process of law.

Second, The point I'm trying to raise is that the existing law only relates to non-UK citizens, the Control Orders will also apply to UK citizens. They could apply to you and me, on the basis of faulty or malicious intelligence.

Or do you think that we should all be grateful the government isn't proposing to throw us into jail without trial, instead?

the orders have to be reviewed within 7 days by a judge.

But it may be in closed session with a special advocate instead of a normal defence lawyer.

No under any circumstances. We cant have politicians locking people up just because they dont like them. That will make the politicians as bad as Sadam Hussein