Lt Kije Posted June 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 True Obs So we agree you do not agree with Mr Griffin on Law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 As I keep saying, I'm frankly indifferent to alleged views ascribed to Mr Griffin; I'm more interested in their Party policies - but evidently you arn't, cos you can't offer any alternatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Party Policies Such as Law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Like the law passed by the European human rights judges allowing Abu Qatada to get his frozen assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I need a bit more info on that Rifles which I hope you cab give, I thought we were talking about the Bnp. Are you conceding the point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 My mistake, i thought we were on about any political law. So are we talking only about the BNP's policies on law ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Don't worry about the Sgt.... he is a politician don't you know and he votes Lib Dem. So obviously he is a total namby pamby tree hugger!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The title of the thread is a bit of a give away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Rifles, like most liberals, he'll take you round and round in circles until you finally dissappear into a black hole! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The title of the thread is a bit of a give away Ahh i see , so on one particular thread you have never gone off on a different tangent ? So what your saying is when we debate on a particular party we can not include another party to see comparisons and in that sense we have to make a new thread for each relevant party ? I am only asking as a newcomer as i do not know the ethics of this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Go on then, Is this the article you were referring to Gordon Brown is facing a new battle over key anti-terrorism laws this week with the High Court set to rule against powers to freeze suspects? bank accounts. Five men who deny any link to terrorism and have no previous convictions are challenging the Government?s powers to freeze bank accounts, stop benefit payments and control the spending of people it has designated terror suspects. The judgment is to be delivered on Thursday by Mr Justice Collins. If the Government loses, The Times has learnt that it is considering rewriting the Counter-terrorism Bill to include asset-seizing powers. Thursday?s ruling could exacerbate the tension between the Government and judiciary. Last week the High Court ruled that the extremist cleric Abu Qatada could not be deported to Jordan because he would be at risk of torture. The counter-terrorism legislation is already at the centre of controversy over proposals to lengthen the time that a suspect can be detained without charge to 42 days. The power to designate people as terror suspects and freeze their finances was introduced without parliamentary debate by Mr Brown when he was Chancellor. He has declared that the Treasury has become a ?department for security?. Treasury officials maintain two lists of suspects ? thought to number around 70 people in total ? and have frozen bank accounts containing around ?500,000 in all. Mr Justice Collins indicated his concern this month during a hearing when he described elements of the sanctions as ?unfair and not proportionate?. He criticised the requirement for designated suspects to apply to the Treasury for a licence before they could get legal advice about the designation. The judge said that it was ?totally unacceptable? that a suspect ?needed a licence from the Executive and body imposing the sanctions?. The challenge to the sanctions regime has been brought by five men identified in court only as A, K, M, Q and G. They were notified of their designation in identical letters that stated: ?The Treasury has reasonable grounds to suspect that you are, or may be, a person who facilitates the commission of acts of terrorism. In the light of the sensitive nature of the information on which this decision was taken we are unable to give you further details.? Under the sanctions, the men must apply for basic expenses licences from the Treasury to get spending money of ?10 per week. Officials in the Treasury monitor the suspects? grocery bills and decide whether they are allowed to accept gifts. Anyone found to have given a designated suspect an ?economic resource? is liable to prosecution and a jail term of seven years. Lawyers for the men say that the orders ? Britain?s interpretation of two United Nations Security Council resolutions ? are unlawful on several grounds. They argue that it is unconstitutional for the Government to have accrued the powers to freeze assets through Orders in Council rather than parliamentary legislation. The effect was to give the Government power to impose stringent sanctions on individual citizens without parliamentary debate. Similarly, the men argue that the introduction of a criminal offence of assisting a designated person should not have been carried out without proper parliamentary scrutiny. They also claim that the Government acted illegally by going farther in its measures than the UN intended and may have exceeded its powers under the United Nations Act 1946. Another argument is the lack of an appeal mechanism through the courts. The suspect G was told that he had been designated by the UN Sanctions Committee and would have to appeal to it if he wanted his name removed. He has found it impossible to appeal because he is not allowed to see the evidence that led to his designation, and he cannot discover who sits on the committee. He has also learnt that the Government, through which he is expected to lobby the UN, is the body that recommended that he be designated as a terror suspect. The problem is they are not alowed to see the evidence against them, so how do they defend themselves If you were accused of something would you not want to defend yourself. any way back to the thread I take it we are all in agreement that we don't agree with Mr Griffin on law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 It all depends on what you mean by do we agree on Mr Griffin on law. If you mean a little snippet he said, which was "If you think it is unjust there is no need to abide by it" then no i do not agree with him on that phrase. If you are on about his party regarding crime and justice then yes there are certain elements i agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 His statement leaves anybody not agreeing with a law not to abide by it, which drives a coach and horse's though any thing he says on law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Are you autistic or what Kyje; every individual or organisation in history that has fought for an "idea" of changing their current society has been in conflict with the law of their time - the Tolpuddle Martyrs were sent to Australia for ILLEGALLY forming a Trade Union - get with it will yer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 So you agree with him as I said I don't like speed camera's I suggest you get with it, most people try to change the law from within. Our society in based on the rule of law you can not pick and choose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Thought you had a cursary knowledge of history Kyje; almost every "progression" in the law has been derived from some group "breaking it" - another example - the sufferagettes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 So you agree with him then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with "him"; it's a matter of historical fact - from Magna Carta onwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Yes it is do you agree with him it is a simple question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I probably concur with the vast majority of historians - clearly you don't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 There we have it the nearist you will get to Obs saying he agrees with Mr Griffin. its like pulling teeth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Thats not too bad then .. ive pulled 2 of mine out before now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Thats not too bad then .. ive pulled 2 of mine out before now Outchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Give me the needle and wake me up when its all over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Perhaps you need to ask, whether Mr Griffin agrees with historical facts - I do. You clearly can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Do you concur with Mr Griffin on Law A simple question even you should be able to answer it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.