12 Pakistanis arrested on terror charges.

[FridgeMagnet]

Most police (at least, all the coppers I've ever met) join out of a vague sense of wanting to help the community and catch people who mug old ladies or run people over when pissed and that. Most soldiers join out of a vague sense of wanting to do a bit of good, defending the country, preventing massacres in foreign parts and so on. There's usually a big slice of "this looks like a decent enough job and I need the money" of course. If I knew any spooks personally I'm sure they wouldn't tell me if they were, but I'd be surprised if they were differently motivated.

The thing is though that for all of them, when it becomes obvious that they're routinely being required to do stuff that has nothing to do with that, they keep on going. There are motivations for them to do so - esprit de corps, the occasional success in doing what they thought they'd be doing, the potential for court martials and so on - but it doesn't change the basic facts of what they're up to.

 

[Badger Kitten]

but it doesn't change the basic facts of what they're up to.

yes, but what are they up to? Most of the time they're following fairly unpleasant people about and listening to hours and hours of them boringly yakking on....

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They're there to support the interests of the state. If there are bombers around who might kill a load of people, it might be in the interests of the state to stop that as clearly it would reflect badly on them, but often there are other priorities; not in a conspiratorial way, just in a "we don't really think ahead of the next headline and long term we don't give a shit" way.

Obviously this is not really a very saleable job description

 

[Badger Kitten]

Obviously this is not really a very saleable job description

yeah, people who join thinking it's going to be like Spooks/24 must be well gutted.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well, at least the real world version has a believable plot.

 

[EddyBlack]

Gordon Brown is to outline to MPs the government's revised strategy for the war in Afghanistan, following his visit to the country.

He is expected to say Pakistan - which was also on his tour - must be part of a solution to Afghanistan's problems.

Mr Brown has spoken of a "chain of terror" linking the region to the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8023973.stm

Following Obama's new 'af-pak' strategy, a more Pakistan centred focus aimed at destroying 'Al-Qaeda' in Pakistan is expected from Brown.

 

[London_Calling]

Like Gordon Brown has a strategy that isn't Obama's.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Like Gordon Brown has a strategy that isn't Obama's.

Even Brown's tax strategy is Obama's – new higher rate of income tax at £150k, in other words the closest big round number to $250k.

At least the UK is now blindly following Obama and not Bush, but it is exceedingly lame.

 

[Azrael]

If we're going to blindly follow the United States, will those suspected on "terror charges" only be arrested if there's probable cause, be given the right to be charged within 48 hours, and not have their homes searched unless the police go and get a warrant, also issued on probable cause?

No, didn't think so. Mr Brown is selective about which policies he filches. He's inspired by the America of Guantanamo Bay, not the America of the Bill of Rights.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Mr Brown is selective about which policies he filches. He's inspired by the America of Guantanamo Bay, not the America of the Bill of Rights.

True.

 

[frogwoman]

If we're going to blindly follow the United States, will those suspected on "terror charges" only be arrested if there's probable cause, be given the right to be charged within 48 hours, and not have their homes searched unless the police go and get a warrant, also issued on probable cause?

No, didn't think so. Mr Brown is selective about which policies he filches. He's inspired by the America of Guantanamo Bay, not the America of the Bill of Rights.

yep

im glad to be getting out this country soon .. (not that moldova's much better mind you...)

 

[EddyBlack]

yep

im glad to be getting out this country soon .. (not that moldova's much better mind you...)

Why are you going to Moldova?

 

[frogwoman]

im going to work on a placement there (hopefully) for a year - assuming i get funding from the eu

its all voluntary btw

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's interesting, and I was talking about this today, that the people who are actually working as SIS - civil servants doing a rather secretive and surprisingly boring job - don't like grandstanding, don't like being politicised, just want to get on with it and are surprisingly liberal about things like 42 days and stuff - because politicians grandstanding about Dreadful Enemy we Must Take Tough Action and 42 Days is Essential Blah Blah and the media blethering on about The Terror That Stalks The Streets and all that shit actually makes their job harder.

And how!
IMHO this is where the "Civil Service politicisation" that the media are so fond of talking about really throws a clog into the machine: It deflects the upper management from the running of their department into activities aimed at greasing the Cabinet. Wasting even part of one's working day on pulling "eye-catching initiatives" out of a hat for the benefit of the government of the day isn't a job I'd fob off on a press officer, let alone a Permanent Secretary.

Viz Eliza Manningham Buller's maiden speech savaging 42 days in the Lords, Stella Rimington speaking out, and so on.

They (as with many others) knew that the 42 day limit was not only merely an advert to show off the "hardness" of the govt, but also a ridiculous waste of resources. I heard whispers from old acquaintances about early release provisions for Cat B and C prisoners possibly being loosened if 42 days went through, merely to free up enough detention space to handle any extra "terrorist" bodies.

There should indeed be a more accountable SIS and better communication between agencies and police and less politicisation - and in a few weeks when certain things have worked their way through the system you will see a big debate happening about just that subject.

Hmmm, and they will also feature heavily in the forthcoming discussions because they are pretty crap, they simply don't have the powers to do their job, they no longer have an independent investigator, they are picked by the PM and answer to him, not the House and thus will never enjoy the confidence of the public.
( none of this is secret, btw, it's just that people are waiting for a trial to end and various documents to come out and restrictions to lift before it can be discussed properly, which will happen shortly.) .

Should be interesting.

By the way, wasn't Vaz a bit too emolient with you last night on "Newsnight". He set my bullshit detector off!

 

[Fruitloop]

He is 'the worst of the worst'. Unctuous and despicable.

 

[Azrael]

They (as with many others) knew that the 42 day limit was not only merely an advert to show off the "hardness" of the govt, but also a ridiculous waste of resources.

Using due process as punishment is a demented position, but understandable given Labour's opposition to punishment post-conviction. If you suppress the desire for just retribution, as Labour have, the instinct surfaces in other, darker ways, and you have to punish criminals unofficially by making procedure unpleasant. Of course criminals aren't bothered in the slightest by DNA swabs, a few extra days in the cells, or searches of their homes. They're inured to such things, and in any case, they're nothing compared to prison. Only the innocent suffer.

This "tough" government has released convicted IRA terrorists and won't inflict so much as a day's hard labour on convicted mass-murderers. Of course, this line of attack, for which they have no answer, is not used by the likes of Shami Chakrabarti.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Using due process as punishment is a demented position, but understandable given Labour's opposition to punishment post-conviction. If you suppress the desire for just retribution, as Labour have, the instinct surfaces in other, darker ways, and you have to punish criminals unofficially by making procedure unpleasant. Of course criminals aren't bothered in the slightest by DNA swabs, a few extra days in the cells, or searches of their homes. They're inured to such things, and in any case, they're nothing compared to prison. Only the innocent suffer.

Have you spent much time in prisons, or involved in them? After all, you write with such certainty, I'd hate to think that your knowledge amounts to little more than reportage, received wisdom and an occasional glance at an academic article.

This "tough" government has released convicted IRA terrorists and won't inflict so much as a day's hard labour on convicted mass-murderers. Of course, this line of attack, for which they have no answer, is not used by the likes of Shami Chakrabarti.

Much prison labour is uneconomical, and while there are some cases of it being self-subsidising (mostly prison farms), the rest of it is taxpayer-subsidised. You may wish to pay money so that you can enjoy the thought of a convict swinging a hammer or treading a mill, but I believe that it'd be rather a waste.

 

[Azrael]

Have you spent much time in prisons, or involved in them?

No, I'm glad to say, but how does that disprove what I said? Hard labour went decades ago. That's not in dispute. As I've posted here many times, our prisons appear to vary from bearable to hell-holes. I've never argued otherwise, and certainly haven't argued that they're pleasent. But this is beside the point.

The key isn't whether hard labour would be productive, but the link between Labour's disregard for due process and uninterest in imposing punishment on properly convicted persons. If they were as "tough" as they say, they'd have convicts breaking rocks, conducting shot drill, climbing treadmills etc. Certainly terrorist convicts. Such things would hardly break the bank of a government that wastes taxpayers' money as a matter of routine.

But they don't. This is interesting, and telling.

 

[Cobbles]

murder of Ian Tomlinson – for instance, how long after the murder of Mr de Menezes

Gosh! Isn't the criminal Justice system stealthy these days!

I wasn't aware that prosecutions had even been launched in respect of these 2 tragic deaths, never mind that they had reached a conclusion!

 

[Badger Kitten]

By the way, wasn't Vaz a bit too emolient with you last night on "Newsnight". He set my bullshit detector off!

He is 'the worst of the worst'. Unctuous and despicable.

Quite

Well, we shall see what transpires. Watch this space.

Can't say more, wish I could.

Inquiry campaign is getting there, and more will be revealed in due course.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, I'm glad to say, but how does that disprove what I said? Hard labour went decades ago. That's not in dispute. As I've posted here many times, our prisons appear to vary from bearable to hell-holes. I've never argued otherwise, and certainly haven't argued that they're pleasent. But this is beside the point.

My point is that as someone who spent 2-4 days a week in prisons, monitoring regimes, checking complaints etc for several years, your representation of prisons (as I've said to you before) is inaccurate. There isn't "opposition to punishment post-conviction" from either "side" of the political divide. If anything there's far too much concentration on nit-picking punitiveness, and not enough concentration on "bread and butter" issues like insuring the safety of inmates and staff.
Now I realise that you approach the issue from a pre-determined ideological position, but that shouldn't blind you to reality

The key isn't whether hard labour would be productive, but the link between Labour's disregard for due process and uninterest in imposing punishment on properly convicted persons.
If they were as "tough" as they say, they'd have convicts breaking rocks, conducting shot drill, climbing treadmills etc. Certainly terrorist convicts. Such things would hardly break the bank of a government that wastes taxpayers' money as a matter of routine.

While your characterisation is colourful, in a tabloidesque way, it's hardly accurate. Who decides how "toughness" is measured? I'd say that toughness can be measured by the fact of a functioning "punishment and reward" system of inmate motivation, and that rock-breaking et al are pointless, except insofar as the thought of someone suffering such punishment gives a few semi-impotent Colonel Blimps an erection.

But they don't. This is interesting, and telling.

No it isn't. All it tells us is that the UK, like around two-thirds of the world's regimes, sees physically-harsh punishment as counter-productive in terms of cost to health and to establishment security.

 

[Azrael]

All it tells us is that the UK, like around two-thirds of the world's regimes, sees physically-harsh punishment as counter-productive in terms of cost to health and to establishment security.

It's not my aim to turn this into a debate about the effectiveness of penal servitude. If our laws were like, say Canada's, the treatment of our prisoners wouldn't be remarkable. It's the contrast between general authoritarianism and a lack of interest in punishing convicts. Labour have even increased early release. Yet the same government is happy to trample over due process and procedural safeguards. These things don't work, either, but they're done. Labour say they want to be "tough" on criminals; why are Labour "tough" in this particular way?

Is any official punishment imposed in our prisons? I'm not talking about brutality from gaolers, indifference to welfare, or locking prisoners up for 23 hours a day out of convenience. The official view, which we hear again and again, is that "prison is punishment, not for punishment".