« David Blunkett as Home Secretary | Main | The Journalamalism Game »

October 17, 2006

Control Orders

So two of those (that is, more than 10% of those subject to them) under control orders have scarpered.

1) Two alleged terrorism suspects - said by the government to be so dangerous they had to be subjected to highly restrictive control orders - are on the run, with the authorities clueless as to their whereabouts, it emerged last night.

2) Last night policing minister Tony McNulty said the government had not revealed details of the escapes because anti-terrorism legislation prevents the suspects' identities from being revealed. He also rejected concerns that both men posed a danger to the public, or could mount a terrorist attack against Britain.

So, the two men are so dangerous to the public, so likely to commit terrorist acts, that they must be locked up (which is what a control order effectively is) without trial, but when we lose them, they're not a danger to the public nor likely to commit a terrorist offense.

In which case, McNulty, my dozy little vote stealer of a total moron, what was your justification for locking them up in the first place?

As has been said so often, the major problem this country faces today is that we simply don't trust politicians any more. I really don't know how this situation can have come to pass, I really don't understand it. After all, doesn't the policing minister above make perfect logical sense to you?

October 17, 2006 in Law | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Control Orders:


But those under control orders are not locked up, dummy, they just have to report to a police station every day. And maybe stay at home for 18 hours a day. That's not quite the same as being in prison. The lunacy is that anyone is surprised that they have absconded, and that control orders are an effective way of 'locking up' people by simply telling them not to go anywhere.

Posted by: sanbikinoriaon | Oct 17, 2006 10:39:34 AM

I have a post up on my blog at the moment, rather regretting the fact that it is no longer possible to take the British Government at its word when it says that some of the state's enemies have "disappeared" in the conventional rather than the Chilean sense.

Posted by: dsquared | Oct 17, 2006 11:13:30 AM