Reporting a comment

Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Stefan Magdalinski
Posted on 2 Mar 2005 1:34 am

Here's a nice quote from the document.

"From 11 September 2001 to 31 December 2004, 701 people were arrested
under the Terrorism Act 2000. Of these 119 were charged under the Act, with
45 of them also being charged with other offences. 135 were charged under
other legislation – including charges for terrorist offences covered in other
criminal law such as the use of explosives. And 17 have been convicted of
offences under the Act. For example, a man arrested in November 2000 was
subsequently convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for plotting to
commit an explosion. And two men arrested under the Terrorism Act in 2000
were both subsequently sentenced to 11 years imprisonment for a range of
offences including terrorist fundraising, fraud and possession of false

Read that carefully, and you'll figure out that of the 17 out of 701 arrestees actually convicted, they don't actually say how many are post 9-11, and therefore actually a justification for the new powers being asked for now. The examples quoted in the second half both predate 9-11.

Did anyone say 'sophistry'?

Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.