We have laws in place that allow the detainment of suspects.
They suspected something was wrong but chose to do nothing, then tried to use it as a reason they needed more surveillance.
That said, I think I might need to go and glance over the proposed bill again as I feel I might have missed something in relation to surveillance powers.
The original hypothetical question (no, I didn't like it either) related to a law that exists. You can't bounce the same question back using an absurd law that isn't being proposed in order to show that the first question is similarly absurd.
You should note that I'm speaking technically... obviously you can actually do whatever you like, but some people will go "tsk" and shake their heads.
- - - Updated - - -
Annoyed I have joined this party so late, most of my best antagonistic lines have already been mentioned.
I had a rather interesting article through the post (yes, post!) From the OU talking about the dichotomy between Security and Privacy, and how traditionally there needs to be compromise between one to improve the other... its a piece of crap both in the way it is written as well as the conclusions that actually one does not oppose the other... I will dig it out and post it... somewhat relevant.
Lee Rigby killed by persons known to authorities = conspiracy to increase surveillance.
It's possible that they were known to the authorities (I'm saying 'authorities' because I don't know who they were known to), but the authorities didn't know they were intending to murder someone, on that street, on that day. Possibly, with more surveillance, they might have done.
Of course, detaining suspects who haven't actually committed a crime is a different argument - seems odd to argue against increased surveillance, but be ok with detaining suspects willy-nilly. And certainly some of those laws which you're relying on were controversial when they came in (and still are).
My view? Sh*t happens, and sometimes people learn from it. Sometimes we don't like the lessons. Sometimes, we find the lessons so unpalatable that we decide we'd rather take the risk of more sh*t happening. Sometimes we don't. But it's generally not an conspiracy, and it's not always incompetence. Sometimes these things just happen.
1. The killers were known and left to their own devices.
2. After the fact, the authorities claimed they could have stopped it if they had more surveillance powers. Without mentioning that they were aware of the killers already with the powers they had.