90 days detention - Page 2

mani · 10-11-2005, 04:22

what alot of the opposers to this bill are sayin is instead of giving htem 90 days to hold em lets maybe give the police more time than 28 but also give them the means to do the 90days work in less time eg more specialist officers

WillowTheWhisp · 10-11-2005, 08:39

If the police are saying it could take up to 90 days sometimes I think I'd be inclined to go along with them. I can see the concern that an innocent person could be held for 3 months and have done nothing but the police would have pretty strong suspicions befire arresting them in the first place.

I know mistakes can be made but I'd rather it be a mistake of holding and innocent person than of letting a guilty one go free and yet more people being killed.

I agree Mani that we should have more police available to do the work. We should have more police available in general.

entwisi · 10-11-2005, 09:19

Did anyone see the report as to how much money teh police forces of this coiuntry have in teh bank? I heard there was enough to pay for another 19 THOUSAND officers.

garinda · 10-11-2005, 10:50

The only person to come out of this well is Tony Blair. All the public opinion polls show that the majority of the country is behind the defeated measures of allowing the police up to 90 days detention for suspected terrorists.

It was bad enough the Labour back benches voted against it, but for the Tory party to put our national security at risk to try and score political points is disgraceful. It looks like it has back fired against the Tories anyway. I've just been listening to the radio, and life long Conservatives have been phoning in one after the other, saying that they are disgusted at their party for not listening to the advice of the police on this matter, and will not be voting Tory again.

cashman · 10-11-2005, 11:49

from what ive seen and heard it seems to be all about blairs style of leadership-to autocratic! well maybe thats the case i can't stand the man anyway, but to vote against or abstain on a matter of our security is just despicable.

Less · 10-11-2005, 11:56

I can't understand the fuss, absolutely no need for 90 days detention.

Anyone supected of terrorism should just be given a Brazilian passport and a 5 second start at the entrance to one of the London Underground Stations!

cashman · 10-11-2005, 12:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

I can't understand the fuss, absolutely no need for 90 days detention.

Anyone supected of terrorism should just be given a Brazilian passport and a 5 second start at the entrance to one of the London Underground Stations!

less its me being serious for once- but that has just cracked me up big time.

garinda · 10-11-2005, 12:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

I can't understand the fuss, absolutely no need for 90 days detention.

Anyone supected of terrorism should just be given a Brazilian passport and a 5 second start at the entrance to one of the London Underground Stations!

I haven't forgot this little matter, but will wait until the enquirey is published to reignite that gem of a thread.

Tealeaf · 10-11-2005, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J

Looks like my MP is against the bill as well which considering the target size of the refinery and chemical plants up here is a shocker.

Errrrrr....Check again. It looks like our MP is sound on terrorism. On previous occaisions, he has voted FOR govenment bills and AGAINST watering-down amendments. But still don't know last nights vote.

garinda · 10-11-2005, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Errrrrr....Check again. It looks like our MP is sound on terrorism. On previous occaisions, he has voted FOR govenment bills and AGAINST watering-down amendments. But still don't know last nights vote.

Spuggie lives in Scotland, and so his MP is different to ours/yours.

Less · 10-11-2005, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

I haven't forgot this little matter, but will wait until the enquirey is published to reignite that gem of a thread.

This actually has the makings of a good conspiricy theory, that guy probably wasn't a Brazillian but someone high up in the echolon of the terrorists and rather than him being turned into a martyr MI5 got in touch with the Brazilian authorities and bunged them a few quid so they could make up a story about some poor innocent being killed!

Result = no back lash from the fanatical terrorists, after all they won't care about someone innocent being killed!!!!!!!!

We'll know if I'm right if I don't post for a few days and you hear about me taking up hurdling over the barriers in the underground.

cashman · 10-11-2005, 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Errrrrr....Check again. It looks like our MP is sound on terrorism. On previous occaisions, he has voted FOR govenment bills and AGAINST watering-down amendments. But still don't know last nights vote.

Errrrr..... thats usually one of my tricks tealeaf lol

jambutty · 10-11-2005, 13:18

Many of the electorate abstain from voting cashman so you can hardly blame an MP for doing the same.

Polls of just a few thousand people can never be truly representative of the umpteen million who are eligible to vote. It is only an indication of how they MIGHT vote if asked and we weren’t.

MP’s are not voted into office to speak on our behalf lettie but to act in accordance with the manifesto that they presented to their constituents before being elected. As most if not all MP’s were voted into office by a minority they cannot represent all their constituents. If something comes up that was not included in the manifesto then the MP is free to vote as his conscience dictates – subject to the Whips of course. But that’s another argument.

Personally I disagree with the 90 days without charge detention. 28 days is enough time to get sufficient evidence to charge them. Well it would be if the police had the manpower. The real problem here is a police force that has been virtually stripped to the bone so that they cannot cope with normal crime let alone suspected terrorists.

Quote:

I know mistakes can be made but I'd rather it be a mistake of holding and innocent person than of letting a guilty one go free and yet more people being killed.

That comment is directly opposed to the reason why we don’t have capital punishment WillowTheWisp. Rather one guilty person goes free than an innocent person is hanged.

We can’t have it both ways.

WillowTheWhisp · 10-11-2005, 13:24

We're not talking about hanging them. We're talking about holding them in custody for 90 days.

Yes we can have it both ways. We can hold people for 90 days without hanging anybody.

cashman · 10-11-2005, 13:24

just heard micheal meacher saying he voted against 90 days because the case was not made for needing it. sir ian blair on the other hand said before the vote the police needed it, now we all know he isn't always correct but at the end of the day to me he has far more knowledge and in a better position to gauge the time required than meacher,or any of us, i would say to these sanctimonious cretins that voted against- how many MPs were blown up in london? NON it was all unfortunate members of the public. they are really looking after our interests.