David Davis wins by-election

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Well, after asking in the pub last night and at work this morning, I have yet to find anybody who is supportive of David Davis and is concerned about suspected terrorists being locked up for 42 days rather than 28 (comments ranged from "I've more things to worry about" to "I'd lock 'em up for longer.").

So where are all these people from Cyfr's polls?...have you come across them anywhere?

Although I thought that DDs byelecion was a bit pointless really, it was not just on the 42 day issue, it was on all aspects of civil liberties, which are being rode rough shod over by the government, just thought I'd make the point

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Well, after asking in the pub last night and at work this morning, I have yet to find anybody who is supportive of David Davis and is concerned about suspected terrorists being locked up for 42 days rather than 28 (comments ranged from "I've more things to worry about" to "I'd lock 'em up for longer.").

So where are all these people from Cyfr's polls?...have you come across them anywhere?

Yes, I have come across many while canvassing. I have been at the receiving end of thousands and thousands of e-mails, letters and phone calls in support. I have seen the huge amounts of money being donated from people who are not all Conservative party members, but believe that the state is becoming ever more authoritarian.

I don't suppose you're informing people that half are innocent and the increase from 28-42 days is not needed to name a couple of the arguments. The 'I'd lock them up for longer' - Why would you want to lock innocent people up for longer? If they are actually terrorists then yes, lock them up and throw away the key! But this legislation is NOT doing that.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I don't suppose you're informing people that half are innocent and the increase from 28-42 days is not needed to name a couple of the arguments. The 'I'd lock them up for longer' - Why would you want to lock innocent people up for longer? If they are actually terrorists then yes, lock them up and throw away the key! But this legislation is NOT doing that.

I don't "inform" them of anything - I just ask them what they think. Unlike you, I don't have to feed them propaganda to make them come out with the answers to support my views. I also treat them with a reasonable amount of respect by assuming that they have looked at the issue and come to their own conclusions. A marked contrast to chattering class (would-be) politicos like yourself who assume that the public have to be patronisingly guided. One day, when you get out into the real world, you'll discover that people don't like to be talked down to.

Why would I like to lock them up for longer? I wouldn't - I think that 42 days in fine. If observation had formed part of your education, you would have noticed that I was actually quoting somebody else.

As for 50% being innocent, this means that 50% are guilty which, as far as I'm concerned, justifies the policy. I would rather see a few innocent people locked up for 42 days, then one terrorist slip through the net.

[andrewb]

It's not talking down to people at all. It's not propaganda at all. It is simply making people aware of the facts. A lot of people I spoke to had no idea that innocent people were being locked up for long periods, and had no idea that an increase from 28 - 42 days was a number plucked out of the air.

I don't know how you can possibly justify locking innocent people up for 28 days, which at least has been required by the police, where as 42 days is just not necessary. Worst of both worlds, have innocent people locked up for longer and won't be needed to make us safer. Are you going to say its fine to lock people up for 100 days, 1000 days, and it doesn't matter if innocents are there, as long as some terrorists are caught?

Of the two guilty people detained to 28 days, evidence was obtained on the 4th and 12th days, no more evidence was unveiled. They were bailed, which shows they were no serious threat.

What is patronising is to constantly suggest that I'm wrong because I'm still in education and therefore know nothing.

Now when you highlight these arguments, which the government has tried to avoid, people tend to take a different view, as the polls show. If you're just asking them point blank without giving them the argument, you'll get the same result of the original polls that the government used as an argument, overwhelming number of the public in support.

I don't think its patronising to inform people of the facts and arguments. It's not exactly something you should just know is it!

[Gayle]

Surely, the issue at stake is not about how long people should be detained for but WHY innocent people are being detained in the first place. What is it about the 50% of people that made someone think that they should be detained?

We would all seem to agree that if someone is guilty then that's fine, detain them until you get the evidence and then throw away the key. But why are innocent people being detained in the first place - or is it just that they are guilty but the police can't get enough evidence to keep them - one has to wonder?

[cmonstanley]

im still wondering when the tory party turned into the liberal democrats. is this a tory ploy to steal the liberal democrat vote it all seems tactics to me.a win at all cost which will probably backfire on them. their consultants are probably telling them the reliable vote are old age liberal pensioners in the key seats they have to win so lets split the liberal votemy side are splitting ive laughed that much .they are so transparent their ribs are showing through their suit jackets.they must think we are bananas:Ba nane10::ba nhat:

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Surely, the issue at stake is not about how long people should be detained for but WHY innocent people are being detained in the first place. What is it about the 50% of people that made someone think that they should be detained?

We would all seem to agree that if someone is guilty then that's fine, detain them until you get the evidence and then throw away the key. But why are innocent people being detained in the first place - or is it just that they are guilty but the police can't get enough evidence to keep them - one has to wonder?

its simple really it aint wondering gayle to me, as well as innocent ones,some are guilty but enough evidence cannot be obtained, thats not a shrewd brain speaking, its common sense, something cyfr sadly lacks.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I don't know how you can possibly justify locking innocent people up for 28 days

The whole point is, we don't know whether they're innocent or not until they've been investigated. Are you suggesting that we have less than 28 days? Perhaps you'd prefer to go back to the pre-2000 period when we only had 48 hours?

I've not mentioned 100 or 1000 days, I've already said 42 days seems reasonable to me. The point is that terrorism itself has become more complex and sophisticated over the years. Gone are the old days of IRA plots involving one computer and a few disks. Modern terrorist plots can involve hundreds of computers, thousands of disks, multiple identities, passports and mobile phone accounts. I would prefer to err on the side of caution by giving the authorities more time to investigate these situations. And, yes, I WOULD prefer to see innocent people locked up temporarily, than to see dangerous terrorists slip through the net, and I make no apologies for that.

But enough of this debating between me and you, Cyfr - you reckon you've got popular opinion on your side and you seem to think your arguments are so convincing. There's a fair cross-section of popular opinion on Accyweb - put it to the vote and see what the results are. Should be interesting!

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Surely, the issue at stake is not about how long people should be detained for but WHY innocent people are being detained in the first place. What is it about the 50% of people that made someone think that they should be detained?

We would all seem to agree that if someone is guilty then that's fine, detain them until you get the evidence and then throw away the key. But why are innocent people being detained in the first place - or is it just that they are guilty but the police can't get enough evidence to keep them - one has to wonder?

Very good point. If the police thought these 'innocents' were at all dangerous to us but just had to let them go because of evidence then they'd still monitor them. As it turns out neither overt nore covert surveillace was used.

Your post raises another point. If you and cashman are suggesting people let go are just lack of evidence, then its even more reason to not detain innocents. It clearly does damage to their life as peers will think they're guilty. They could lose their jobs, friends, livelihoods just because they were locked up without charge.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

The whole point is, we don't know whether they're innocent or not until they've been investigated. Are you suggesting that we have less than 28 days? Perhaps you'd prefer to go back to the pre-2000 period when we only had 48 hours?

I've not mentioned 100 or 1000 days, I've already said 42 days seems reasonable to me. The point is that terrorism itself has become more complex and sophisticated over the years. Gone are the old days of IRA plots involving one computer and a few disks. Modern terrorist plots can involve hundreds of computers, thousands of disks, multiple identities, passports and mobile phone accounts. I would prefer to err on the side of caution by giving the authorities more time to investigate these situations. And, yes, I WOULD prefer to see innocent people locked up temporarily, than to see dangerous terrorists slip through the net, and I make no apologies for that.

But enough of this debating between me and you, Cyfr - you reckon you've got popular opinion on your side and you seem to think your arguments are so convincing. There's a fair cross-section of popular opinion on Accyweb - put it to the vote and see what the results are. Should be interesting!

Thats the argument the government used and it turned out to be completely false. Theres legislation for encrypted data already. All the serious and complex cases have been solved way before even 28 days, so there is no reason to extend to 42. You didn't mention 100 days, but whats to stop the government coming back again in a year and using the same arguments? That we 'might' need extra days? So are you saying you're against increasing it more than 42?

Polls have already been done, you don't seem to believe them, so why would you believe an AccringtonWeb one?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

im still wondering when the tory party turned into the liberal democrats.

Awww stop being mean, and give 'em a hug.

[Wynonie Harris]

OK, so you don't want an Accyweb poll...perhaps because you know, deep down, that out there in the real world your naive point of view is very much a minority one!

[garinda]

Originally Posted by garinda

Awww stop being mean, and give 'em a hug.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

OK, so you don't want an Accyweb poll...perhaps because you know, deep down, that out there in the real world your naive point of view is very much a minority one!

Just be happy you were in Cuba when the bill was passed.

I'm suprised you didn't hear the sound of a certain someone stamping their little feet.

I'd link the thread, but I'm not that cruel.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

OK, so you don't want an Accyweb poll...perhaps because you know, deep down, that out there in the real world your naive point of view is very much a minority one!

Ok, so am I that cruel.

Here's the thread...and the poll.

The majority of people supported the government, and the increase to 42 days.


http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...ill-40237.html