new concession for terror bill.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

You're getting ridiculous now Gary. You know very, very, very well I am not suggesting what you are implying. I am actually quite offended.

No terrorists are not the main ones detained under the act, the majority of people are innocent, but you know that's not what I was getting at. Muslims are more likely to be detained, innocent ones.

Do you think detaining people without charge for an period extended to 42 days without any evidence to justify it ( as you have already conceded) is going to make the Muslim community more likely to be helpful or less?

Fact. It was you who stated that extending the holding time of suspected terrorists to 42 days would inflame people.

Fact. This is a thread about terrorism, not any one body of people.

Fact. No one mentioned Islam until you brought it to the debate.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

I was quite pleased with it and no one seems to want to acknowledge it .

Self satisfaction is nothing to be admired.

[blazey]

Murder your darlings Andrew

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Fact. It was you who stated that extending the holding time of suspected terrorists to 42 days would inflame people.

Fact. This is a thread about terrorism, not any one body of people.

Fact. No one mentioned Islam until you brought it to the debate.

Yes right.. anyway..

Given innocent Muslims are the main people detained under the act;

Do you think detaining people without charge for an period extended to 42 days without any evidence to justify it ( as you have already conceded) is going to make the Muslim community more likely to be helpful or less?

[Rosencrantz]

Originally Posted by garinda

Self satisfaction is nothing to be admired.

Cards on the table, 90% of what I've said here is satire and sarcasm, so please tell me if you seriously consider 42 days of needless social harm, government distrust and potential for massive governmental abuse worth your goddamn time. Read my summary again and respond - ask yourself if it's worth selling our kid's futures down the river just so we can lock up anyone who disagrees with us. I guarantee that if this law passes it will be abused in the future.

And quite frankly, if you're not satisfied with what you're saying you haven't thought about your own opinion enough.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Yes right.. anyway..

Given innocent Muslims are the main people detained under the act;

Do you think detaining people without charge for an period extended to 42 days without any evidence to justify it ( as you have already conceded) is going to make the Muslim community more likely to be helpful or less?

Why would they need to be 'helpful'?

Do you think they are going to protect terrorists just because this law has to date mainly been used against muslims?

Terrorists don't aim their bombs at particularly races, they kill everyone. Muslims have lost family members to terrorist attacks too, and it'll be a minority that would even consider to protect people, BEFORE you go rubbing today's news in my face about the wife and sister who helped the terrorist from london bus bombing escape.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by blazey

Why would they need to be 'helpful'?

Do you think they are going to protect terrorists just because this law has to date mainly been used against muslims?

Terrorists don't aim their bombs at particularly races, they kill everyone. Muslims have lost family members to terrorist attacks too, and it'll be a minority that would even consider to protect people, BEFORE you go rubbing today's news in my face about the wife and sister who helped the terrorist from london bus bombing escape.

There is no doubt the majority of Muslims are good people who do not condone terrorism. However, laws like this can help recruit terrorists (as can be seen during the IRA years).

[blazey]

Originally Posted by andrewb

There is no doubt the majority of Muslims are good people who do not condone terrorism. However, laws like this can help recruit terrorists (as can be seen during the IRA years).

Surely you aren't going to make an assumption that the same thing will happen twice? Because if you are, I think you should give up politics, because it's a bit silly to happily assume one thing can be repeated but try and persuade people that it is wrong to assume the Tories will act as they did in the Thatcher years.

You need good solid proof of such a thing to make such a claim. Do you have any proof that the extention from 14 to 28 days increased recruitment to terrorist organisations?

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Thank you for confirming that, even though you don't agree with him, that Rosencrantz, as well as being insensitive and crass, is also a young Conservative friend of Andrewb's from Hull.

It's all becoming clear now, though why someone with no connection to Hyndburm wants to share his disgusting views with us, is beyond me.

Perhaps toryboy.com/forum closes when they are all supposed to be in bed.

Thank-you for jumping to conclusions, the wrong ones.

Yes I know Rosencrantz, that is no secret, it was aired before today. Rosencrantz is not a Conservative, he is not a Conservative member, he is not even a member of Conservative future, me and him hardly ever agree. Please try and get over the Conservatives for once.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Thank-you for jumping to conclusions, the wrong ones.

Yes I know Rosencrantz, that is no secret, it was aired before today. Rosencrantz is not a Conservative, he is not a Conservative member, he is not even a member of Conservative future, me and him hardly ever agree. Please try and get over the Conservatives for once.

In all fairness, it was me who made the assumption that he was a conservative when I said he was making 'us' look bad.

I feel a bit better now that he isn't speaking for my party, but I still have that little problem of you to deal with

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by garinda

Are you saying that a policeman, or woman, shouldn't be able to detain someone they had information on, and who they thought was about to kill or maim innocent people?

To me that is sick, as well as being morally wrong.

When you learn to read and understand what has been written you will be able to distinguish between having information on someone – that is evidence – is not the same as just suspicion.

[andrewb]

In reflection, what an absolute, utter waste of my time this has been. A lot of the members are not interested in having an informed, intelligent, discussion. No, in contrast they want one driven by emotion. Driven by rubbish that those of us who seek to defend liberty, who seek to take pragmatic approaches to legislation, are somehow putting our national defence, no lets use the word, lives, of women and children at risk.

Some members are interested in pursing attacks based on party lines, ones which are completely unjustified. Throwing accusations around.

I have never seen such ignorance before. Not because people agree or disagree with me, everyone is entitled to take their side, but because of the method of doing so. The method of provocation, the method of playing dumb, the method of winding the opposition up by hawking on with even more emotive lines, avoiding any logical discussion. Some members know only too well there is not an ounce, not one trace, of evidence to support their views, but yet they continue because emotive language is popular, but it is far from right. We only need to look to America, where the population will happily give away any freedoms they wish, all the government need to do is repeat the words 9/11 until they have every single one of them bowing down on their knees.

I legitimately mention Muslims, because they are the majority of people affected by this legislation. I get shouted down for it, because the Act doesn't aim to single anybody out. Well just take a few minutes to sit in reality and think, who is actually affected the most by this legislation? It does not take a brain surgeon to work out that it is completely relevant, that is why it was debated today within the House.

I have not a shadow of a doubt, that if the people being ignorant over issues here, were detained themselves, for innocent purposes, as the majority of the people convicted under this legislation have been. They would not be arguing for the indefinite detention of suspects and sleep walking into a big brother state where we nod away our freedoms whenever the government tell us we should.

That is it. I am out.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by andrewb

There is no doubt the majority of Muslims are good people who do not condone terrorism.

Is that no doubt in your mind or in the majority of peoples minds? Maybe a poll on the matter would clear that up.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by Neil

Is that no doubt in your mind or in the majority of peoples minds? Maybe a poll on the matter would clear that up.

That would just show majority of forum users, not majority of people in this country in general!

Silly man.

I agree that there should be more than mere suspicion, but sometimes you have to follow gut instincts and detain someone even if you have nothing solid other than a first impression.

I find this issue hard to decide upon because I don't agree with the original Act as such in the first place, so I'm pulling out of the debate on it too until I have more knowledge on it.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by blazey

Yes but it has often been used as an argument against myself and I'm fed up of seeing it repeated to every student who airs an opinion on the forum.

It just gets a bit repetitive that's all.

yeh well,glad i put ya right, i would never even accuse cyfr of it either, much as i disagree vehemently with many of his views i know fer fact that he gets out n mixes with the peasants, so in that fact Respect to the git. i made the comment cos i detest arrogant know-alls who know nowt.