new concession for terror bill. - Page 2

garinda · 11-06-2008, 01:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Except no evidence has been given that shows we need to increase from 28 to 42 days. We're increasing it with no justification, how does this help improve relations? We should be tackling terror smartly.

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As stated earlier, loss of freedom, if innocent, can be compensated.

No amount of money can bring people back from the dead.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 01:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Then you'll be happy to change your mind because members of all political parties accept that more than 28 days has never been necessary.

Sir Iain Blair, head of the Met, supports the changes.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 01:31

Then you'll be happy to keep 28 days since any more is not needed. Every one has been convicted before the time is up (or released). Good.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 01:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Sir Iain Blair, head of the Met, supports the changes.

Yes and Gordon Brown supports it too. A long list of people don't support it. Lets deal with fact, fact remains it is not necessary.

blazey · 11-06-2008, 01:34

I don't quite understand with the increase is needed. Unless we are expecting a terrorist attack any time soon and we are unaware of it as the public, then I don't really see the need to lengthen the current time.

Then again, if it hasn't been needed to date then creating a longer time doesn't necessarily mean we are intended on commonly applying it, it could just be seen as a 'just in case' measure.

I wouldn't like to be head for such a long time though under that law.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 01:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

I don't quite understand with the increase is needed. Unless we are expecting a terrorist attack any time soon and we are unaware of it as the public, then I don't really see the need to lengthen the current time.

Then again, if it hasn't been needed to date then creating a longer time doesn't necessarily mean we are intended on commonly applying it, it could just be seen as a 'just in case' measure.

I wouldn't like to be head for such a long time though under that law.

Indeed but as we can see all the time they're given is taken. USA manages to do it in 2days.

BERNADETTE · 11-06-2008, 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Nobody would disagree with you here! The thing is this bill is for detaining people with NO evidence! If there was evidence they could just charge them.

I don't for one minute think that suspects are picked up on the basis of NO evidence. However long it takes to prove or disprove that the evidence is right or wrong as long as innnocent lifes are not taken I for one am all for the longer detention period!!

blazey · 11-06-2008, 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Indeed but as we can see all the time they're given is taken. USA manages to do it in 2days.

Do you think the USA use completely legal methods of determining such things? Now I hate to be the one that casts doubt on a legal system, but I honestly must say I don't 100% believe that efficiency like that is achieved entirely by entirely humane and justifiable measures.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Yes and Gordon Brown supports it too. A long list of people don't support it. Lets deal with fact, fact remains it is not necessary.

Total hypocrisy.

The Conservatives think it's totally okay to hold suspected terrorist without charge for four weeks, but six weeks is bang out of order?

What on earth is the difference?

That's just about a time scale, and nothing at all to do with principles.

If you really believed in the principle of freedom you'd be lobbying that people shouldn't be held without charge at all.

Rosencrantz · 11-06-2008, 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As stated earlier, loss of freedom, if innocent, can be compensated.

No amount of money can bring people back from the dead.

I LOVE this idea! In fact, I love this line of reasoning so much I hope Mr. Brown listens to my idea. Why don't we change vast amounts of Britain into rows and blocks of cells, and everyone is compulsorily locked in them until the police have adequately scared them into never stepping out of line ever, then when they're out they can join the police! BRILLIANT!

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As long as they're innocent then when they get out they get the awesome compensation of joining the police. God, I'm going to go write the letter now...

garinda · 11-06-2008, 01:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

I LOVE this idea! In fact, I love this line of reasoning so much I hope Mr. Brown listens to my idea. Why don't we change vast amounts of Britain into rows and blocks of cells, and everyone is compulsorily locked in them until the police have adequately scared them into never stepping out of line ever, then when they're out they can join the police! BRILLIANT!

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As long as they're innocent then when they get out they get the awesome compensation of joining the police. God, I'm going to go write the letter now...

Can you learn how to quote properly before joining the debate?

I really can't take what you say seriously whilst my own words are attributed to you.

blazey · 11-06-2008, 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Total hypocrisy.

The Conservatives think it's totally okay to hold suspected terrorist without charge for four weeks, but six weeks is bang out of order?

What on earth is the difference?

That's just about a time scale, and nothing at all to do with principles.

If you really believed in the principle of freedom you'd be lobbying that people shouldn't be held without charge at all.

I don't agree with andrew but I don't agree with this view either. There is such thing as 'excessiveness'.

For example, I personally think 24 weeks is excessive for abortions, and a much shorter time was appropriate. I guess the difference is the effect on ones being after being held captive for such a long period without charge or knowledge of what is likely to be decided. Like a baby that is allowed to develop too long in the womb before being aborted, it feels pain. Allowing the government to hold people captive for so long without reason causes [in some cases at least] unnecessary stress and anxiety.

That's the way I see this issue.

How many terrorists are expected to be held for these kind of periods? I imagine that they are only going to be held within good reason for this extended period, so I don't see a problem with legalising it, but I can see andrews view of it not being needed to date so why now.

I'm in favour of it I think, but I don't really know enough about it.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

I LOVE this idea! In fact, I love this line of reasoning so much I hope Mr. Brown listens to my idea. Why don't we change vast amounts of Britain into rows and blocks of cells, and everyone is compulsorily locked in them until the police have adequately scared them into never stepping out of line ever, then when they're out they can join the police! BRILLIANT!

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As long as they're innocent then when they get out they get the awesome compensation of joining the police. God, I'm going to go write the letter now...

....and by the way, I was fighting for real civil liberties whilst you still had brown stuff leaking out of your nappy.

BERNADETTE · 11-06-2008, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

I LOVE this idea! In fact, I love this line of reasoning so much I hope Mr. Brown listens to my idea. Why don't we change vast amounts of Britain into rows and blocks of cells, and everyone is compulsorily locked in them until the police have adequately scared them into never stepping out of line ever, then when they're out they can join the police! BRILLIANT!

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As long as they're innocent then when they get out they get the awesome compensation of joining the police. God, I'm going to go write the letter now...

Can you just post your own thoughts on the matter as a young intelligent person please. Are you for or against detaining people who are suspected to be plotting against national security for a longer period to ensure the safety of law abiding citizens??

steeljack · 11-06-2008, 01:50

It will probably fall flat on it's face the first time some uber liberal slimeball laywer presents the case before a High Court Judge, probably some clause hidden away in the Human Rights charter or even something in the Magna Carta about the accused being allowed to face his accusers in a timely manner .
Seems to me what should be done is a change with the immigration laws to allow the speedy/immediate removal from the UK of anyone foriegn born and their family (children and dependant parents ) who has been convicted of any crime requiring anything more than 3 points on their driving license , none of this silly stuff about how dangerous places are , if people want to live in a civilized society they have to live like civilized human beings.