new concession for terror bill. - Page 6

cashman · 11-06-2008, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Sorry I forgot to add that those people held to 28 days and proved guilty, are never the serious offenders, in fact they were bailed. Clearly not a threat.

so anyone found GUILTY of some forms of terrorist activity you do not regard as serious? thats gotta be the stupidest comment i ever heard.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

So are you happy with 6months, a year, 5 years?

Why not, as you seem more than happy for them to be held for four weeks without charge?

By the way, it's detained without charge, not without evidence, which with new technologies being used by terrorists, is getting more and more difficult to gather in the shorter time scale.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

so anyone found GUILTY of some forms of terrorist activity you do not regard as serious? thats gotta be the stupidest comment i ever heard.

By serious I mean those guilty of murder, or those guilty of planning murder. Of course people guilty under the terrorism act are serious in the sense you mean.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Why not, as you seem more than happy for them to be held for four weeks without charge?

By the way, it's detained without charge, not without evidence, which with new technologies being used by terrorists, is getting more and more difficult to gather in the shorter time scale.

Four weeks has been USED. Dear god how many times do I have to say it? I have not heard one person suggest that ANY threat has needed more than 28 days. Not one.

Charges are made when there's evidence. All evidence from the most serious cases, including computer evidence, has been gathered from 4 to 12 days.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 14:18

I'd really understand your argument more if you were trying to scrap the whole system of detention without charge, although I still wouldn't agree with it, at least I could see you had principles.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

I'd really understand your argument more if you were trying to scrap the whole system of detention without charge, although I still wouldn't agree with it, at least I could see you had principles.

Gary I am tired of this now. You are being ignorant. You're not stupid, you know full well I am arguing for only increasing detention if it is necessary, which it is quite simply not.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I have not heard one person suggest that ANY threat has needed more than 28 days. Not one.

Sir Ian Blair, Commissionaire of the Metropolitan Police Force.

There's one for you.

I gave him earlier in the thread, but you chose to ignore it.

cashman · 11-06-2008, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

By serious I mean those guilty of murder, or those guilty of planning murder. Of course people guilty under the terrorism act are serious in the sense you mean.

yer still spouting garbage, those who aid n abet, give em safe houses, false alibis etc are just as bad as the murderers, they are helping to perpetuate terrorism, get real theres NO non serious as you stated.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Gary I am tired of this now. You are being ignorant. You're not stupid, you know full well I am arguing for only increasing detention if it is necessary, which it is quite simply not.

Ignorant?

No just trying to understand your lack of logic.

Civil liberties are being attacked, as you seem to think, by any detention without charge, the time scale, when it comes down to that principle, is irrelevant.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

yer still spouting garbage, those who aid n abet, give em safe houses, false alibis etc are just as bad as the murderers, they are helping to perpetuate terrorism, get real theres NO non serious as you stated.

Jesus I'm just quoting those in the know. I'm sorry.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 14:29

From the callers to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2, which covered this issue today, the vast majority of people supportrd the proposed change, though there were a few bleeding heart liberals opposed to the measures.

There were a few callers who identified themselves as Tories, who said had they known the Conservatives were not going to be tough on terrorism, they wouldn't have voted for them in the recent local elections.

Their words, not mine.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Ignorant?

No just trying to understand your lack of logic.

Civil liberties are being attacked, as you seem to think, by any detention without charge, the time scale, when it comes down to that principle, is irrelevant.

Here it is then. Detaining people without charge is justified if its actually needed. Detaining people without charge when it is not needed is not justified.

You might live in a black or white world, where it has to be no detention or absolute detention, but I thought we were arguing about the real world. The fact remains more than 28 days is simply not needed. There is no more to it.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

From the callers to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2, which covered this issue today, the vast majority of people supporting the proposed change.

There were a few callers who identified themselves as Tories, who said had they known the Conservatives were not going to be tough on terrorism, they wouldn't have voted for them in the recent local elections.

Their words, not mine.

You're right its not electorally popular. When they discuss terrorism act it is a very emotive topic. I know of at least 10 people I've talked to about this, and they've changed their mind once it transpired more than 28 days has never been needed. If it had been, I'd be supporting this bill.

cashman · 11-06-2008, 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Jesus I'm just quoting those in the know. I'm sorry.

please explain how those NOT in the know end up charged n convicted?

garinda · 11-06-2008, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Here it is then. Detaining people without charge is justified if its actually needed. Detaining people without charge when it is not needed is not justified.

You might live in a black or white world, where it has to be no detention or absolute detention, but I thought we were arguing about the real world. The fact remains more than 28 days is simply not needed. There is no more to it.

I take it you mean 42 days, in the second last sentence?

Your opinion.

I disagree.