new concession for terror bill.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by cashman

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

What? Why would the Crown Prosecution Service be charged and convinced?

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

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

Your opinion.

I disagree.

No I meant 28 days. No more than 28 days have ever been needed. Not my opinion, FACT.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

Your opinion.

I disagree.

most people seem to disagree, who i have spoken too, suggested earlier that a referendum would be interesting,(not that it will ever happen) but he chose not to comment on that.

[jambutty]

Although you cannot put a price on freedom it is right that if someone is arrested and imprisoned and then released without charge, that person should be compensated for amongst other things – loss of earnings or job, being incarcerated without just cause and for hurt feelings.

What is wrong is that this proposed compensation doesn’t come into effect until day 29.

What is even more wrong is people being arrested and incarcerated on suspicion alone.

Once upon a time if a copper was to arrest someone he had to have some evidence that a crime had been committed. The evidence may well have been flimsy but it had to be there.

I don’t know when things changed but when a copper makes an arrest these days he states something like, “I am arresting you on the suspicion of…….” The operative word there being “suspicion”.

Slowly but surely we are sleepwalking into a police state and many people seem to agree to it happening.

The government is crying wolf again.

To put things into perspective you are much more likely to be killed by a car, or a building collapsing on top of you, or being mugged in the street, or being burgled than you are being blown up by a terrorist.

How many people have been killed by a terrorist act in the UK during the last 10 years? How many people have met violent deaths by other means during that time? Please don’t bring the IRA into the equation. They were different times then and this is now.

Wasn’t the proposal originally 56 days and the government backed down to 42 days?

garinda – you are beginning to sound like a cracked record continually repeating the same point over and over.

You keep on spouting about how many people have been killed by terrorist acts. Doesn’t that say that the police and MI5 weren’t doing their job by not identifying the criminals before they could act?

All you people who are arguing that the detention period WITHOUT CHARGE should be extended to 42 days would have a totally different view if it were you who were arrested.

Or is it a case of it’s OK to have these Draconian laws for others but not you?

Finally, your contribution steeljack is not relevant to this discussion. We were at war with Germany at that time after we declared war on Germany. We did as any country would do and that is round up all people that had a connection with the country that we were at war with and put them where they could be kept an eye on, (The Isle of Man) to prevent any possible 5th columnists developing. Proven agitators were quite rightly imprisoned. But they were PROVEN agitators. Those on the Isle of Man, led an almost normal life. They had schools, hospitals, centres of entertainment and could move around at will within a very large and clearly defined area.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by andrewb

What? Why would the Crown Prosecution Service be charged and convinced?

oh i must be really stupid, cos i didn't imagine you mentioned the CPS.

[garinda]

Let's not forget that there are already measures in place that ensures there is a high chance those arrested are planning a terrorist attack, before they are detained.

Together with the news that those arrested and not charged, will receieve generous financial compensation.

Two more weeks for evidence to be gathered, versus the threat that more innocent people could be killed.

No contest.

I really hope the Conservatives, and Labour rebels, don't defeat this proposed change.

[garinda]

Tory Lite.

Hug a hoody.

Cuddle a terrorist.

No thanks.

You can keep it.

[andrewb]

Garinda your whole argument suggests that we should go to 42 days, because you feel it might help prevent deaths (all the evidence says the opposite). I have given reason why we should keep with 28 days, because it has actually been used. Can you please give reason as to why we should go for 42 days and not 50 days, 100days, 1000days? Because All of those might prevent loss of life, under your current argument.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Although you cannot put a price on freedom it is right that if someone is arrested and imprisoned and then released without charge, that person should be compensated for amongst other things – loss of earnings or job, being incarcerated without just cause and for hurt feelings.

What is wrong is that this proposed compensation doesn’t come into effect until day 29.

What is even more wrong is people being arrested and incarcerated on suspicion alone.


Or is it a case of it’s OK to have these Draconian laws for others but not you?

can agree with yer first 2 paragraphs, but the rest is horse muck, call em draconian measures all ya want, the last bit is pathetic to me, the measures would apply to everyone, n if they suspect someones involved in terrorism, thats fine with me, we live in a differant world to the one i was young in, the terrorist uses draconian measures to me, so fight fire with fire.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by cashman

can agree with yer first 2 paragraphs, but the rest is horse muck, call em draconian measures all ya want, the last bit is pathetic to me, the measures would apply to everyone, n if they suspect someones involved in terrorism, thats fine with me, we live in a differant world to the one i was young in, the terrorist uses draconian measures to me, so fight fire with fire.

You defeated your argument, fighting fire with fire does not work.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Garinda your whole argument suggests that we should go to 42 days, because you feel it might help prevent deaths (all the evidence says the opposite). I have given reason why we should keep with 28 days, because it has actually been used. Can you please give reason as to why we should go for 42 days and not 50 days, 100days, 1000days? Because All of those might prevent loss of life, under your current argument.

Like I said wayyyyyyyyyy back in this thread I'd have no problem if the period was even longer, if it prevented just one more death.

Yes, there are more deaths on the roads of this country, but that really isn't much of a comfort if you are a small child, and it is your mother who has been blown up.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Like I said wayyyyyyyyyy back in this thread I'd have no problem if the period was even longer, if it prevented just one more death.

Yes, there are more deaths on the roads of this country, but that really isn't much of a comfort if you are a small child, and it is your mother who has been blown up.

You have no evidence at all that 42 days will prevent just one more death. You're happy to increase to 42 days, and further, on this basis. Therefore when do you decide that somebody is actually innocent? It seems you would rather continuously search for evidence. Not on the basis that it is needed, but on the basis that those extra few days could, potentially, uncover something which would save a life. I suspect your views would be absolutely different if you were subject to what you propose.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by cashman

can agree with yer first 2 paragraphs, but the rest is horse muck, call em draconian measures all ya want, the last bit is pathetic to me, the measures would apply to everyone, n if they suspect someones involved in terrorism, thats fine with me, we live in a differant world to the one i was young in, the terrorist uses draconian measures to me, so fight fire with fire.

Nice bit of “cherry picking”.

I take it that you then agree with the rest of my post.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by andrewb

You defeated your argument, fighting fire with fire does not work.

sorry we will disagree forever on that, theres a lot less crime in Saudi Arabia n the like, even if they do take it too far the other way.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

garinda – you are beginning to sound like a cracked record continually repeating the same point over and over.

You could always turn the volume off, as I do with your scratchy 78's.