new concession for terror bill. - Page 8

jambutty · 11-06-2008, 15:08

Quote:

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.

So taking your argument to its logical conclusion you would accept motorists being arrested and banged up for 28 days or more just because a copper may suspect a motorist is liable to kill a pedestrian.

I suspect that you are being argumentative for its own sake and are just trying to wind up andrewb and others who agree with his point of view.

cashman · 11-06-2008, 15:10

thats yer logical conclusion jim, it sure aint mine.

jambutty · 11-06-2008, 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

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

Sorry but fighting fire with fire does work.

What do you call bombing the heck out of someone as they try to do the same to you? What we call wars.

The way to defeat an enemy is to hit them harder than they hit you.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Sorry but fighting fire with fire does work.

What do you call bombing the heck out of someone as they try to do the same to you? What we call wars.

The way to defeat an enemy is to hit them harder than they hit you.

My comment is only made in jest.

Its quite evident that to 'win' a war fighting fire with fire works. Winning the hearts and minds is a different matter. Anyway, when I read 'fight fire with fire' I always imagine it as fighting a house fire with fire.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

So taking your argument to its logical conclusion you would accept motorists being arrested and banged up for 28 days or more just because a copper may suspect a motorist is liable to kill a pedestrian.

I suspect that you are being argumentative for its own sake and are just trying to wind up andrewb and others who agree with his point of view.

If he suspected someone was out to mow someone down with that car, then yes I would.

jaysay · 11-06-2008, 15:57

I actually think that if the police have not been able to charge a suspect within 28 days they ain't going to charge them, it has been sugested that before arrest the police and security service must have some evidence that an offence is about to be commited, if they have not proved it in 28 days another 14 ain't going to make any difference at all

jambutty · 11-06-2008, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

If he suspected someone was out to mow someone down with that car, then yes I would.

If a copper suspected that you were about to mow someone down with a car you would be more than happy to be banged up without any evidence or being charged.

“Thank whatever gods people believe in that you are not in charge of this country.”

jambutty · 11-06-2008, 19:05

I see that the government just managed to get this crackpot initiative through by doing deals left, right and centre. And some MP’s, not wanting to help bring the government down and thus probably loose their jobs, voted for the 42 days proposed law.

Brown, just like any despot dictator, is riding roughshod over our right to know why a person has been arrested and banged up. It is written into the Magna Charter.

(39) No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgement of his peers, or by the laws of the land.

cashman · 11-06-2008, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I see that the government just managed to get this crackpot initiative through by doing deals left, right and centre. And some MP’s, not wanting to help bring the government down and thus probably loose their jobs, voted for the 42 days proposed law.

Brown, just like any despot dictator, is riding roughshod over our right to know why a person has been arrested and banged up. It is written into the Magna Charter.

(39) No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgement of his peers, or by the laws of the land.

Brown fer once gets brownie points from me fer getting this through, things are still the same in the world since the Magna Charter was written?

i must be missing summat.

jambutty · 11-06-2008, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Brown fer once gets brownie points from me fer getting this through, things are still the same in the world since the Magna Charter was written?

i must be missing summat.

Whether you agree to it or not, it is yours and my right to know what we are accused of before being banged up. Being locked up just on suspicion is the beginnings of a police state.

Yes you are missing something. The bit about having your rights eroded away bit by bit under the pretext of terrorists or green issues.

Local authorities are already abusing the surveillance laws that were put in place because of a terrorist threat.

An authority down south has reportedly taken some residents' non-recyclable bins and sent them to a local university to get data on how much food is thrown away.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

If a copper suspected that you were about to mow someone down with a car you would be more than happy to be banged up without any evidence or being charged.

“Thank whatever gods people believe in that you are not in charge of this country.”

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.

Neil · 11-06-2008, 23:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

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.

As would you if a friend or family member was killed by a suspected terrorist that they could not arrest and detain because this law was not passed.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

As would you if a friend or family member was killed by a suspected terrorist that they could not arrest and detain because this law was not passed.

Except they already could, we had a 28 day bill..

BERNADETTE · 11-06-2008, 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

As would you if a friend or family member was killed by a suspected terrorist that they could not arrest and detain because this law was not passed.

Totally agree it all takes on a new meaning when someone from your family or close friends is involved.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

As would you if a friend or family member was killed by a suspected terrorist that they could not arrest and detain because this law was not passed.

Well said.

Even living in a town, which has innocent children who lost a parent to these evil gits, sickens me.

Freedom can be compensated.

No amount of money can be thrown at people to bring them back to life.

As for me being afraid of being banged up, well no, I have nothing to fear on that score.