Putting aside your political allegiences it was stated that if the public had a say in the matter the vast majority would listen to what the police and secret services want and thats to allow suspected terrorists to be held for 90 days. I'm surprised that none of the media (to my knowledge) have done a poll. I was wondering how people in this forum feel about it. Yes - you agree on 90 days OR No - you dont agree.
FORUM POLL
- Thread starter Lord Braykewynde
- Start date
I'll start it off.
Yes I agree.
We must listen to the voices of law and order if thats what they require in order to do their job satisfactorily. It is blatantly irresponsible of those who are trying to gain political points by seeing Tony Blairs nose rubbed in the mud. If this Bill fails maybe he will be able to payback the detractors by rubbing their noses in the blood of the innocent victims of the next bombings.
Yes I agree.
We must listen to the voices of law and order if thats what they require in order to do their job satisfactorily. It is blatantly irresponsible of those who are trying to gain political points by seeing Tony Blairs nose rubbed in the mud. If this Bill fails maybe he will be able to payback the detractors by rubbing their noses in the blood of the innocent victims of the next bombings.
90 days is fine with me. The civil liberties lobby will be going on about a suspects " human rights", well as far as I'm concerned, if someone is trying to blow me or mine up, they don't have any "rights".
How crazy is it, that we allow people who live in this country, to tell others it's allright to kill British Soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan, (or anywhere else for that matter).
Barney, (ex soldier, non, repeat, non racist)
How crazy is it, that we allow people who live in this country, to tell others it's allright to kill British Soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan, (or anywhere else for that matter).
Barney, (ex soldier, non, repeat, non racist)
I have no problem with the 90 days. Like LB, if the police and security service say that's what they need, then I for one am happy to support that. I agree with the sunset clause though; that's a sensible check one year down the line.
BTW the 90 days are a MAXIMUM not a minimum.
John
BTW the 90 days are a MAXIMUM not a minimum.
John
This forum is not here to discuss political issues, especially one so delicate as this as it could be tantmount to racism. I think this subject should be removed by the moderator. Sorry Lord B and others I think you have overstepped the mark here.
Didn't read about any race, creed or religion in the above postings Colin, perhaps you're reading into something that isn't there. Let's get one thing straight, a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what colour of skin or from where in the world they come from but it's not surprising to see PC is rife in this forum too.
why 90 days? why not 45 or 120? if someone can tell me why 90
days is the magic number then i will agree.
but then is there anyone here who with all honesty wouldn't mind
being locked up for 90 days, with no rights, or do you wrongly
assume that someone could not be innocent,in this situation.
even lords can have powerfull enemies..
days is the magic number then i will agree.
but then is there anyone here who with all honesty wouldn't mind
being locked up for 90 days, with no rights, or do you wrongly
assume that someone could not be innocent,in this situation.
even lords can have powerfull enemies..
Quite simply the figure 90 is whats being asked for by the people who are supposed to carry out law and order in this country. People who are far more privy than the likes of us to whats needed to protect the public.
If it were the politicians who wanted it then I would fight it tooth and nail as it would be all to easily applied to anyone the government of the day did not like.
However, as I understand it - it is the Police that want the 90 days and they have made it clear that it will apply to terrorist suspects only.
The 90 days is what the Police have asked for - If that is what they need to help them prevent another 7th July then that is OK with me.
I DO FEEL much more comfortable with the 12 month review so parliament has a chance to change it after a year. This is a damn good example of democracy at work reaching a sensible compromise.
Those that set off bombs want to inflict their version of what is right on all of us. They will never do it via the vote as they are a minority - hence all the lies and violence.
God help us from those that believe absolutely that they and only they are right.
However, as I understand it - it is the Police that want the 90 days and they have made it clear that it will apply to terrorist suspects only.
The 90 days is what the Police have asked for - If that is what they need to help them prevent another 7th July then that is OK with me.
I DO FEEL much more comfortable with the 12 month review so parliament has a chance to change it after a year. This is a damn good example of democracy at work reaching a sensible compromise.
Those that set off bombs want to inflict their version of what is right on all of us. They will never do it via the vote as they are a minority - hence all the lies and violence.
God help us from those that believe absolutely that they and only they are right.
As the great science officer once said, "the needs of the many Jim, outweigh the needs of the few" or words to that effect.
Lord Braykewynde
I do not think 90 days would be right.
If the law thinks they are any think to do with terrorist then they shud be kept and till the law see if they are right. Were it be 90 days or 150 days they tuck the rights a way for the people who they kill so way shud we let them have any rights at all.
Mark
I do not think 90 days would be right.
If the law thinks they are any think to do with terrorist then they shud be kept and till the law see if they are right. Were it be 90 days or 150 days they tuck the rights a way for the people who they kill so way shud we let them have any rights at all.
Mark
Yes Clive, I agree it should be reviewed after 12 months. Terrorism shouldn't be about rubbing the oppositions noses in it. Until we as a nation stand together 100% we will always be a soft target for any extremists.
90 days is fair
as for locking them up until they are proved guilty! emm, what if they are innocent? What if it was you?
as for locking them up until they are proved guilty! emm, what if they are innocent? What if it was you?
Then again Steve, I wonder how the anti's would feel if they had lost a loved one from a bombing. OK they would probably say to turn the other cheek and that they forgave them. sighhhhhhhhh.
I think thats the problem here.
With 100% proof of being guilty then they deserve everything they get. But with just an investigation then the only thing that can be done is set limits.
Mind you, I also think the police in this country are useless and mostly lazy. But then again I have a good reason to think so!
This is a classic example of how the question is asked can drastically affect the outcome of a poll.
The question can be asked in two ways.
a) "Are you in favour off suspected terrorists being locked up for 90 days without being charged?"
b) "Are you in favour of suspected terrorists being locked up for 90 days without being charged if you or one of your family was killed or injured by a terrorist bomb?"
The outcome - two different answers to basically the same question.
The question can be asked in two ways.
a) "Are you in favour off suspected terrorists being locked up for 90 days without being charged?"
b) "Are you in favour of suspected terrorists being locked up for 90 days without being charged if you or one of your family was killed or injured by a terrorist bomb?"
The outcome - two different answers to basically the same question.
I must disagree that the police in this country are useless. There may be an element of uselessness in the force, the same as in any other profession or industry. The main problem with the police is the same as in any other nationalised service. It is top heavy with too many senior management and bureaucratic bumbling buffoons at the top creaming off the high saleries and those at the sharp end whether they are police, teachers, nurses, etc. getting all the flack. The police also have a rediculous amount of unnecessary paper work to complete after any arrest. All in all I think it must be soul destroying. Is it necessary? - what was wrong with the old fashioned bobby and their way of policing?
May I suggest that there be a policy on the Forum of no discussions encompassing the topics of: politics, religion or sex, although in the case of the latter I am always open to persuasion.
Seriously, the first 2 mentioned subjects will always cause either indignation or even worse offence to someone and countries have gone to war over them. So any chance they can be banned from a Forum that is interested in caravanning?
Seriously, the first 2 mentioned subjects will always cause either indignation or even worse offence to someone and countries have gone to war over them. So any chance they can be banned from a Forum that is interested in caravanning?
Damian
Moderator
In reply to david and his suggestion, surely, as long as a subject is raised in the correct part of the forums, such as Chit Chat, for non caravanning issues, then that is reasonable.
To ban politics, for example, is putting too many restraints on conversation, as one would not be able to discuss fuel increases, forthcoming legislation relating to cars and vans and a whole host of other "political" subjects.
Any subject is food for discussion, and as long as tose discussions carry on in a reasonable way, with no outright antagonism towards any one person, group or belief, then that is what free speech is all about.
I am certain that nobody who owns a caravan, and uses CC sites, never talks about any other subject, apart from Caravans, when using those sites, and as such, a similar parallell should prevail here.
To ban politics, for example, is putting too many restraints on conversation, as one would not be able to discuss fuel increases, forthcoming legislation relating to cars and vans and a whole host of other "political" subjects.
Any subject is food for discussion, and as long as tose discussions carry on in a reasonable way, with no outright antagonism towards any one person, group or belief, then that is what free speech is all about.
I am certain that nobody who owns a caravan, and uses CC sites, never talks about any other subject, apart from Caravans, when using those sites, and as such, a similar parallell should prevail here.
I am wholeheartedly in favour of free speech and reasonable discussions are not a problem. My concern is that almost inevitably the discussions end up being unreasonable. My view is that politcs, and religion are private matters which can be raised through the appropriate forums, such as elections, your MP, or your religious authority. I don't think that what is being discussed in this topic really falls under caravan use, I am sure there are political forums somewhere on the Web. Draw a line and at least everyone understands the rules, and limitations.
Damian
Moderator
David, you miss the point, I think.
The Chit Chat forum is precisely for this kind of discussion, look at the requirements for the forum,
Chit-chat
For non-caravan issues: jokes, trivia, gossip.
getting back on topic, anything that stopsa terrorist, of whatever race, creed, colour or religion gets my vote, as long as it is applied based on sound intelligence and not just on the assumption of possible links or on the gut feeling of one or two individuals.
The Chit Chat forum is precisely for this kind of discussion, look at the requirements for the forum,
Chit-chat
For non-caravan issues: jokes, trivia, gossip.
getting back on topic, anything that stopsa terrorist, of whatever race, creed, colour or religion gets my vote, as long as it is applied based on sound intelligence and not just on the assumption of possible links or on the gut feeling of one or two individuals.
Colin, it was not the managment of the police who allowed my 8 yr old son to be beaten in a shop, it was not the management who threatened to arrest me when I defended him. It was not the management who failed to call in the incidenet and it was not the management who claimed no knowledge of it when asked. No, it was the son of the guy who thought he had every right to beat an 8 yr old several times for falling over in fron of him and make him have to wait.
Another jumped up local police officer who is out to protect his own, sod the community!
Facebook
Twitter