FORUM POLL

[smiley]

Racism, Racism, Racism, Why do people think everthing is Racism. I hate the smell of coffee, hot chocolate, and curry's. You can call me racist, send me to jail, BUT I will never indulge or like the smell.

So what am I racist about and to who????

If you are aware there maybe a threat to person, country, nation then you must act and protect,

 

[smiley]

Ooooooops hit the wrong key.

protect, NO MATTER WHO OR WHERE THE DANGER ORIGINATES FROM

 

[baxtjhn@aol.com]

Smiley,

aaarrggg!!! life without coffee and curries,unimaginable

 

[DEANO3528]

As above. It's a forum, which means it's a discussion board, with currently no restraints on subjects so far raised.

The current thread has nothing to do with rascism, it's about the security of our country. Please treat it as such.

Yes, 90 days is a long time for someone who is innocent to be held but not long enough for a terrorist who is prepared to kill totally innocent members of the public and maybe your families in the support of what they they think is their cause. Rascist, me, nah I hate everybody!

 

[Lutz]

I don't go into the Chit Chat forum very much but when I do, I expect what it promises in the title: jokes, trivia, gossip, in other words something light-hearted and not a serious issue such as this. I've got nothing against raising the question in principle but it is something I'd prefer to discuss elsewhere.

(Perhaps I'm in danger of being at the receiving end because the spare wheel cover at the back of my car is covered with Arabic script - actually the name of a car dealer in Salalah, Oman)

 

[KenWashington]

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?"

The Chit Chat forum was introduced to allow discussion of non caravanning issues among a group of like-minded people, and to keep the other forums on track.

 

[DEANO3528]

Well there's no other current board it could fit on, Lutz, and His Lordship decided that the question needed asking.

I don't have a lot of time for the local plod, who seem to be nothing but bullies and jobsworths, but I have a lot of respect for the traffic guys.

Anyway, I have to be nice to the Arabs as they have the oil I need for the indecent amount of fuel for my V8!

 

[CliveV]

I am amazed at those who indicate that this topic should not have been raised. Are they seriously saying that because we have a caravan and use this forum that this topic cannot be of interest to us?

Or are they saying that they do not want it mentioned?

The first is naive in the extreme and the second is the worst form of insidious censorship.

I and a group of friends were at the Land Rover meet at Billing a week after the July Bombs - This topic was discussed at length then and we were all of the opinion that 14 days was not enough when the Police had to deal with "spider web" networks -encrypted computer data as well as the obvious language barrier.

(and before someone spits their dummy out over the last comment as being potentially racist - please note that the language barrier is something that the Police have stated as being a particular problem whereas it was not during the awful IRA campaigns - so the comment is realistic not racist)

As a group at Billing we were all pretty stunned that such a thing had happened so soon after the euphoria of the UK getting the Olympics just a few days before.

This Forums Chit Chat topic acts in the same way as a BBQ on a campsite - it allows for us all to state our views in an open and friendly manner. The modies control those that overstep the mark.

I would love to see the reaction of the majority to those at an actual BBQ who went round telling people what can and cannot be discussed.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

That last paragraph of yours Clive was food for thought - "I would love to see the reaction of the majority to those at an actual BBQ who went round telling people what can and cannot be discussed."

That just doesn't happen in real life when discussing issues, people all join in regardless of their opinions. Isn't it strange that it is only in online debates that some people object and try to silence people. Maybe it's because a moderator can delete the postings and in real life the only joy they would get in trying to stop sensible debate is by smacking someone in the mouth but then again they would have second thoughts because they would be in the minority.

 

[CliveV]

My point exactly.

The reason why I like THIS forum is that the modies only delete the abusive.

Your experiences on another Forum of late indicate clearly that this Forum is big enough to stand critiscm. That puts it way out ahead of the others.

Those that bleat on about topics "not being this or that" just look silly to me.

 

[smiley]

Changing the subject ever so slightly.

I noticed some of you times in the postings. Do you suffer from insomnia. Or just get up early to catch the early bird? ha ha

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Changing the subject ever so slightly.

I noticed some of you times in the postings. Do you suffer from insomnia. Or just get up early to catch the early bird? ha ha

Well I'm up early to take her Ladyship out to the fields, she oversees the serfs who are tending the land. Regarding at night I tuck her Ladyship up in bed then retire to the Library to partake of my Horlicks with Titillating Tina the Maid, nudge! nudge! wink! wink! ;O)

 

[ProfJohnL]

This is a serious topic, and whilst Lutz points out the title of this forum section is chit chat, clearly this topic would not sit comfortably anywhere else on this forum.

A number of people seem to have taken the view that this is a political topic, I strongly disagree. This is a matter of security and safety. The fact that these matters have to be debated by politicians is the only reason for a political angle.

There is no clear party political division on the subject, (witness the news reports of the arguments Mr Blair is having even within his own ranks).

The reasoning behind this type of legislation is that the police and other law enforcement organisations currently may have significant suspicions regarding the activities or intentions of a person, but with increasingly complex communications systems where it is easier to hide connections, case law determining the quality of evidence required to obtain convictions, the time and effort needed to corroborate evidence into a viable case is too short to fit into a standard time slot.

My own view on the question is that the police should have the flexibility to use what ever time they need to gather relevant evidence, but I am concerned that certain civil liberties may be curtailed.

My own proposal would be that the police may detain a suspect, but after a set period of only 24 hours they must register the detention with the courts. then the court will appoint an observation officer who will have the responsibility to ensure that the detainee is treated properly. In the event that the observation officer has any concerns about the detention he/she can immediately ask for a Judaical review by a judge. This removes the potential for political influence.

There should be an automatic Judaical review of the progress of the police every 30 days, to validate the continuing detention without charge.

This process would give the police the freedom they need, protect the basic rights of the detainee, and could even if necessary extend beyond the 90 days Mr Blair is advocating.

 

[Roger_5040982]

As the great science officer once said, "the needs of the many Jim, outweigh the needs of the few" or words to that effect.

Oh happy memories

It reads: the needs of the many

out weigh the needs of the few

or the one

Live long and prosper

 

[baxtjhn@aol.com]

I think the police will always be in a no win situation,their damned if they do and they are damned if they don't.

There has been some criticism aimed at the police and whilst I agree there are good and bad in all walks of life,we could'nt do without them.

We have to remember they are dealing with people who in some cases are prepared to die for their beliefs.

Being detained is no big deal to them,if they fail someone else will succeed.

I agree with the 90 days,even longer if required but you know what will happen then,all the so called do gooders will start complaining about these poor individuals been kept for so long.

Horrendous conditions being poorly treated etc.

This just does not happen in UK today,the police have to make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed or the case will collapse with a descent solicitor,which you and I will pay for..

Bottom line is,and it has been said,what if it was your daughter/son/wife /mother etc.

The police detain when they have reasonable cause to suspect an individual is involved,they don't just *** out and pick up a dodgy looking character.

As one post has already stated,these people plan for years,are the police expected to wrap it all up in a couple of weeks.

How many of us would approach someone suspected of having a bomb in their rucksack and can detonate at will...not me

 

[smiley]

Well I'm up early to take her Ladyship out to the fields, she oversees the serfs who are tending the land. Regarding at night I tuck her Ladyship up in bed then retire to the Library to partake of my Horlicks with Titillating Tina the Maid, nudge! nudge! wink! wink! ;O)

It must be very tiring !!! But doesn't Horlicks send you to sleep?

 

[logan_5085367]

I tend to agree,most of us would not want to be a policeman or to be PC ,policewoman,or should I say police officer.

Especially in big cities like London where the terrorists target.

As john.b. stated,police do not just pick up anyone,there would have to be some evidence linking them to a crime.

Dna and other means of evidence take time to gather and analyse, so it would therefore make sense to allow police and other services a reasonable time to piece the jigsaw together.

These terrorists seem to have unlimited funds and cover their tracks pretty well,so it all takes time and the police are probably on a tighter budget than the terrorists......

 

[PaulA3]

My worry is the mis use of these new terror laws, we have the case of MDHB stopping fishing on the dock wall 2 fishermen have be found guilty under this law and fined details can be seen here http://castandcatch.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2731 and also here http://www.practicalcaravan.com/newforums/fm_messages.asp?FO=205&FM=82457

 

[Guest]

Paula,

Thank you for introducing a degree of sanity.

There has been on the Forum in the last few days only what can be described as a 'feeding frenzy' of people trying to outdo each other in comments that range from the sublime to the ridiculous.

I feel that a quotation once given by Denis Thatcher is appropriate. 'It is far better to remain silent and let everybody assume you are a fool, than to open your mouth and have them confirm it'.

In the case of increased police powers I can only state that I have lived in countries with police states, and also in extreme Islamic States. Neither were examples of places I wished to spend the rest of my life. Fear was an ever present part of daily life. Our democracy is very important to us all, and as part of that is the case of free speech. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you, is against you, and must therefore be stamped out, is contrary to democracy. We have a Parliamentary democracy, therefore if we disagree with what our government is doing, we have the right to show that disagreement through the ballot box. At the last election the very low turnout suggested many people were more interested in what was on the television, than deciding the make up of their government. I would ask that sending any such comments, on any governmental issue, to your MP is a good first step to getting your grievances addressed, after all it is your democratic right.

I would also point out that our current PM has voted 3 times against similar terror legislation in the past, when he was in opposition, has released convicted terrorists when it suited his political ends and noting the number of people confined within Belmarsh, there seems to be a disproportionate lack of convictions, even after many months. It can also be stated that the London bombers were not on any terrorist subject list, or under any suspicion. Therefore I view any proposals he presents regarding increased police powers, with a degree of scepticism.

Therefore I find it abhorrent that people using this Forum categorise anyone who disagrees with them as 'being politically correct' and therefore should be 'stamped out'. I am neither politically correct, nor a pacifist (or terrorist lover). I have merely stated that when I join a caravan Forum, I expect the issues being discussed to be primarily caravan orientated. If I wish to discuss politics, I will join a political forum.

Now that the Motion on this issue has been defeated in the House of Parliament I hope the matter will rest, and we can get back to what we are primarily here for, namely caravans.

 

[baxtjhn@aol.com]

David,

think you should realise that this particular topic is for non-caravan issues.Surely your suggestion that subjects such as this should not be discussed would bring about the kind of police state you refered to.

I think its fair to say most people have expressed their opinion on the topic as in fact you have in your lengthy contribution.

At the end of the day you were not forced to view the topic ,if

its not your cup of tea,don't take part.

I do not wish to appear rude but actually find your post quite hypocritical trying to suppress freedom of speech but not for yourself.

 

[Lol1]

You seem to have strong opinions on this subject David. Could you tell us what these terrorists/holy groups are fighting for?

 

[CliveV]

Hi David

You make some valid points but as far as I am concerned you waste them due to your request;-

"So any chance they can be banned from a Forum that is interested in caravanning?"

For the record your whole post was as follows so it can be seen in context:-

"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?"

Sadly once again an individual with one view wants the views of others "banned".

As I said on another thread - if this was a BBQ on a Camp site you, David, would get short shrift from the majority if you tried to control the conversation as you try to do here.

The topic is relevant to all and what the hell if it is appearing on the chit chat topic on a caravan forum - do caravanners not have opinions in that world of yours?

I for one respect the views of parliament as it was born of the democratic process. I do not respect your stance as you wish to suppress the voices of others.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

David,

think you should realise that this particular topic is for non-caravan issues.Surely your suggestion that subjects such as this should not be discussed would bring about the kind of police state you refered to.

I think its fair to say most people have expressed their opinion on the topic as in fact you have in your lengthy contribution.

At the end of the day you were not forced to view the topic ,if

its not your cup of tea,don't take part.

I do not wish to appear rude but actually find your post quite hypocritical trying to suppress freedom of speech but not for yourself.

Here here John b . I do wish some people would re-read their postings and what they are inferring. Typical silent minority, try to silence the majority by censorship.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Hi David

You make some valid points but as far as I am concerned you waste them due to your request;-

"So any chance they can be banned from a Forum that is interested in caravanning?"

For the record your whole post was as follows so it can be seen in context:-

"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?"

Sadly once again an individual with one view wants the views of others "banned".

As I said on another thread - if this was a BBQ on a Camp site you, David, would get short shrift from the majority if you tried to control the conversation as you try to do here.

The topic is relevant to all and what the hell if it is appearing on the chit chat topic on a caravan forum - do caravanners not have opinions in that world of yours?

I for one respect the views of parliament as it was born of the democratic process. I do not respect your stance as you wish to suppress the voices of others.

Well spoken Clive. All valid points. I will repost my comment I made in John b's post before I read yours - I do wish some people would re-read their postings and what they are inferring. Typical silent minority, try to silence the majority by their own form of censorship.

 

[baxtjhn@aol.com]

Here here John b . I do wish some people would re-read their postings and what they are inferring. Typical silent minority, try to silence the majority by censorship.

L.B

could'nt agree more