FORUM POLL

[BrianStAlbans]

To kill innocent people in an attempt to further a political or religious believe based on wrong or misguided information is terrorism and ALL measures should be taken to bring to justice those responsible, unless of course you happen to be a powerful world leader,in which case you will be re-elected.

 

[smiley]

David

Your comment on the quote of dennis thatcher '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'.

It does make sense, if you stay silent letting people assume you are a fool, then open your mouth and they confirm it.

Doesn't that proove you are a fool in the first place?

 

[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.

Agreed - Why is it that there are so many control freaks on this forum?

Hardly a day goes by without some "jobsworth" stating that in "thier view" this or that discussion should be banned, deleted or discussed elswhere.

Even if a couple of people start having an innocent "chat" - one of the selproclaimed thought police pops up saying "this is not the place for such frippery".

I think we should treat this forum more of a "campsite" where we can choose freely who we wish to converse with and on what topic. After all nobody goes round a campsite saying:-

"You cannot discuss technical issues on this part of the camp site - you have to go over their by the loos".

Or - "If you want to tell jokes you can only do it down there by the shop".

I do not want chaos with nobody following the sensible guidelines but when a subject evolves why do certain control freaks seem to love to pounce on anyone who deviates from the original subject?

Conversation is not like that unless you are a contestant on "Just a minute" !

 

[RichardH]

90 days yes but with a review by a judge every 30 days to ensure there is still good reason to continue to detain the person, none of this hold someone for 90 days just to p*ss them off

 

[GrahamW]

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.

David

The Chit chat forum (brainchild of the lovely Tina, paramedic extraordinaire and resident of the North West, if my memory serves) was specifically created by Mr Mod for any topic which was NOT to do with caravans. In fact it was a pre requisite that it should be non caravan issues only. How can you then say that this topic should not be aired in this particular part of the forum. You may legitimately have the view that it should not be aired (although I would not agree with you) but I don't see how you can complain about the place it is being debated.

 

[ProfJohnL]

90 days yes but with a review by a judge every 30 days to ensure there is still good reason to continue to detain the person, none of this hold someone for 90 days just to p*ss them off

Hello Richard,

It seems we disagree on another point! I simply ask that if you were the person being detained (and I am assuming you are not a terrorist) then surely you would prefer to have some light at the end of the tunnel?

 

[joeby]

I think the SAS had it right when they shot the 3 IRA terrorists in Gibralter ,they knew there target ,it saved the taxpayer millions keeping them in prison for years ,and saved some innocent person being held hostage bargaining to set them free

 

[VIP2006]

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.

When you see what restrictions our police have to put up with, I would have been agreeable for suspects involved in terrorism be held until proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they were not involved in what they are being held for, with no time limit being set. It seems to me that the people who investigate such crimes are tied hand and foot in there quest to bring culprits to justice and if we had officially declared war on terrorism then the rules of engagement would be a lot different to what we have in "peacetime".

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

I think the SAS had it right when they shot the 3 IRA terrorists in Gibralter ,they knew there target ,it saved the taxpayer millions keeping them in prison for years ,and saved some innocent person being held hostage bargaining to set them free

Here! Here!