Someone said this earlier:

"Those who wish to do us and our our democracies harm are not constrained by current laws which are built on the tenet that people are basically good and are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise . Stronger laws are needed to deal with those that the current laws cannot touch."

So you're saying that they are not constrained by our laws? So, introducing NEW ones will constrain them? Do they suddenly decide that "Wow! More laws. They've gone too far this time. We can't win. Pack up lads. Time to go back to the cave"

We didn't need this kind of draconian legislation when we were facing **** Germany's war machine, so why should we need it just because of some tw@t cowering in a cave and a handful of his deluded supporters?

 

So you deny it happened?

Or are you just trying to deflect the argument (again)?

 

He's got his head in the sand with his bum sticking up

 

As I replied - for the most part, no I don't agree. Innocents have little to fear from terrorism, but plenty to fear from a Police force the is claimed to be racist and has wide reach powers of arrest with no need for suspicion or evidence.

The e-bay bit I fail to see the relevance of.

And as for this bit...
The point is that they want to be able to detain without the evidence. They claim they need 90 days to get some evidence, enough to actually progress with. As I said (and you seem to agree). Do not give them more time, give them the ability to get the required information in less time. If that means making ISP's and mobile companies keep better records for disclosure following due process then fine. Giving the police 90 days rather then 28 or 14 reduces the urgency for them to act.

 

You wish.

 

Well I guess you knew where I was going as well then

 

If I had my way I'd have you locked in a cell with my for 90 days with no chance of release

 

Does anyone remember the Apartheid days in South Africa? They had a then infamous 90 day rule. It allowed their police to lock whomsoever they disliked for 90 days without recourse to Justice.

Parliament got it right.

 

Just having a quick Google and one of the figures I've turned up is that approx. 3,500 people have died in Northern Ireland since the start of The Troubles in the late '60s. Interesting...

 

Nice example - it didn't work in NI either.

 

From The SUN :-

"TREACHEROUS MPs betrayed the British people last night by rejecting new laws to combat terror. They IGNORED the wishes of the vast majority of Britons and HUMILIATED Tony Blair by inflicting his first Commons defeat. Gutless Tory MPs were joined by up to 47 Labour rebels as they wrecked the PM's bid to hold terror suspects for 90 days without charge"

Spineless, gutless Tories!!

Pete

 

http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/sun_lies.jpg

Pete

 

"The reason for longer periods of detention before charge is primarilly due to the processing of evidence by scenes of crimes officers. Is a very slow and carefull procedure. It can take weeks to properly search and screen your average three bed semi, it can be like looking for a single human hair in an area the size of a football field. Much of the scientific testing takes weeks more.

In the recent terror searches in Leeds the analysis of the evidence at several proprties took about six weeks per building. Thats before detectives could start building a case. The periods of detention allowed currently for detaining suspects in this type of case are woefully inadequate and based on more straight forward types of domestic crime.

The authorities often have to rush vital stages in case building because of the added pressure of a time constraint, this could (in theory) lead to a case collapsing at court and the guilty party going free without charge to offend again. Not an ideal conclusion when you are talking about murderous terrorist atrocities.

The brave men and women who step up to the line in protecting us day and night have a tough enough job as it is, lets give them our support and not make it any harder for them"

Pete

 

Pete - you're an idiot. Sorry to be so blunt but really you just proved it.

That picture you're showing... look at the TITLE sunlies.jpg. The man in the photo complains that the Sun totally, totally misrepresented him.

The man in the photo is discussed on this same bloody forum!

Here: http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthrea...8&page=4&pp=20

and the link to where he complains about the Sun: http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...638838,00.html

You complete and utter muppet.

Plus: have you actually READ any of the posts? Have you looked at why the MP's rejected a law that itself would be unconstitutional?

Have you at any point today taken your head out of your ****?

 

You're a ***** of the highest order .... but, I'm too nice to say it on this public BBS!!!

Pete

 

That just about sums you up, bloggerheaded **** wipe!!!

LMAO

 

You really are a stupid moron arnt you Pete..

so its spineless gutless tory,s but labour rebels?? ,,, its like calling terrorists freedom fighters you really are so full of nl spin your mouth is your **** and vice versa

keep it up and remember there laughing at you not with you

Mart

 

Choice words .... they are Chav words, are they not??

Pete

 

M

Labour rebels because they rebelled against their party ...... spineless Tories, because they took a cheap shot (didn't give a **** about our safety just gaining points!!)

Utterly pathetic ...... I hate the Tories - but - I never thought they would be the party that was weak on terrorism and the causes of terrorism (hence spineless!!)

Pete

 

Former chairwoman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme:


"What [the intelligence services] are saying to us is that this kind of threat that we face now is different from the terrorist threat that we faced previously, with say, the IRA.

"The IRA were not engaged in a technique which was deliberately aimed at massive loss of life and where there was warning time and where therefore the commission of a crime , though terrible, nevertheless had much lesser effect than is the case now. "What people are saying is that prevention is absolutely crucial.

"We cannot afford to allow these crimes to take place.

"It therefore means that they [intelligence services] are put in a position where they have to investigate a conspiracy at a much earlier stage of its formation in order to in a sense keep us safe."

"Those who wish to defend our civil liberties - and I do wish to have my civil liberties defended - should listen carefully to what is being said about the much more difficult nature of the challenge that is faced at the moment by law enforcement and intelligence agencies."

Pete

 

Greater Manchester chief constable, writing in the Guardian newspaper, about the police request for 90 Day Detention:

"We have given that professional advice on one basis and one basis only, that these were the changes that professionals directly involved in the fight against terrorism felt were necessary to protect the people of this country from attack.


"That is the view not only of the Metropolitan Police, but of chief constables across the country and the terrorism committee that represents them."

Pete

 

well guess what pete,, thats exactly what your boss did

what was it tough on the causes of crime...

sold down the river wern,t you!!!

such a shame he has to have a last minute posturing session

dead man walking... he,ll be out by christmas!!


M

 

It only took 3 days to get Guy Fawkes to name his co-conspirators using the rack. Maybe we need to revise the way we question suspects nowadays...

 

What?? With the overwhelming support he has from the man-in-the-street???

Remember, 86% of the genersl public believe that Tony Blair has stood for their safety ........ and that the Tories have tried to gain a political edge - paid for by the general publics blood on the streets of the country.

Pete

 

What's this?? Pikey pete going all posh on me

I think he he's getting Tory aspirations...

 

I'd rather be called a pikey than a Chav!!

And wash your disgusting mouth out with soap!!

Pete

 

So what are we saying here? Given the chance you might lock up for the full 90 days an entirely innocent person (despite a judical review on their continuing custody every 7 days), you'd consider that letting them go at some arbitrary limit whilst evidence was still being gathered a better option?

Quite frankly as someone who's father wasn't on one of the tubes that blew up on 7/7 because it exploded at the station before it reached his, then I'm more than happy to hear that 1 in 1,000,000 of our citizens might be locked up accidentally for 90 days if it stops anything like this happening again.

Let's see if you feel the same if there is a terrorist spectacular in the near future. Civil liberties? Some of you haven't a ******* clue what it means. If abusing your civil rights means the police had to convince a judge 12 times there was a valid reason to keep you on remand for 3 months, then quite frankly I'd rather your 'rights' were suspended for a bit whilst my and my families 'right' to go about our normal business without fear or threat as taking precedence over yours.

 

man, I tell you what.... that's the funniest thing I've read on here for a while... spat my beer out...

Can we put that officially on record?

"pslewis would rather be called a pikey than a Chav!!"

Rock On....

 

OK - so give us a breakdown - how many of these people died after being dragged from their beds by IRA/UDA/LVF/RUC/Army and shot in the head, in comparison to those innocents who died going about their normal daily law abiding business? I think you will find that the number of completely innocent people who have died in Northern Ireland in the last 35 years is comparatively small. If you exclude all the terrorists, security forces, rioters, drug dealers etc etc then I can think of maybe 200, - more than likely there are another 200 that i can't remember - I think the death toll on the roads over here in the same period is about 5000. So are you suggesting we lock up all drivers for 90 days a year to save innocent lives?

Oh yeah - How many of these died as a result of internment - have a google of that and see how that policy brought down the Stormont gov in the 70's and led to another 20 years of killings by both sides.

 

Chav!