Pete, on the whole I like you because you amuse me. You like to type controversial and deliberately provocative statements which foster reaction. All good sport. Sometimes, however, your statements smack of a genuine belief and when coupled with them having so little substance and demonstrating such a shallow understanding of the subject matter, I can't help but reply.

The issue, in its entirety, is a simple one.

Blair believes, perhaps sincerely, that the 90 days proposition is sound based on the assumption that it would allow the security services the time needed to build an admissable case. This seems fair, so why not? Well, sadly, to which the myriad comments on these boards will attest, there is a growing feeling that these powers could be abused by either this or a future government.

Those who have detracted from Blairs proposal have done so for reasons far more compelling then party politics.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4426024.stm - Ooops!

 

Gulf war one Jan 1991
twin towers attack November 2001

DUH !!!! such stupidity is indeed mindbending or had you forgotten in your senility

 

Moose, i think Pete is highlighting that the towers were targeted in 2001 *because* of the preceeding Iraq wars...

 

Don't forget the 1993 bombing of the Twin Towers - six dead and over a thousand injured. The planning for this started in 1991, following GW1.

 

Actually, i'm not so sure. Pete, are you saying we WOULD have been targeted, even if we hadn't got involved in the Middle East..?


(But still didn't understand your "mind-bending stupidity" comment...)

 

LOL!!!
Just come back to this today.

All I can say is, "Well done, Pete" You truly are a master in the art of windup!!!

Your bait for "fishing" is very potent - 10 pages on!!

LOL

Shame on you Scoobynet regulars YOU should know by now what he's like

Dan

 

So Blair is good for listening to public opinion on the 90 day clause...

..but also good for ignoring public opinion on the decision to go to war.

He can't have it both ways, as I think he's starting to discover.
Just wait until the education and health votes.

 

Time for Tonee to start cashing in on the book deal and the US of A tour I think

 

Firstly, thanks for the compliment

You then get all mixed up ..... Blair doesn't think the 90 day is sound alone!! He has been told by the professionals that it is needed!!

What some are saying on here is, "The Police and Security Services don't know as much as those wise souls on ScoobyNet!!" You must see the flaw in that at the very least!

So, Tony Blair has judged the advice from the experts, looked at public opinion, viewed the safety of the population as higher than his own political position ..................... and stood and was counted.

To say that the Tories are not making capital out of it is niaive to say the least - I fully appreciate that you believe what you do, but you've got it wrong!

Tony Blair has come out of this with absolute credit in most peoples eyes - he is, without doubt, our greatest peacetime leader!

And the history books will show it to be so .....................

Your grandchildren will be learning about the great leader Blair in History - long after the blind on here are no more!!

Pete

 

on an on an on an on an on an on an on .....repeat ..

 

And you ACTUALLY posted to say THAT!!??

You seriously are,

1. A Freak and,

2. Sad!!

FFS

Pete

 

I think most people would agree that the 90 day law is a good thing, but only if there is accountability (of which I have heard nothing!). Ok, say that you were looking round the internet and found a copy of the Terrorists handbook and downloaded it for a read (some people do this purely out of interest - know thine enemy and all that!), the police knock at your door the next day and arrest you under the anti-terrorism law. By the time they release you (without charge, pardon or compensation) you will have lost your job etc. Does this seem fair? I agree with holding people without charge for as long as neccessary, but there has to be some accountability involved imho.

 

You also habitually quote out of context which adds further doubt to the credibillity of your arguements. Some say that you're just a wind-up merchant, I say that you actually believe most of what you post and it is, on the whole, nonsense.

 

Every 7 days a Judge will decide whether to allow any more detention .......

Pete

 

Not sure I quoted you out of context??

Let me have an indication of your concerns and I will address them

Pete

 

To omit enitre portions of a paragraph will alter it's context Pete. Sometimes amusing, sometimes out of line.

 

Did I selectively pick lines from your post?? I didn't think I did?? Please show me where.

I might remove rubbish from posts now and again when I reply - but, thats taking out all the bile and spitting at me!!

Pete

 

Every 7 days a Judge will decide whether to allow any more detention .......

So the judge is accountable for possibly screwing up someones life??

I can it now "Yes m'lud, we still think he is a terrorist....yep....ok....see you next week!"

 

The state will be liable, yes - and claims will be paid to those with a genuine grievance.

Pete

 

Not according to a group of highly qualified academics whose opinion I lean towards over those of a ranting, septuagenarian fool. That's you, by the way.

 

No Pete - but that bit when you posted the Suns picture...? That one you didn't respond to?

The one where you took the picture totally out of context - and then when it was pointed out to you, you failed to respond.

You know, that one.

 

Thanks Matt - you beat me to it!

 

Yup once the full frontal labotomy is complete. But for those with a complete cerebelum it remains an attempt at moving to a police state. For the 117th time, please show how the 90 day legislation would have stopped our 2 cases of terroism (that have killed a whopping 53 people). Please, please show how, nobody has got close yet...I'm waiting...

 

I probably see it as not a bad thing, because it wont affect me, im not likely to be picked up for looking suspicious, maybe a selfish point of view here, or taken for granted even.
I still see that they're only going to nick dodgy people (within reason) and I think that assuming they have good enough grounds to keep them, various criteria met, etc, this should be allowed.

There are a lot of dodgy people out there and if it gets a few of em off the streets for some time, more the better.
I cant see that in many instances it will stop terrorism, but if it helped a little bit then im all for it. Maybe thats because of my first sentence in this post. I think actually half the term proposed would be better, 45 days.

 

You better not be white and any where near a road with a camera then.

If the grounds are there at the outset, why do they need another 90 days???

You mean like labour voters who think NL have gone too far? See the conference in Brighton!

Really? We have had two real world cases, show me how the 90 day law would have made a jot of difference in either case...

Show me how it did(n't) stop the two cases we have had and I may listen...

Errr - maybe effective policing rather than half asleep policing is the way to go huh??

 

Who have never stepped into the 'real' world in their lives!!

Mummies Tit,School, College, University and then ........ they stay at University, because the real world is a little bit scary!!

BTW, I understand that you 'lean' most ways!!

Pete

 

I decided that you are not worth a response from me .... after all, on page 3 of this thread you said, and I quote:-

"Oh, but of course. Your idiotic reply will simply be "the innocent have nothing to fear"

So? You seem to know what my replies will be and also call me an idiot for the reply I hadn't actually given!

So, as you can see, you appear to be the idiot!!!

Pete

 

Paulr,

I get the impression that you are pretty young really, especially since you suck up to Pikey PSL and try ineffectively to quote my comments on him against me. Shows a distinct lack of imagination and you might do better to stand back until you have got a little more experience of life in general.

Pikey PSL has done pretty well in the last couple of pages to undercut his own standing in the arguments quoted anyway. I should just let him take the extra bit of rope that everyone is handing him and finish himself off completely!

Les

 

Lesley

paulr doesn't deserve your insults .... he simply stated that you try to show yourself as the ScoobyNet 'statesman' yet you talk like a spolit bratt ...

Your posts belong in the gutter these days .... you have lost it completely!!

Pete