The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Wow...so he lost his first parliamentary vote.
He fails to build a cross parliamentary concensus on an issue that the Tories would generally have supported if only on the principle that it'd see brown people imprisoned for no reason.
He tries to bully his own party into voting for it because "I want it".
He presents no evidence as to why the police need the 90 day detention, yet says "The need for this is clear".
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard, but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the accused's legal rep.
He gets the chance to work out a compromise, but refuses to even countenance it as it means not getting his own way.
And he doesn't even acknowledge that locking people up for 3 months might radicalise otherwise moderate people.
Not forgetting the fact that he hasn't bothered to present an alternative plan of "hey, why don't we give the police more resources so that they can do their job, rather than constantly cutting back on them in order to line our own pockets".
And what is his response? Utter fury that he doesn't get his way. The squealing of a petulant child who has found that the rest of the kids in the playground won't do what he wants. Whatever your opinions of the 90 day thing, I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious, can I?
He fails to build a cross parliamentary concensus on an issue that the Tories would generally have supported if only on the principle that it'd see brown people imprisoned for no reason.
He tries to bully his own party into voting for it because "I want it".
He presents no evidence as to why the police need the 90 day detention, yet says "The need for this is clear".
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard, but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the accused's legal rep.
He gets the chance to work out a compromise, but refuses to even countenance it as it means not getting his own way.
And he doesn't even acknowledge that locking people up for 3 months might radicalise otherwise moderate people.
Not forgetting the fact that he hasn't bothered to present an alternative plan of "hey, why don't we give the police more resources so that they can do their job, rather than constantly cutting back on them in order to line our own pockets".
And what is his response? Utter fury that he doesn't get his way. The squealing of a petulant child who has found that the rest of the kids in the playground won't do what he wants. Whatever your opinions of the 90 day thing, I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious, can I?
Page:
Light wrote:
> Okay, but the thing is (as I was saying to Hedfix), a 90 day policy
> would not have stopped July 7th, so why therefore would it stop
> another such attack?
Personally, I don't claim it would stop an attack. But if someone is suspected of having links to terrorism, it could prevent them from being released after a week and 'disappearing' before hard evidence is found, only to re-appear weeks later on a bus with a bomb strapped to them. To me, that's worth it.
> You also say "Once convicted of a crime, you should lose all
> rights" (a paraphrasing, but you see what I mean). Those
> detained for 90 days are innocent. They have been convicted of no
> crime. What about their rights?
In fairness, I didn't say that in direct relation to the 90-day issue - it was just a general opinion on the way human rights laws are often used.
However, no-one has yet been detained for 90 days (not counting Guantanamo Bay) because the law doesn't exist yet - so I presume you're speaking hypothetically.
So, hypothetically... we don't necessarily know that those detained are innocent - there would presumably be reasonable suspicion of intent, that's why they're being held in the first place.
Strictly speaking, everyone is innocent until they actually commit the crime. If there is suspicion of intent, detaining them is the only way to prevent the actual event.
Yes, you may occasionally detain an innocent person, but that has to be better than doing nothing because of "human rights" and letting those who are (or would be) guilty blow up a bus. It's surely better to hold an innocent man while you investigate, than risk releasing a 'guilty' man and have him kill hundreds of people?
There is no ideal solution, but I'd prefer to follow the route that may save lives rather than that which will inevitably cost them.
In general I agree with "innocent until proven guilty", but as is often the case, law can't always be seen as simply black and white. There are cases - terrorism being the current obvious example - where things are suspected or known about people, but take time to be proven.
In such cases, particularly where people are known or believed to be dangerous to others, I think it is common sense to hold them until proof is obtained one way or another. The rights of certain individuals should be taken away, at least temporarily, if that individual's release may affect the rights and/or lives of the population in general. I may not be explaining myself very well, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
> Finally (for now), if you accept that the shooting was an accident
> (or even if you don't), what is to stop another such accident and
> attempted cover-up?
Well, as far as preventing the shooting, that's something we'd all like to know. Unfortunately I don't think you can stop it happening again. It's just a 'necessary risk' (for want of a better expression) when dealing with this particular subject.
As for the attempted cover-up - I have no solution, because I don't know the cause. I'm only certain that they wouldn't have shot an innocent man deliberately. All I can put it down to is a complete breakdown in organisation and communication. It all seems utterly stupid. With so many witnesses, I don't see how they could have intentionally tried to cover it and realistically had any hope of pulling it off.
> Okay, but the thing is (as I was saying to Hedfix), a 90 day policy
> would not have stopped July 7th, so why therefore would it stop
> another such attack?
Personally, I don't claim it would stop an attack. But if someone is suspected of having links to terrorism, it could prevent them from being released after a week and 'disappearing' before hard evidence is found, only to re-appear weeks later on a bus with a bomb strapped to them. To me, that's worth it.
> You also say "Once convicted of a crime, you should lose all
> rights" (a paraphrasing, but you see what I mean). Those
> detained for 90 days are innocent. They have been convicted of no
> crime. What about their rights?
In fairness, I didn't say that in direct relation to the 90-day issue - it was just a general opinion on the way human rights laws are often used.
However, no-one has yet been detained for 90 days (not counting Guantanamo Bay) because the law doesn't exist yet - so I presume you're speaking hypothetically.
So, hypothetically... we don't necessarily know that those detained are innocent - there would presumably be reasonable suspicion of intent, that's why they're being held in the first place.
Strictly speaking, everyone is innocent until they actually commit the crime. If there is suspicion of intent, detaining them is the only way to prevent the actual event.
Yes, you may occasionally detain an innocent person, but that has to be better than doing nothing because of "human rights" and letting those who are (or would be) guilty blow up a bus. It's surely better to hold an innocent man while you investigate, than risk releasing a 'guilty' man and have him kill hundreds of people?
There is no ideal solution, but I'd prefer to follow the route that may save lives rather than that which will inevitably cost them.
In general I agree with "innocent until proven guilty", but as is often the case, law can't always be seen as simply black and white. There are cases - terrorism being the current obvious example - where things are suspected or known about people, but take time to be proven.
In such cases, particularly where people are known or believed to be dangerous to others, I think it is common sense to hold them until proof is obtained one way or another. The rights of certain individuals should be taken away, at least temporarily, if that individual's release may affect the rights and/or lives of the population in general. I may not be explaining myself very well, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
> Finally (for now), if you accept that the shooting was an accident
> (or even if you don't), what is to stop another such accident and
> attempted cover-up?
Well, as far as preventing the shooting, that's something we'd all like to know. Unfortunately I don't think you can stop it happening again. It's just a 'necessary risk' (for want of a better expression) when dealing with this particular subject.
As for the attempted cover-up - I have no solution, because I don't know the cause. I'm only certain that they wouldn't have shot an innocent man deliberately. All I can put it down to is a complete breakdown in organisation and communication. It all seems utterly stupid. With so many witnesses, I don't see how they could have intentionally tried to cover it and realistically had any hope of pulling it off.
Your Honour wrote:
> Would you still not see a problem if it was you, or a member of your
> family, or close friend that was locked up?
Obviously no-one would like being locked up, but it can happen with regard to any crime - not just terrorism.
If it was someone I knew, I'd be shocked but I wouldn't necessarily be bothered. As we've seen from the relatives of those we know were involved, we don't always know people as well as we might think. We can only be 100% sure about ourselves.
If it were me personally, obviously I wouldn't like it. No-one would. But I would at least understand the reasoning behind it, be as co-operative as possible, and be confident of release. If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear. I don't believe police fit-ups are common occurrences. :-)
What needs to be remembered is that they wouldn't be banging people up just for the hell of it - there would have to be (in theory - and this is what would need to be shown) some valid reason for the detention.
> Would you still not see a problem if it was you, or a member of your
> family, or close friend that was locked up?
Obviously no-one would like being locked up, but it can happen with regard to any crime - not just terrorism.
If it was someone I knew, I'd be shocked but I wouldn't necessarily be bothered. As we've seen from the relatives of those we know were involved, we don't always know people as well as we might think. We can only be 100% sure about ourselves.
If it were me personally, obviously I wouldn't like it. No-one would. But I would at least understand the reasoning behind it, be as co-operative as possible, and be confident of release. If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear. I don't believe police fit-ups are common occurrences. :-)
What needs to be remembered is that they wouldn't be banging people up just for the hell of it - there would have to be (in theory - and this is what would need to be shown) some valid reason for the detention.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I'm all for the 90-day policy.
>
> I'd rather lock up 10 innocent men for 90 days than let one real
> terrorist walk free on "human rights" issues to kill
> another 50 or more.
>
> True, if the police had sufficient resources, they may not need 90
> days. But they don't, so they do. As with many things in life,
> that's just the way it is. You do the best with what you've got.
>
> 90 days versus 50+ innocent lives. Don't see a problem myself.
Hit the nail on the head there that is completely my view on the matter. I'd rather 10 innocent people and 1 terrorist get locked up to prevent a terror attack than let a terrorist go free and blow up innocent civilians.
Lipe - your question about myself, family or friends being jailed for 90 days under suspicion I wouldn't mind as long as justice was done. OK 90 days in jail for doing nothing wrong isn't pleasant but like I said before the police won't take this course of action unless some reasonable suspicion is created.
> As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea.
> Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to
> let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once
> convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights.
> After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of
> your crime.
Agreed again. I have an opinion that if convicted of murder beyond all doubt you should lose your most basic of rights - your life. OK you may not agree but I think it should be a life for a life / lives and it's a waste of money keeping people like Ian Huntley in jail for life (or 40 years minimum). Lets face it terrorism is about one thing - killing people and if they don't succeed in killing themselves we should do it for them.
> The shooting of de Menezes... a terrible and tragic accident, and one
> almighty balls-up - no doubt whatsoever. The fact remains, though,
> that had he gone back to Brazil when his visa expired in 2003, he
> would still be alive today.
> Let me be absolutely clear - I'm not for a moment suggesting that
> this negates or excuses what happened, or that he somehow deserved
> it. Nor should this be perceived as a "bloody illegal
> immigrants" rant.
>
> It's simply a fact that had he left when he was supposed to, he
> couldn't have been mistakenly identified as a terrorist, and the
> chances are that no-one would have died that day. It was his own
> decision to break the law in a completely unrelated area which
> ultimately and tragically cost him his life.
> Say what you like about the police, but I don't for a second believe
> that they intentionally shot dead an innocent man. When capturing
> him on the tube, something must have happened which caused the
> police/special forces (whichever they were) to believe that he posed a
> threat to them and the surrounding public, causing them to make that
> split-second decision to open fire.
> I don't think we will ever know exactly what that something was. If
> they believed him to be a suspect, I'm sure that they would have much
> preferred to keep him alive in the hope of gaining information about
> others.
> We expect to be protected by the police, but as soon as something
> goes wrong people want them hung out to dry. Accidents happen, and
> some are more costly than others. Until we have Robocop on patrol,
> human error will always be a factor, no matter how highly trained
> people are. Had de Menezes actually turned out to be one of the
> bombers, we'd all be hailing these officers as heroes and demanding
> that they receive medals for a job well done.
I'm not condoning the police who carried out this act but put yourselves in their shoes. You're responsible for millions of lives and you're faced with a person who you believe could blow you and hundreds of innocent day to day tube passengers to bits. Kill one person or risk them killing hundreds. See it without hindsight and you'd probably do the same. I would.
> Unfortunately, all this furore may just cause officers involved in
> future incidents to hesitate - by which time it may be too late, and
> another 50 people may be dead as a result.
Hopefully that won't happen but the mass hysteria that was generated by the media really didn't help matters one bit.
> I'm all for the 90-day policy.
>
> I'd rather lock up 10 innocent men for 90 days than let one real
> terrorist walk free on "human rights" issues to kill
> another 50 or more.
>
> True, if the police had sufficient resources, they may not need 90
> days. But they don't, so they do. As with many things in life,
> that's just the way it is. You do the best with what you've got.
>
> 90 days versus 50+ innocent lives. Don't see a problem myself.
Hit the nail on the head there that is completely my view on the matter. I'd rather 10 innocent people and 1 terrorist get locked up to prevent a terror attack than let a terrorist go free and blow up innocent civilians.
Lipe - your question about myself, family or friends being jailed for 90 days under suspicion I wouldn't mind as long as justice was done. OK 90 days in jail for doing nothing wrong isn't pleasant but like I said before the police won't take this course of action unless some reasonable suspicion is created.
> As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea.
> Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to
> let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once
> convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights.
> After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of
> your crime.
Agreed again. I have an opinion that if convicted of murder beyond all doubt you should lose your most basic of rights - your life. OK you may not agree but I think it should be a life for a life / lives and it's a waste of money keeping people like Ian Huntley in jail for life (or 40 years minimum). Lets face it terrorism is about one thing - killing people and if they don't succeed in killing themselves we should do it for them.
> The shooting of de Menezes... a terrible and tragic accident, and one
> almighty balls-up - no doubt whatsoever. The fact remains, though,
> that had he gone back to Brazil when his visa expired in 2003, he
> would still be alive today.
> Let me be absolutely clear - I'm not for a moment suggesting that
> this negates or excuses what happened, or that he somehow deserved
> it. Nor should this be perceived as a "bloody illegal
> immigrants" rant.
>
> It's simply a fact that had he left when he was supposed to, he
> couldn't have been mistakenly identified as a terrorist, and the
> chances are that no-one would have died that day. It was his own
> decision to break the law in a completely unrelated area which
> ultimately and tragically cost him his life.
> Say what you like about the police, but I don't for a second believe
> that they intentionally shot dead an innocent man. When capturing
> him on the tube, something must have happened which caused the
> police/special forces (whichever they were) to believe that he posed a
> threat to them and the surrounding public, causing them to make that
> split-second decision to open fire.
> I don't think we will ever know exactly what that something was. If
> they believed him to be a suspect, I'm sure that they would have much
> preferred to keep him alive in the hope of gaining information about
> others.
> We expect to be protected by the police, but as soon as something
> goes wrong people want them hung out to dry. Accidents happen, and
> some are more costly than others. Until we have Robocop on patrol,
> human error will always be a factor, no matter how highly trained
> people are. Had de Menezes actually turned out to be one of the
> bombers, we'd all be hailing these officers as heroes and demanding
> that they receive medals for a job well done.
I'm not condoning the police who carried out this act but put yourselves in their shoes. You're responsible for millions of lives and you're faced with a person who you believe could blow you and hundreds of innocent day to day tube passengers to bits. Kill one person or risk them killing hundreds. See it without hindsight and you'd probably do the same. I would.
> Unfortunately, all this furore may just cause officers involved in
> future incidents to hesitate - by which time it may be too late, and
> another 50 people may be dead as a result.
Hopefully that won't happen but the mass hysteria that was generated by the media really didn't help matters one bit.
As Howard said, when has there been a case which requied the full 90 days to convict a suspected terrorist? It's clear by then they would hardly have enough evidence to last a trial. Hell, in that time they could plant their own "evidence" in.
Why bother?
It was hypothetical and fairly 'light' and I'm not prepared to get into it any deeper because I'm simply not that interested.
Were this discussion to have any effect on the real world's political climate then I would bother, but it doesn't so I won't.
Going to puff-up again and call me a coward?
It was hypothetical and fairly 'light' and I'm not prepared to get into it any deeper because I'm simply not that interested.
Were this discussion to have any effect on the real world's political climate then I would bother, but it doesn't so I won't.
Going to puff-up again and call me a coward?
Hedfix wrote:
> stuff
And once more, your provocations and your faux-mateyness aside; point out where I have avoided your questions. I will answer them. I would ask you return the courtesy.
> stuff
And once more, your provocations and your faux-mateyness aside; point out where I have avoided your questions. I will answer them. I would ask you return the courtesy.
Your Honour wrote:
> Ok, I wanted to be ignored anyway.
Well you got your wish for a half-hour while I went and had dinner.
Happy?
> Ok, I wanted to be ignored anyway.
Well you got your wish for a half-hour while I went and had dinner.
Happy?
*Un-ignores*
Light wrote:
> I've made it personal because, frankly, Blair isn't the only one who
> has thrown a rattle out of the pram.
This is true, is your rattle full of sarcasm because you liberally sprinkled it earlier on waaaaaay before I started. OH NOES! You did it first! But you always do that, so I wasn't surprised.
>
> You keep saying "He started it" and "I'm just trying
> to have a discussion". Yet it's clear throughout the course of
> this thread that you're simply having a sulk and taking your ball
> away.
'fraid not. As with the 'integrity thread' you see I only have a limited patience for political discussion before I decide to drop it and look for something more interesting to discuss. Clearly you find it more interesting than I do but then you resort to tired insults like "taking your ball away" etc.
It's not needed, at-least not when you're trying to be taken seriously.
>
> The instant I asked you to prove one of your statements (that I've
> avoided your quesions) or give a reasoned argument (as to why 90 days
> is so vital when it would have made no difference to the attacks that
> have already occured), you suddenly can't be bothered. That is simple
> cowardice on your part.
Well we can't all be so incredibly angry so as to be lashing out at people on the internet now can we? I got bored with it, I was quite happy to suggest some interesting hypotheticals but when you pushed for more substantial facts I wasn't prepared to research further nor did I find it interesting enough to bother. Now you've got to jump in with the emotive call of "You're a coward" when it's simply that you're more interested in the subject than I am.
Bothered?
>
> Should you wish to observe an actual debate, please do stick around
> to watch Smedlos and myself; both of us seem to have an understanding
> of how to debate without fits of self-aggrandising pique.
Oh la de da! We some of us prefer to pop the puffed-up balloons who take poklitical debate on the internet a leeeetle too seriously.
However, if
> you simply wish to stomp around and get upset that someone has had
> the nerve to ask you some questions...
Ok, shall we do that? Might be fun. *Jumps around* I came to get down, I came to get down! :D
well, I believe Belldandy is
> probably looking for some friends. You'd be an excellent candidate.
Well Belldandy certainly does need some friends but I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum really. Still opposites attract...
I hope you get locked-up for 28 days, you scoundrel. ;P
Light wrote:
> I've made it personal because, frankly, Blair isn't the only one who
> has thrown a rattle out of the pram.
This is true, is your rattle full of sarcasm because you liberally sprinkled it earlier on waaaaaay before I started. OH NOES! You did it first! But you always do that, so I wasn't surprised.
>
> You keep saying "He started it" and "I'm just trying
> to have a discussion". Yet it's clear throughout the course of
> this thread that you're simply having a sulk and taking your ball
> away.
'fraid not. As with the 'integrity thread' you see I only have a limited patience for political discussion before I decide to drop it and look for something more interesting to discuss. Clearly you find it more interesting than I do but then you resort to tired insults like "taking your ball away" etc.
It's not needed, at-least not when you're trying to be taken seriously.
>
> The instant I asked you to prove one of your statements (that I've
> avoided your quesions) or give a reasoned argument (as to why 90 days
> is so vital when it would have made no difference to the attacks that
> have already occured), you suddenly can't be bothered. That is simple
> cowardice on your part.
Well we can't all be so incredibly angry so as to be lashing out at people on the internet now can we? I got bored with it, I was quite happy to suggest some interesting hypotheticals but when you pushed for more substantial facts I wasn't prepared to research further nor did I find it interesting enough to bother. Now you've got to jump in with the emotive call of "You're a coward" when it's simply that you're more interested in the subject than I am.
Bothered?
>
> Should you wish to observe an actual debate, please do stick around
> to watch Smedlos and myself; both of us seem to have an understanding
> of how to debate without fits of self-aggrandising pique.
Oh la de da! We some of us prefer to pop the puffed-up balloons who take poklitical debate on the internet a leeeetle too seriously.
However, if
> you simply wish to stomp around and get upset that someone has had
> the nerve to ask you some questions...
Ok, shall we do that? Might be fun. *Jumps around* I came to get down, I came to get down! :D
well, I believe Belldandy is
> probably looking for some friends. You'd be an excellent candidate.
Well Belldandy certainly does need some friends but I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum really. Still opposites attract...
I hope you get locked-up for 28 days, you scoundrel. ;P
Your Honour wrote:
> You lost your argument in the first sentence, as far as Joe Public
> are concerned. Tax Increase. No government would do that for fear of
> getting kicked out come next election.
Which is why anyone opposed to throwing people in prison for 90 days for no reason than they're brown is being painted as a turrist sympathising naif.
Plus I think you're doing a disservice to a lot of people; the arguments for tax increases is no longer rejected out of hand. And that's before I even get started on the multitude of stealth taxes that have been introduced since 1997.
Anyway, that's an argument for another time!
>
> Because he was too busy with Dubya planning to invade Afghanistan
> and, later, Iraq, silly. :-)
Doh! Of course...
> I've wasted enough time chatting about him, it's just impossible to
> have any kind of reasoned discussion. Anyway, I deviate again. Why
> are they pushing to get this 90 days thing then? What's so good about
> it? Surely they must think they'll get some gain from it, otherwise
> they wouldn't put so much time and effort trying to get it through?
What's so good about it? The police asked for it.
That's the only reason; the police want it. Possibly because they know that there is little point in asking for extra money, so this is the next best thing. I agree that the current situation is unsatisfactory; the police don't have enough time and resources to do everything that is being asked for them. My approach is to audit exactly what we are asking from them, and give them sufficient resources to do it.
> You lost your argument in the first sentence, as far as Joe Public
> are concerned. Tax Increase. No government would do that for fear of
> getting kicked out come next election.
Which is why anyone opposed to throwing people in prison for 90 days for no reason than they're brown is being painted as a turrist sympathising naif.
Plus I think you're doing a disservice to a lot of people; the arguments for tax increases is no longer rejected out of hand. And that's before I even get started on the multitude of stealth taxes that have been introduced since 1997.
Anyway, that's an argument for another time!
>
> Because he was too busy with Dubya planning to invade Afghanistan
> and, later, Iraq, silly. :-)
Doh! Of course...
> I've wasted enough time chatting about him, it's just impossible to
> have any kind of reasoned discussion. Anyway, I deviate again. Why
> are they pushing to get this 90 days thing then? What's so good about
> it? Surely they must think they'll get some gain from it, otherwise
> they wouldn't put so much time and effort trying to get it through?
What's so good about it? The police asked for it.
That's the only reason; the police want it. Possibly because they know that there is little point in asking for extra money, so this is the next best thing. I agree that the current situation is unsatisfactory; the police don't have enough time and resources to do everything that is being asked for them. My approach is to audit exactly what we are asking from them, and give them sufficient resources to do it.
Light wrote:
> Basically, my alternative would be a small tax increase in order to
> give Public Services (particularly the Police with reference to this
> topic) the training and manpower that they actually require. There
> was a report a couple of weeks ago about the low standards and poor
> training in many police forces. More money = better policing.
You lost your argument in the first sentence, as far as Joe Public are concerned. Tax Increase. No government would do that for fear of getting kicked out come next election.
Personally I think it's a good idea. People moan when they get substandard service from doctors, dentists etc - but if they want better, they should be prepared to pay for it. Anyway, I digress, but basically, I agree with you.
> You're right, it would certainly take a while. My main question would
> be to ask why Blair hadn't thought of it long before this (bearing in
> mind we had been warned of an attack on UK soil since 9/11), and
> planned for the desperately needed additional resources long
> beforehand.
Because he was too busy with Dubya planning to invade Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, silly. :-)
> I disagree; as the current detention system works, why change it? As
> I was saying before our little friend stomped off to him mummy, the
> 90 day limit would have made no difference to the attack that we have
> had on UK territory. So what difference would it make now, and why
> aren't we being told what the difference is in any more detail than
> "If we don't get it, turrists will attack"?
I've wasted enough time chatting about him, it's just impossible to have any kind of reasoned discussion. Anyway, I deviate again. Why are they pushing to get this 90 days thing then? What's so good about it? Surely they must think they'll get some gain from it, otherwise they wouldn't put so much time and effort trying to get it through?
> Basically, my alternative would be a small tax increase in order to
> give Public Services (particularly the Police with reference to this
> topic) the training and manpower that they actually require. There
> was a report a couple of weeks ago about the low standards and poor
> training in many police forces. More money = better policing.
You lost your argument in the first sentence, as far as Joe Public are concerned. Tax Increase. No government would do that for fear of getting kicked out come next election.
Personally I think it's a good idea. People moan when they get substandard service from doctors, dentists etc - but if they want better, they should be prepared to pay for it. Anyway, I digress, but basically, I agree with you.
> You're right, it would certainly take a while. My main question would
> be to ask why Blair hadn't thought of it long before this (bearing in
> mind we had been warned of an attack on UK soil since 9/11), and
> planned for the desperately needed additional resources long
> beforehand.
Because he was too busy with Dubya planning to invade Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, silly. :-)
> I disagree; as the current detention system works, why change it? As
> I was saying before our little friend stomped off to him mummy, the
> 90 day limit would have made no difference to the attack that we have
> had on UK territory. So what difference would it make now, and why
> aren't we being told what the difference is in any more detail than
> "If we don't get it, turrists will attack"?
I've wasted enough time chatting about him, it's just impossible to have any kind of reasoned discussion. Anyway, I deviate again. Why are they pushing to get this 90 days thing then? What's so good about it? Surely they must think they'll get some gain from it, otherwise they wouldn't put so much time and effort trying to get it through?
Page: