Viewing Thread:
"Tony Blair throws rattle from pram"

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?

WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:

> For me, the issue is not that they shot dead a suspect, but that -
> for whatever reason - they apparently tried to cover it up. It makes
> it seem that much more sinister. If they'd just put their hands up
> immediately and said "we made a mistake", I don't think -
> with all due respect to de Menezes - it would be as big a deal.

I entirely agree with this. But the fact is, they did try and cover it up. So why should they be trusted not to do the same for erroneous 90 day detentions?

Your Honour wrote:
> Light, what are your suggestions as alternatives? You say the police
> need more resources, but that's a bit of a blanket statement. Do they
> need more man power? More technology?

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.
>
> These could take a while to take effect, I don't know the length of a
> bobby's training but I imagining get up to the level of anti-terror
> police would take a while?

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.
>
> Surely an intermediate solution is needed while these new resources
> are put into effect? What would those intermediate solutions be?

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"?

Light, what are your suggestions as alternatives? You say the police need more resources, but that's a bit of a blanket statement. Do they need more man power? More technology?

These could take a while to take effect, I don't know the length of a bobby's training but I imagining get up to the level of anti-terror police would take a while?

Surely an intermediate solution is needed while these new resources are put into effect? What would those intermediate solutions be?

Smedlos wrote:
> I'm off now but will hopefully be back later tonight as I have quite a
> few replies to make.
>
> Till then.......

I should be around tomorrow arvo sir; we shall speak more then.

WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Stuff

Good lord; a well reasoned argument...

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?

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?

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?

Locking people up without trial. Tsk Tsk

I'm annoyed it has been put up to 28 days nevermind 14.

I'm off now but will hopefully be back later tonight as I have quite a few replies to make.

Till then.......

A well put forward argument Wookiee, but I point you in the direction of this sentence:

90 days versus 50+ innocent lives. Don't see a problem myself.

Would you still not see a problem if it was you, or a member of your family, or close friend that was locked up?

Smedlos wrote:

> No I'm just siting back and enjoying travelling towards the
> inevitable Hedfix inplosion.

Heh. I've been away a while; I take it that Hedfix the current snivelling whiner of the forums?
>
> Just didn't want my post to disappear off the page which it was fast
> doing even though it was only posted 20 minutes previously or so.

Mm, fair enough. I have answered it but;

A - It may have disappeared in the flurry, and

B - It was a rather ill-humour answer due to being in the midst of Hedfix's mental disentigration (sorry).

I'm sure he used to be a fairly decent poster, but I guess he's began to take himself ridiculously seriously...

Ok, I wanted to be ignored anyway.

Moving on, Light, Smedlos, very sorry for your thread being hijacked.

You were having a discussion that was very interesting to read. Please continue.

Christ, how condescending does that sound? Sorry.