Attempted Robbery In Cape Town
ChatterBank1 min ago
90 days?
whats 90 days compared to killing hundreds of innocent people.........not all muslims would be locked up only suspects......or don't hold anybody on suspicion because it infringes their liberties....arrest them after the event......
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by the>one. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You make it sound as if it's a choice between locking up people for 90 days or hundreds of innocent people being killed. It isn't. A 90-day limit would have alienated and radicalised innocent people who would otherwise have been merely disinterested. It would have been a way of recruiting hundreds of more terrorists. It would have led to the police mis-using their powers and locking up too many people indiscriminately. The same thing happened in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, and it was a disaster, because it escalated the number of terrorist actions enormously.
These guys won't worry about 90 days..........
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1864974,00.htm l
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1864974,00.htm l
somewhat unusually I agree with Bernardo. Further to his points, the true damage of terrorism is not acts themselves but the changes we make ie the damage we do to our own lives and freedoms to "safeguard" against terrorism. Just look at the charade at every airport now I mean heaven forfend I should have some nail clippers on me. You see that's the true aim of the terrorists to make us make our own lives intollerable. If you do that, they succeed. Take all resonable precautions, yes, but do not react without thouroughly thinking things through and edn up doing things that are innefective but still restrict our own lives.
lets just hope that people dont start complaining when the police have to release people they suspect are guilty..!! but it would take more time to investigate them ..and they cant hold them...sometimes these terrorists use several different names and sometimes they are here illegally..its a very difficult job for the police..and everyone wishes security to be tightend..when another act of terrorism occurs maybe even worse than the last ones perhaps..these politicians may rethink the situation..you have to ask yourself if they murdered your family the police suspected someone..couldnt hold them as the investigation was taking longer than anticipated..the suspect flees the country..and dissapears..how would you feel? its easy to become detatched from the situation and sit on the fence as a do gooder..but when it affects you then its different alltogether...and if this situation did happen then everyone would blame the police for not holding them longer!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The voting on the 90 days. Shows labour are still democratic. It would not have happened with a Tory government. they would vote with their leader no matter what what their consciences says. Do all the MPs know better than the chief constables and security forces. Lets hope we don't have to say "I told you so"
I'm not sure about this, but I think that there are already procedures in place where, if the police feel it is in the public interest, they can apply for special licence from the home office to hold suspects beyond the normal period. So if the police really think they have a potential terrorist in their grasp, they can already have that extra time they need under the present system (I think).
How can you compare the brainwashed German public of 60 odd years ago with the public of today. I hope you are not one of those patronising New Labour that think you know better then the rest of us.
On the 90 days you will never find a solution that is 100%. However personally I am with Mr Blair on this one and certainly very woried that the Tories and Libs may have used this as an excuse to battre Blair. Our National security should be beyond politics.
The point (before anyone infers that I'm comparing Blair to Hitler) is that having majority support doesn't give your argument any extra validity. In my view, driving a car for unnecessary journies is a crap thing to do. The fact that 99% of people drive cars unnecessarily every day doesn't make it right.
Also, I think your argument is too simplistic. Maybe incarcerating muslims for 90 days and then letting them go without charge will increase their hatred and make it more likely that innocent people will die.
Also, I think your argument is too simplistic. Maybe incarcerating muslims for 90 days and then letting them go without charge will increase their hatred and make it more likely that innocent people will die.
99% of cats prefer whiskas.
This is a question of preference. You can't accuse the cats of being wrong about this.
80% of gmtv viewers think that 90 days' detention will make Britain a safer place.
This is not about preference, this is about right and wrong, cause and effect. Majorities count for nothing in this case (in terms of something being right or wrong.)
I don't think I know better than the rest of you, I'm just making a valid point, I think. If someone offers an argument which is wrong, and I point that out, then either accept it or explain why I'm wrong. Accusing me of being New Labour (which I'm not) doesn't support your case at all.
This is a question of preference. You can't accuse the cats of being wrong about this.
80% of gmtv viewers think that 90 days' detention will make Britain a safer place.
This is not about preference, this is about right and wrong, cause and effect. Majorities count for nothing in this case (in terms of something being right or wrong.)
I don't think I know better than the rest of you, I'm just making a valid point, I think. If someone offers an argument which is wrong, and I point that out, then either accept it or explain why I'm wrong. Accusing me of being New Labour (which I'm not) doesn't support your case at all.
My understanding of the proposed amendment was that it was to be incorporated into British Law (at least that of England & Wales), and therefore applied to us all.
From your question's wording, the>one, you seem to be under the impression that it would only have applied to Muslims? Since you are obviously more informed about it, would you care to explain what part of the proposed amendment stated this?
