new concession for terror bill. - Page 5

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Not very successfully, judging by the amount of deaths, injury and heartache terrorism has inflicted on this nation in the past.

Yet 6 weeks would have solved zero of that, though it could have provoked more.

garinda · 11-06-2008, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Yet 6 weeks would have solved zero of that, though it could have provoked more.

Sadly for those who died, and those left maimed or bereaved, we'll never know.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Sadly for those who died, and those left maimed or bereaved, we'll never know.

We do know. 42 days would not have made the slightest bit of difference and unfortunate as that is. I only wish 42 days could have done, and I'd be completely backing it.

BERNADETTE · 11-06-2008, 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

We do know. 42 days would not have made the slightest bit of difference and unfortunate as that is. I only wish 42 days could have done, and I'd be completely backing it.

But how do we know?

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

But how do we know?

Because to be held for 42 days, you need to be held for 28 days, and none of these people were.

BERNADETTE · 11-06-2008, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Because to be held for 42 days, you need to be held for 28 days, and none of these people were.

So you are saying that no terror suspect has ever been held for twenty eight days?

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

So you are saying that no terror suspect has ever been held for twenty eight days?

I am saying that no terror suspect who committed the acts of killing people has been held for 28 days and then released, only to commit the offences. This is what we're arguing isn't it? That 42 days would not have made a difference on 7/7.

BERNADETTE · 11-06-2008, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I am saying that no terror suspect who committed the acts of killing people has been held for 28 days and then released, only to commit the offences. This is what we're arguing isn't it? That 42 days would not have made a difference on 7/7.

But it could make a difference in the future, so what is the problem? If we can prevent another terrible attack is it not better?? It looks a damm sight better from where I am

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

But it could make a difference in the future, so what is the problem? If we can prevent another terrible attack is it not better?? It looks a damm sight better from where I am

So are you happy with 6months, a year, 5 years? As long as they say it could prevent them in the future? MP's should be deciding things on what is right, based on what is necessary. The terrorists want to remove our freedoms, we're doing it for them!

BERNADETTE · 11-06-2008, 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

So are you happy with 6months, a year, 5 years? As long as they say it could prevent them in the future? MP's should be deciding things on what is right, based on what is necessary. The terrorists want to remove our freedoms, we're doing it for them!

I am happy for them to be held till they can be charged and convicted of plotting to commit an act of terrorism. If that means they are held longer than twenty eight days then yes I am more than happy!!!

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

I am happy for them to be held till they can be charged and convicted of plotting to commit an act of terrorism. If that means they are held longer than twenty eight days then yes I am more than happy!!!

So you have no problem with detaining someone for an indefinite period of time, if they're innocent? Because that's what a lot of these people are, innocent. Shall we just hold people for years and years in the hope that we might prove them of something? Can you not see the problem with this?

BERNADETTE · 11-06-2008, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

So you have no problem with detaining someone for an indefinite period of time, if they're innocent? Because that's what a lot of these people are, innocent. Shall we just hold people for years and years in the hope that we might prove them of something? Can you not see the problem with this?

I didn't say that and you know it.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

I didn't say that and you know it.

It appears to be what you're saying though, because innocent people are held under this act!

It has transpired that of the two people taken to 28 days that were guilty (the majority were innocent) the evidence was available after 4 and 12 days respectively. So the most complex terrorist case we have had, has been solved in 4 and 12 days. Completely unnecessary to hold people for 42 days on this basis.

BERNADETTE · 11-06-2008, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

It appears to be what you're saying though, because innocent people are held under this act!

It has transpired that of the two people taken to 28 days that were guilty (the majority were innocent) the evidence was available after 4 and 12 days respectively. So the most complex terrorist case we have had, has been solved in 4 and 12 days. Completely unnecessary to hold people for 42 days on this basis.

What is so wrong with having the forty two days as a safety net? I am pretty certain that people who plan to commit acts of terror don't make collecting evidence a doddle for the police and it won't always be the case that the evidence will be found in twelve days.

andrewb · 11-06-2008, 13:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

What is so wrong with having the forty two days as a safety net? I am pretty certain that people who plan to commit acts of terror don't make collecting evidence a doddle for the police and it won't always be the case that the evidence will be found in twelve days.

Sorry I forgot to add that those people held to 28 days and proved guilty, are never the serious offenders, in fact they were bailed. Clearly not a threat.

What is wrong with it is it unnecessarily removes freedoms, for no justified reason. The moment it can be justified, I will be quite happy to agree with it. It is counter productive and will prove more of a national security threat for no justified reason.

Genuinely take 5 minutes and put yourself in these shoes, how would you feel to be detained without any idea what for, without any evidence against you, for 42 days, 6 weeks, 1000 hours? Not only this but if you are creating 'just in case' legislation, then what is to stop this being increased to 60 days, 80 days, 100 days? We should be looking at what is needed and 42 days is simply not.