new concession for terror bill.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by cashman

thats a well thought out argument de-shark, but can i say that all the perpetrators of suicide bombing that i have seen, have left recordings to their wives n children/ families etc, none so far as i am aware have been single parents, i can see yer argument but disagree, if such a thing was to happen as you suggest thats tough, but its a damn site tougher fer families of folk who are blown to bits, which nobody seems to take on board.whilst not ideal, its the lesser of 2 evils to me.

Those recordings you refer to were discovered AFTER the act.

You need to balance the number of people killed or injured in a terrorist attack against the number of people killed or injured on our roads or by ‘normal’ criminal acts. The latter outstrip the former by a huge margin.

It is just as tough on the families of people killed by a speeding motorist. Should we then detain all motorists that exceed the speed limit in case they mow someone down? No of course not that is silly. And it is just as silly to bring the emotive issue of bereaved families into the equation.

It would appear that so far the opinions are evenly divided on this issue and during last night’s Question Time the opinion leaned towards being against the 42 days.

[DeShark]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

It's never about lesser of two evils with regards to human life. No amount of human life is expendable.

The simple fact is that 42 days is not needed.

I agree wholeheartedly. The fact is that 42 days is not needed.

However, it is sometimes about the lesser of two evils with regards human life. Else are you arguing that Nelson Mandela is a fool? "It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

He was willing to give up his life for his ideals. His death is the lesser of two evils when compared with the other evil; the lack of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.

The right to freedom is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. It would be the lesser of two evils. A life without freedom is no life for me.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by DeShark

However, it is sometimes about the lesser of two evils with regards human life. Else are you arguing that Nelson Mandela is a fool? "It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

He could have also mentioned prepared to kill civilians as well. Which the break away group from the A.N.C., Umkohonto we Sizwe, which he was the leader of, certainly did.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

I'm sure all of those who have committed terrorist atrocities, by killing and maiming innocent citizens, thought, and think, of themselves as freedom fighters.

I've read the opposing arguments, and remain of one mind.

If it's needed, the loss of freedom for fourteen more days, which can be compensated for, does not out weigh the loss of even one more life.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by garinda

He could have also mentioned prepared to kill civilians as well. Which the break away group from the A.N.C., Umkohonto we Sizwe, which he was the leader of, certainly did.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

I'm sure all of those who have committed terrorist atrocities, by killing and maiming innocent citizens, thought, and think, of themselves as freedom fighters.

I've read the opposing arguments, and remain of one mind.

If it's needed, the loss of freedom for fourteen more days, which can be compensated for, does not out weigh the loss of even one more life.

I seem to remember you pouring scorn on my use of that cliché. Strange how suddenly it becomes acceptable when you want to make a point. C’est la vie!!!

This compensation thing was a media driven suggestion according to one of the panel on Question Time last night.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

I seem to remember you pouring scorn on my use of that cliché. Strange how suddenly it becomes acceptable when you want to make a point. C’est la vie!!!

This compensation thing was a media driven suggestion according to one of the panel on Question Time last night.

I've used the quote myself, at least twice before on this forum.

[garinda]

Terror plots are often highly complex and involve international networks, ministers and the Metropolitan police say.

Early intervention is crucial, meaning arrests have to be made on intelligence rather than evidence that could be used in court.
Collecting computer-encrypted data, carrying out investigations into chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and gathering evidence from scenes of attack are all very difficult and time-consuming. The home secretary said the higher limit would apply only in "exceptional circumstances".

Sir Ian Blair, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, last year told the home affairs select committee that he thought that "at some stage 28 days is not going to be sufficient, and the worst time to debate whether an extension is needed would be in the aftermath of an atrocity".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ss&feed=uknews

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by garinda

The home secretary said the higher limit would apply only in "exceptional circumstances".

It was a similar story in the CCTV debate. CCTV would only be used for ………. yet now we read that some local authorities have overstepped their brief.

Allow this government an inch into our civil liberties and it will take more than a yard.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

It was a similar story in the CCTV debate. CCTV would only be used for ………. yet now we read that some local authorities have overstepped their brief.

Allow this government an inch into our civil liberties and it will take more than a yard.

Interestingly besides yourself, David Davis is also opposed to us having CCTV, even though it has been used to capture those intent on terrorism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/ju...rrorism.world2

I'm just very thankful our national security is in safer hands than your's, or David Davis's.

[Mancie]

Summed up by George

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

Interestingly besides yourself, David Davis is also opposed to us having CCTV, even though it has been used to capture those intent on terrorism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/ju...rrorism.world2

I'm just very thankful our national security is in safer hands than your's, or David Davis's.

To be quite honest Rindi I would cut the Guardian up into six inch squares and stick it on a nail behind the bog door

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

To be quite honest Rindi I would cut the Guardian up into six inch squares and stick it on a nail behind the bog door

The facts were reported in the majority of the press, and media.

Here on the BBC you even get to see a CCTV clip.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7450166.stm

[cashman]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Those recordings you refer to were discovered AFTER the act.

You need to balance the number of people killed or injured in a terrorist attack against the number of people killed or injured on our roads or by ‘normal’ criminal acts. The latter outstrip the former by a huge margin..[/FONT][/SIZE]

do you think i dont know that? obviously they were after the act, i dont need to highlight things in red to try n prove people stupid. the fact i refered to it was to highlight the people who perpetrate the acts, that gives me a much better idea of em, than your ramblings.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by garinda

Interestingly besides yourself, David Davis is also opposed to us having CCTV, even though it has been used to capture those intent on terrorism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/ju...rrorism.world2

I'm just very thankful our national security is in safer hands than your's, or David Davis's.

And your childish “I must have the last word come what may” point is?

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by cashman

do you think i dont know that? obviously they were after the act, i dont need to highlight things in red to try n prove people stupid. the fact i refered to it was to highlight the people who perpetrate the acts, that gives me a much better idea of em, than your ramblings.

There is no need to prove people stupid.

They do it themselves.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by jambutty

And your childish “I must have the last word come what may” point is?

Well JB there has no one answered my question that I've now posted twice, looks like I've had the last word on that then