Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591072)

Garinda your whole argument suggests that we should go to 42 days, because you feel it might help prevent deaths (all the evidence says the opposite). I have given reason why we should keep with 28 days, because it has actually been used. Can you please give reason as to why we should go for 42 days and not 50 days, 100days, 1000days? Because All of those might prevent loss of life, under your current argument.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591078)

Like I said wayyyyyyyyyy back in this thread I'd have no problem if the period was even longer, if it prevented just one more death.

Yes, there are more deaths on the roads of this country, but that really isn't much of a comfort if you are a small child, and it is your mother who has been blown up.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591074)

can agree with yer first 2 paragraphs, but the rest is horse muck, call em draconian measures all ya want, the last bit is pathetic to me, the measures would apply to everyone, n if they suspect someones involved in terrorism, thats fine with me, we live in a differant world to the one i was young in, the terrorist uses draconian measures to me, so fight fire with fire.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591076)

You defeated your argument, fighting fire with fire does not work. ;)

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 591066)

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591078)

Like I said wayyyyyyyyyy back in this thread I'd have no problem if the period was even longer, if it prevented just one more death.

Yes, there are more deaths on the roads of this country, but that really isn't much of a comfort if you are a small child, and it is your mother who has been blown up.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591076)

You defeated your argument, fighting fire with fire does not work. ;)

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 591093)

Sorry but fighting fire with fire does work.

What do you call bombing the heck out of someone as they try to do the same to you? What we call wars.

The way to defeat an enemy is to hit them harder than they hit you.

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 591090)

So taking your argument to its logical conclusion you would accept motorists being arrested and banged up for 28 days or more just because a copper may suspect a motorist is liable to kill a pedestrian.

I suspect that you are being argumentative for its own sake and are just trying to wind up andrewb and others who agree with his point of view.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591097)

If he suspected someone was out to mow someone down with that car, then yes I would.

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 591162)

I see that the government just managed to get this crackpot initiative through by doing deals left, right and centre. And some MP’s, not wanting to help bring the government down and thus probably loose their jobs, voted for the 42 days proposed law.

Brown, just like any despot dictator, is riding roughshod over our right to know why a person has been arrested and banged up. It is written into the Magna Charter.

(39) No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgement of his peers, or by the laws of the land.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591222)

Brown fer once gets brownie points from me fer getting this through, things are still the same in the world since the Magna Charter was written? :confused::confused: i must be missing summat.

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 591142)

If a copper suspected that you were about to mow someone down with a car you would be more than happy to be banged up without any evidence or being charged.

“Thank whatever gods people believe in that you are not in charge of this country.”

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 591066)

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 591295)

As would you if a friend or family member was killed by a suspected terrorist that they could not arrest and detain because this law was not passed.

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 591295)

As would you if a friend or family member was killed by a suspected terrorist that they could not arrest and detain because this law was not passed.

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 591295)

As would you if a friend or family member was killed by a suspected terrorist that they could not arrest and detain because this law was not passed.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591305)

As for me being afraid of being banged up, well no, I have nothing to fear.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591306)

...and I'm glad the Conservatives didn't manage to stop this going through.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591307)

So your happy to be locked up for 42 days? You're innocent yes, but so are other people who have been detained to the current maximum period. You wouldn't be angry at all?

This is quite clearly going to make people angry. It's going to make young muslims angry. It's going to help as a recruiting agent, as we saw in ireland when we did exactly the same thing! I'm glad 306 crossbench MP's were able to look at evidence rather than emotions.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591311)

Why mention Muslims?

Two of the people I know personally were maimed by Irish Nationalist, and a lone right wing imbecile.

Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, we are all vunerable to terrorism in this country.

For you to single out Muslims is out of order, and only inflames tension.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591317)

You do not know if the bus to your job will explode.
You do not know if your wife and the neighbours will be killed by nail bomb.
You do not know what is happening to your children as the Olympic Stadium explodes, whilst they are visiting.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591317)

You do not know if the bus to your job will explode.
You do not know if your wife and the neighbours will be killed by nail bomb.
You do not know what is happening to your children as the Olympic Stadium explodes, whilst they are visiting.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591064)

No I meant 28 days. No more than 28 days have ever been needed. Not my opinion, FACT.

Originally Posted by shillelagh (Post 591321)

Wrong!!! Problem is i cant tell you why!

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591315)

Don't be stupid. Go and look at who has been held under the terrorism act. Go and look at the threat were facing today. It's quite obvious to anybody that the main threat is from muslim extremism.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591325)

No need to start being rude. Manners cost nothing.

As I've said many times already, people held under suspicion of terrorism, with no charge, versus even one life that might be saved in the future, equals no contest.

With the increased threat to the people of this country, as the London Olympics draw nearer, I'm glad stronger measures are now in place if needed, to help thwart terrorist attacks.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591326)

You have not given ANY EVIDENCE. All I'm asking for is ONE bit, one tiny bit. Your only justification leads to a never ending length of detention. Give us one piece of evidence that tells us we need more than 42 days. Thus far the ones that went to 28 days have been released as innocent, or evidence found in days 4 and 12. Give us any evidence at all to suggest we need to extend. You can have my full u-turn.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591325)

No need to start being rude. Manners cost nothing.

As I've said many times already, people held under suspicion of terrorism, with no charge, versus even one life that might be saved in the future, equals no contest.

With the increased threat to the people of this country, as the London Olympics draw nearer, I'm glad stronger measures are now in place if needed, to help thwart terrorist attacks.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 591328)

But you have no evidence that a terrorist attack is going to happen in the build up to or during the Olympics and neither have I but you can bet your last penny the plans are in place for said attacks. So yes the forty two days is a safety net that helps preserve our national security!!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591327)

I'm giving you my opinion, that is all.

An opinion it seems that is shared by many.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591333)

ya can argue till the cows come home so can i, but ive asked you twice now without response, would you cyfr put this to a referendum given the choice?

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591326)

Give us one piece of evidence that tells us we need more than 42 days. You can have my full u-turn.

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 591340)

Britain is a fantastic place to live, this cynicism will surely be one of the greatest things I leave my children. I can't wait until no one takes newspapers seriously any more, so when people like David Davies spell out in clear, concise sentences "there is NO need for this" they can kick in with the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil cynicism and just vote for whatever puts the "ragheads" behind bars.

In fact I can't wait until the media starts screaming "despot, despot!" and we all vote for the man wrapped in a flag, carrying a sword of truth and a shield of justice, with the home secretary who will happily sign that 42-day form for the least of political dissenters. I'm sure the people of Accrington will lead the charge in living on our knees rather than dying on our feet, where we'll throw away whatever freedoms we possibly can just to make the blanket a little warmer at night.

Oh wait, no, I suppose I'll understand the undermining of liberty better when I'm older, right guys? Or maybe I just need to leave the comfort of my university and get into the real world where spooooooky Muslim terrorists hide under every desk and we need 42 days to work out whether they're out to kill us or not. Right, right...

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591339)

sorry mate it aint emotive language that people are being swayed by,its common sense.;)

Originally Posted by shillelagh (Post 591343)

Ah so you agree that we need 42 days? Not 28 days? :D

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 591340)

Britain is a fantastic place to live, this cynicism will surely be one of the greatest things I leave my children.

Oh wait, no, I suppose I'll understand the undermining of liberty better when I'm older, right guys? Or maybe I just need to leave the comfort of my university and get into the real world where spooooooky Muslim terrorists hide under every desk and we need 42 days to work out whether they're out to kill us or not. Right, right...

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591346)

If you want to call it that, maybe I don't want to be part of the party of common sense! :p It sounds more like Bush excuses for war to me mate.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591345)

I thought we'd already established Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, along with your witless diatribe?

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591346)

I don't want to be part of the party of common sense!

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591349)

well the guy next door to me, who i had a brew with yesterday aint no spooky terrorist, but he sure is muslim, so yes yer right ya do need to leave the comfort of yer university n speak to " Real" people.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by blazey (Post 591353)

There are people older than most forum users on my course whom I speak to, most courses have at least one or two mature students, and I personally know quite a few with being so involved with continuing education. What do these people class as exactly :p

It is a strange conception that university students don't interact with the 'real' world, as if we don't step foot off campus every now and again :p

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591354)

wasn't infering that all students dont interact with real people blaze, i was talking to Richard Head.:D

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591354)

wasn't infering that all students dont interact with real people blaze, i was talking to Richard Head.:D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591355)

Is he at that noble seat of education, Hull, as well?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591352)

You're obviously not, if you're a Conservative, especially over this lily livered debacle.;)

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 591351)

And I think we've firmly established that you're all talk until you have the faintest worry that this might affect you in some way. How long did it take you to look up "diatribe"? Big words don't make big ideas. Thanks for totally countering what I said rather than going "NO NO NO BE QUIET YOU'RE WRONG" and proving me utterly right. I appreciate it.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591352)

You're obviously not, if you're a Conservative, especially over this lily livered debacle.;)

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591359)

Indeed because the common sense attitude would just be to go with how you feel rather than looking at evidence. LOL! :D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591363)

...or by just blindly following the party line. Though I do concede, because you got so huffy, that you actually believe in what you say on this one, even though you, and the Conservatives, were wrong.

In answer to your question both.

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 591340)

Britain is a fantastic place to live, this cynicism will surely be one of the greatest things I leave my children. I can't wait until no one takes newspapers seriously any more, so when people like David Davies spell out in clear, concise sentences "there is NO need for this" they can kick in with the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil cynicism and just vote for whatever puts the "ragheads" behind bars.

In fact I can't wait until the media starts screaming "despot, despot!" and we all vote for the man wrapped in a flag, carrying a sword of truth and a shield of justice, with the home secretary who will happily sign that 42-day form for the least of political dissenters. I'm sure the people of Accrington will lead the charge in living on our knees rather than dying on our feet, where we'll throw away whatever freedoms we possibly can just to make the blanket a little warmer at night.

Oh wait, no, I suppose I'll understand the undermining of liberty better when I'm older, right guys? Or maybe I just need to leave the comfort of my university and get into the real world where spooooooky Muslim terrorists hide under every desk and we need 42 days to work out whether they're out to kill us or not. Right, right...

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 591360)

The threat of terroism affects us all and for your information although we may not be at uni we do know the meaning of words we quote without resorting "look them up" as you put it. You are trying and belittle people and it just don't wash!

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591367)

Rindi can I ask you which you think is the best at preventing terrorists from killing. Security services or increasing detention without charge from 28 to 42 days?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591370)

When it comes to protecting the innocent, and national security, I want both, which I've already answered.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591371)

Which would you say is the most important if you had one or the other?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591372)

Irrelevant.

That's like saying which do you want more in a war, the navy or the army?

We should be using everything in our power to fight this evil, and that means an adequate security service, and detention without charge, if needed.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591368)

Perhaps your views are a little coloured, and prejudiced.

You said in another thread, and I quote.

'Starting a war against something as vague as "terrorism" is a little absurd!'
http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...tml#post535578

It probably doesn't seem vague to the two little children who live in our town, and whose mother was killed by the London bus bomb.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591373)

Not irrelevant at all. Quite relevant. Now, which is the most important of the two, security information or increased detention to 42 days?

You're sounding more and more like a politician every time you refuse to answer!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591375)

I've answered.

I want both, and there's no earthly reason not to have both, now the Conservative's soft approach to terrorism has been thankfully quashed.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591370)

When it comes to protecting the innocent, and safeguarding national security, I want both, which I've already answered.

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 591374)

Why the hell would you consider a child's opinion politically valid?

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 591374)

Yeah, to CHILDREN. You know what else doesn't seem vague to children? Why, when faced with a budget cut, Thatcher would take their milk and invest in primary schools. Would you rather have milk or a quality school? To an adult the answer is obvious. Why the hell would you consider a child's opinion politically valid? Have you ever seen Newsround? "I wish all the bad people would stop being bad and be good and then the world would be good."

Just as in business, the management of a country should not be entirely driven by empathy and love and bunny rabbits with little hearts above their heads. The death of 20-odd during 7/7 should not mean we turn into a nation of cowards. Similarly, the death of 100 soldiers in Afghanistan is not an argument for us never to have invaded.

I stand by my statement. Fighting an idea is stupid. A physical fight is against a nation or a group of people. Terrorism is a method - and idea. We may as well be going to war against "being a meanie" or "not sharing".

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591376)

So you agree that having less security information would be a bad thing?

Originally Posted by blazey (Post 591379)

I am quite right-wing in matters of opinion, but you just come across as quite a nasty person :( Each post seems like an attack rather than a discussion, and I have been offended by things you have said more than once. I don't think you are doing us any favours by being so hard to talk to.

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 591374)

Yeah, to CHILDREN. You know what else doesn't seem vague to children? Why, when faced with a budget cut, Thatcher would take their milk and invest in primary schools. Would you rather have milk or a quality school? To an adult the answer is obvious. Why the hell would you consider a child's opinion politically valid? Have you ever seen Newsround? "I wish all the bad people would stop being bad and be good and then the world would be good."

Just as in business, the management of a country should not be entirely driven by empathy and love and bunny rabbits with little hearts above their heads. The death of 20-odd during 7/7 should not mean we turn into a nation of cowards. Similarly, the death of 100 soldiers in Afghanistan is not an argument for us never to have invaded.

I stand by my statement. Fighting an idea is stupid. A physical fight is against a nation or a group of people. Terrorism is a method - and idea. We may as well be going to war against "being a meanie" or "not sharing".

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591380)

You'll never make a politician.

Well not a very successful one, if you insist on flogging the horse when it's already dead and buried.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591385)

You're just avoiding questions.

So yes having less security information would be bad.

Do you think detaining people without charge for an period extended to 42 days without any evidence to justify it ( as you have already conceded) is going to make the Muslim community more likely to be helpful or less?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591382)

I take it by 'us' you mean young Conservatives?

I quite agree, he's certainly not.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 591386)

Who besides you has mentioned Muslims? Been following this thread from the first post and it appears to me that you are the one trying to stir things up:mad:

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591388)

Excuse me, how rude! Who do you think is the main reception of this act?

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591388)

Excuse me, how rude! Who do you think is the main reception of this act?

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591388)

Excuse me, how rude! Who do you think is the main reception of this act?

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 591390)

Why is that rude??? Please enlighten me seems you have a bee in your bonnet!!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591392)

Er...at a guess, terrorists?

As Bernadette pointed out, it is you who keeps mentioning Muslims, which is both inflamatory and very patronising to every Muslim who hates terrorism as much as the rest of us.

Originally Posted by blazey (Post 591387)

Yes obviously, and to be quite frank I feel like this whole debate is quite pointless for two reasons.

1. It has already been decided on
2. You aren't actually listening to each other.

I didn't watch today, but I hope the politicians we so greatly put our trust in made the right decisions based on logical reasons, and not for the mere sake of making each other look stupid.

Some of Labour were against it, some Tories like myself were for it. Clearly an issue that was decided more likely on personal view point than their view as a party member, and although there are a few criticisms of Brown that have arisen from it, at the end of the day this Act is intended to protect the MAJORITY of the citizens of this country, and the MINORITY wrong detained by it WILL be compensated. Now I know money doesn't solve everything but most people held for this lengthened period of 42 days will very likely be suspected for good reason, not just because there is a fleeting suspicion. My view is that no more harm can be done by this lengthening than what is already potentially possible under the previous position of 28 days, but threats will be greater avoided if they so arise by the enforcement of this legislation.

It is a bit like CCTV in my view. You have nothing to be concerned about if you are following the law. It is when you are upto no good that you should be worrying about things like this, however controversial a view this may be.

Originally Posted by blazey (Post 591394)

Someone somewhere said to me once that you can't aim a bomb at a single race, you have to hit out at all humanity.

Or something like that.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591395)

Thank you for confirming that, even though you don't agree with him, that Rosencrantz, as well as being insensitive and crass, is also a young Conservative friend of Andrewb's from Hull.

It's all becoming clear now, though why someone with no connection to Hyndburm wants to share his disgusting views with us, is beyond me.

Perhaps toryboy.com/forum closes when they are all supposed to be in bed.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591392)

Er...at a guess, terrorists?

As Bernadette pointed out, it is you who keeps mentioning Muslims, which is both inflamatory and very patronising to every Muslim who hates terrorism as much as the rest of us.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591398)

You're getting ridiculous now Gary. You know very, very, very well I am not suggesting what you are implying. I am actually quite offended.

No terrorists are not the main ones detained under the act, the majority of people are innocent, but you know that's not what I was getting at. Muslims are more likely to be detained, innocent ones.

Do you think detaining people without charge for an period extended to 42 days without any evidence to justify it ( as you have already conceded) is going to make the Muslim community more likely to be helpful or less?

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 591391)

Anyone feel like confirming/denying my summary? I was quite pleased with it and no one seems to want to acknowledge it :(.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591398)

You're getting ridiculous now Gary. You know very, very, very well I am not suggesting what you are implying. I am actually quite offended.

No terrorists are not the main ones detained under the act, the majority of people are innocent, but you know that's not what I was getting at. Muslims are more likely to be detained, innocent ones.

Do you think detaining people without charge for an period extended to 42 days without any evidence to justify it ( as you have already conceded) is going to make the Muslim community more likely to be helpful or less?

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 591391)

I was quite pleased with it and no one seems to want to acknowledge it :(.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591401)

Fact. It was you who stated that extending the holding time of suspected terrorists to 42 days would inflame people.

Fact. This is a thread about terrorism, not any one body of people.

Fact. No one mentioned Islam until you brought it to the debate.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591402)

Self satisfaction is nothing to be admired.