Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Why would they need to be 'helpful'?

Do you think they are going to protect terrorists just because this law has to date mainly been used against muslims?

Terrorists don't aim their bombs at particularly races, they kill everyone. Muslims have lost family members to terrorist attacks too, and it'll be a minority that would even consider to protect people, BEFORE you go rubbing today's news in my face about the wife and sister who helped the terrorist from london bus bombing escape.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

There is no doubt the majority of Muslims are good people who do not condone terrorism. However, laws like this can help recruit terrorists (as can be seen during the IRA years).

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Surely you aren't going to make an assumption that the same thing will happen twice? Because if you are, I think you should give up politics, because it's a bit silly to happily assume one thing can be repeated but try and persuade people that it is wrong to assume the Tories will act as they did in the Thatcher years.

You need good solid proof of such a thing to make such a claim. Do you have any proof that the extention from 14 to 28 days increased recruitment to terrorist organisations?

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Thank-you for jumping to conclusions, the wrong ones.

Yes I know Rosencrantz, that is no secret, it was aired before today. Rosencrantz is not a Conservative, he is not a Conservative member, he is not even a member of Conservative future, me and him hardly ever agree. Please try and get over the Conservatives for once.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

In all fairness, it was me who made the assumption that he was a conservative when I said he was making 'us' look bad.

I feel a bit better now that he isn't speaking for my party, but I still have that little problem of you to deal with :D

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

In reflection, what an absolute, utter waste of my time this has been. A lot of the members are not interested in having an informed, intelligent, discussion. No, in contrast they want one driven by emotion. Driven by rubbish that those of us who seek to defend liberty, who seek to take pragmatic approaches to legislation, are somehow putting our national defence, no lets use the word, lives, of women and children at risk.

Some members are interested in pursing attacks based on party lines, ones which are completely unjustified. Throwing accusations around.

I have never seen such ignorance before. Not because people agree or disagree with me, everyone is entitled to take their side, but because of the method of doing so. The method of provocation, the method of playing dumb, the method of winding the opposition up by hawking on with even more emotive lines, avoiding any logical discussion. Some members know only too well there is not an ounce, not one trace, of evidence to support their views, but yet they continue because emotive language is popular, but it is far from right. We only need to look to America, where the population will happily give away any freedoms they wish, all the government need to do is repeat the words 9/11 until they have every single one of them bowing down on their knees.

I legitimately mention Muslims, because they are the majority of people affected by this legislation. I get shouted down for it, because the Act doesn't aim to single anybody out. Well just take a few minutes to sit in reality and think, who is actually affected the most by this legislation? It does not take a brain surgeon to work out that it is completely relevant, that is why it was debated today within the House.

I have not a shadow of a doubt, that if the people being ignorant over issues here, were detained themselves, for innocent purposes, as the majority of the people convicted under this legislation have been. They would not be arguing for the indefinite detention of suspects and sleep walking into a big brother state where we nod away our freedoms whenever the government tell us we should.

That is it. I am out.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Is that no doubt in your mind or in the majority of peoples minds? Maybe a poll on the matter would clear that up.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

That would just show majority of forum users, not majority of people in this country in general!

Silly man.

I agree that there should be more than mere suspicion, but sometimes you have to follow gut instincts and detain someone even if you have nothing solid other than a first impression.

I find this issue hard to decide upon because I don't agree with the original Act as such in the first place, so I'm pulling out of the debate on it too until I have more knowledge on it.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

yeh well,glad i put ya right, i would never even accuse cyfr of it either, much as i disagree vehemently with many of his views i know fer fact that he gets out n mixes with the peasants, so in that fact Respect to the git. i made the comment cos i detest arrogant know-alls who know nowt.;)

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

I've taken the trouble to read most of the overnight posts on this thread, I think I may go back to bed for an hour to recuperate:rolleyes:. Now that his bill has gone through can anybody tell me if under the preset 28 day legislation wheather anybody has ever been rleased without charge because the time ran out:confused: I actually thought that this would be the main story on news programs this morning but I was wrong, its no use passing any new legislation if we are going to leave sensative documents concerning terrorists on a commuter train, it rather defeats the object really doesnt it :rolleyes:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Classic irony :D

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

It appears unlike you I do believe every word I say, and as for self satisfaction I post what I think, and unlike you I don't expect to be patted on the head, and told what a clever boy I am.

If you actually believe what you say, that's it's own satisfaction. The fact is you've voiced your opinion. If people chose to ignore it, or disagree, personally I couldn't care less.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Nice resignation speech.

Good to see you aren't a quitter.:D

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Now, now.....stop winding up the children. You know what they're like when they get all excited.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

FIRST IMPRESSION is not a lot to go on.:jimbo:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

programs this morning but I was wrong, its no use passing any new legislation if we are going to leave sensative documents concerning terrorists on a commuter train, it rather defeats the object really doesnt it
Had to laugh myself when I heard that bit of news last night,makes you wonder how many more blunders this goverment will preside over.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

now rindy, thats the sign of a wanbee M.P.- telling porkies. ready fer the real job.:D;)

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

You realise this Bill has still got to go through the House of Lords and there is no way it is going to be left as it is, so I think you all might as well find something else to complain about for a while!

You're right, first impressions aren't a lot to go off and I don't agree with it generally but there are probably instances where it is reasonable, and seen as I haven't read the full Bill passed yesterday I can't really comment much more without making assumptions.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

yep know its to go through "Lords" thats were it will probably fall i think unfortunatly, majority of tory dead heads n buffoons in yon.:D;)

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

The Lords cannot prevent a bill from becoming law, just delay its progress.

This whole issue has been an exercise in Brown trying to establish who is boss and he would have failed and had to pay the penalty for failure except that he managed to twist enough arms to gain support. Nice form of democracy!

Brown is now denying that he made any concessions to the DUP or other Labour MP’s to get his way. So the offer of compensation of £3,000 per day if no charges are brought by day 42 isn’t a concession?

And now David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, has resigned not just as Home Secretary but also as an MP to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency. He will stand on a platform of the new 42 days issue.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

So now we all know the price that this government puts on our priceless freedom; it is £1.2 billion! This is the amount that Gordon Brown agreed, despite his protestations to the contrary, to pay for the DUP's compliance in last night's vote. It is the amount that will be realised from the sale of ministry of defence bases in Northern Ireland, which was to have been retained by Whitehall but will now go to Stormont. And for what? As Blazey pointed out earlier, this bill will not get through the Lords. The government might try invoking the Parliament Act to force it through but strictly speaking since this is a security issue they can't legally do that. Then, of course, there is the good old European Court of Human Rights, I am sure that they will have more than a page or two to say on the matter.

There is no way that this bill will ever get on to the statute book. That being the case you have to ask why the government are so determined that it will succeed. The answer is plain - what would have happened to Gordon Brown had the vote not gone the governments way? This is pointless legislation pushed through parliament with little thought simply in order to prop up a lame duck administration and a failed Prime Minister.

Good on David Davis - I hope he is returned to Parliament with an unassailable majority!

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Well cashy there was a Labour dead head on BBC breakfast this morning who was, along with Lord Falconer, Tony's former room mate, going to lead the labour rebellion in the lords, Oh and by the way the Tores don't have a majority in the Lords now, well knot like the good old days:D

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Nice one Bob, now it shows everybody what lying cheating Jock strap he really is

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Why do you think the powers under the Parliament Act 1911 aren't going to be used? If the government want this bill passed, they'll pass it. Your only hope is the Queen, and as a hereditary monarch you have about as much chance of me becoming the next prime minister than the queen refusing it.

Yes the Lords can delay it, alter it, move it around a bit, but chances are it'll be passed with the same principles unless someone can say it is in breach of human rights or whatever, and this is highly doubtful :p

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

You are right....but seem to be ignorant of today's events.
See trouble in the Tory ranks.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

So the freedom of 60million people has been sold,freedom we have fought for for centurys.King John must be turning in his grave,if it's not been sold on. Still it can still be blocked by the House of Lords and as most of the cabinet have probably paid thier deposit for their retirment gravy train they will likely think twice before overturning a Lords defeat.If not can i book myself in for Nov. and the first 2 weeks of Dec.and will it affect my benifits.:hidewall:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Thank you cyfr/andrew b for calling me ignorant.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

You only have to read the last line of his post to realise he didn't mean a word of it Jen ;)

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

times are changing .if it saves innocent lives im all forit . in king johns day when they persecuted you you probably ended up dead .if they arrest you now you you have a better survival rate than you did in those days:rolleyes:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Well,you've got a better memory than me(joke).But actually King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta,which he did,probably after being locked up for six weeks:tongueout

Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

I know we don't need another thread on this subject, and I'm going to request it be added to the other thread, but this issue does seem to have provoked strong opinions, and I'd like to see what we as a forum think on this issue, and if our feelings reflect the findings of other polls taken nationally.

There will only be two choices, and it will be a public poll.

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

By the way, the poll is private.

I was too busy trying to word it fairly, and fit in the relevant words, I didn't tick the appropriate box.

I thank you.:D

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

As stated in the original thread am all for it and have voted so

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

Good I am glad you made it private, I think you get a more accurate response.

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

I agree, and so does Mother Fate I suppose, who didn't remind me to tick the little box.:D

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

as its private i cant tell ya i voted fer 42 days.:D

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

wheres the option that it should be 365 days :-)

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

28 days and even that is too long to be banged up without being charged.

The Police State is just around the corner.

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

Must say (strange as it may seem) I agree. I was once banged up for 10 wks.I was charged but when i went to court the charges were dropped because I pleaded,through fear and plea bargaining to a less charge,I was 18 yrs old at the time and just wanted to get out.I would have said anything to gain my freedom.I was sentenced to 3yrs probation but only attended for 2 wks. to quote the probation officer.If they were all like you I'de be out of a job.I lost my job my fiance and a lot of my so-called friends.So till it happens to you. You'lle never Know:mad::mad:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Just another thought.I would rather pay for a security service that was one step ahead than six weeks behind.:mosher::mosher:

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

I havnt voted yet, because I am not convinced that more information could be found during the extra days, 28 should be long enough, but on the other hand, if the suspect was guilty and had plans to attack, 42 days may be long enough to prevent the attack and 28 may not, Mmmm, more thinking to do!

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

I think that as far as terrorism is concerned they should be held for as long as it takes.......

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

I could have understood the opposition, if like you they thought it was wholly unfair. They don't. They believe civil liberties are only affected if a suspected terrorist is held for more than twenty eight days, which is what I find very odd.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

You’re so right, times are a changing and so are our rights – for the worst.

In the not too distant future we are going to need permission from some bureaucrat in one of the many Quangos to go to the bog.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Well there has been a lot of huffing and puffing on this subject, young Andrew has been berated on this, but for all the debate nobody has bothered to answer the question I asked in post 211, which was tell me who, under the present 28 day legislation, has had to be releast because the time ran out, and no one has menioned the fact that secret documents relating to terrorism was left on a train, its no use keeping people in jail 2 days without charge if documents of this natture are left in public places and could fall into the hands of those people that this legislation is aimed at. get the fundimentals right first then there maybe a case to answer.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

I've just voted on this. To be honest, I share Rindys view from a bit back, if theres ANYTHING we can do to stop the atrocities of London, or Manchester Or Warrington, or wherever, we should do it.

We have a police force where the majority of the time, they will only act on strong suspicion and not just arrest and detain any person that walks down the street. Yes there are have been some well publicised cock-ups but for the main, hey have been doing there job in ensuring that we are safe.

As far as I'm aware, the compensation scheme for wrongful detention under the terrorism act has never been used, implying that so far, everyone arrested and detained has been guilty of something.

If it stops loss of life, 42 days is nothing. In fact, putting it in the extreme, if you spoke to anyone here, and gave them the option of a number of people dying or becoming injured, or being locked up for 42 days, I'm sure they would voluntarily go into detention to save lives

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

Nothing odd about that.

It is our fundamental right to face our accuser and the evidence so that we can defend ourselves BEFORE being incarcerated for more than 48 hours.

Most people have come to accept 28 days because it is already in place and object to the extension. It used to be 14 days and before that 48 hours, I think it was, before the arrested person is either charged or released. However there has always been provision to extend the time on application to a magistrate. But the arresting officer had to have some evidence of a crime being committed or likely to be committed or the alleged criminal was likely to abscond before the case comes up before a lawful court, to gain a successful extension.

Today a person can be arrested on suspicion alone and then the police have 28 days to search for evidence by searching the suspect’s house for incriminating evidence. And now they want 42 days. It was originally 56 days but a compromise was reached.

The 14/28/42 days law was brought in to aid in counter terrorism and the fear is that it will progress to other ‘normal’ crimes. All it’s done is turn the UK into a small facsimile of Guantanamo Bay. Yet the government objected to Guantanamo Bay.

Today the terrorist – tomorrow the standard criminal – the day after anyone.

Do we want a “Judge Dredd” society where on the spot fines are dished out by the police. Oh! We already have one with on the spot fines and fixed penalty notices.

Whatever happened to the innocent until proven to be guilty and being tried by our peers so that we defend ourselves?

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

all well n good jim, nowt wrong wi that summary, but to me Terrorism crosses that line its beyond the pail, thats my view. ordinary people are criminals, these scumbags are not that.

Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill - a poll.
 

I think everyone must agree that because of the massive leap forward in technology since the 28 day holding time was brought in, new technology that has and is currently being used by terrorist cells to plan attacks on our civil liberties, there is definitely a case that more time 'might' be needed to gather evidence, which may prevent any more attacks in the future.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

I've just spent a good long while reading through this thread and have now just voted.

I have to say I disagree strongly with Garinda's point of view. As I see it the argument reads:

"Any denial of freedom which *might* save a life is justified."

Let's suppose that the police have reason to suspect (no evidence, so cannot charge) a man of terrorism. This man is a single parent, with two children. 6 weeks without a father is going to have serious repercussions on his children.

Let's assume the man is innocent.

Their father will most likely lose his job, his reputation, his friends etc. and then be in a poor position to support his children. Sure, this man has £42,000 compensation to support them with (42 - 28 times £3000), but this money cannot last forever! Eventually, he will lose his children. It will be for them as if their father had been locked up for life. But the man is innocent. How on earth is this justified?!

If there's *evidence* however, then the man may be charged. The evidence will be analysed by a jury and a fair decision will be made. If the man is sentenced to life, then his children will suffer. But this is the fault of the man in question, not the fault of the government which this nation has elected.

If you suspect a man of being guilty, then you should begin gathering evidence. This is common sense. You begin to analyse his behaviour, listen in on his phone calls, gain a warrant of entry to his house, etc. If you gain one shred of evidence that will see him convicted, then you attempt to convict the man.

If you have no evidence, the man should be assumed innocent. This is UK law 101. If you assume the opposite, you should arrest everyone until they can prove themselves innocent. Proving innocence is neigh on impossible, especially with terrorism. If there's no evidence, this man is just like you or me. Everyone's a suspect in a crime, but not everyone is guilty. It seems like everyone here is saying it's ok to treat someone as guilty based on suspicion. Locking someone up for 42 days is the same as calling someone guilty in my eyes. Guilty people are denied basic freedoms to protect innocent people or to punish the guilty people. 42 days is punishment; potentially punishment inflicted upon an innocent!

I must concede however that this black and white view is not practical. Once you have gained a warrant and searched someone's house, they know you're on to them. They'll begin to actively cover traces if they're guilty. So in some cases it is necessary to arrest someone to potentially prevent them from destroying evidence. So how long after their arrest do you need to gather all the evidence?

Well so far... if they're guilty, the longest it takes has been 12 days. However...

If the police are looking for evidence to prove me guilty of terrorism, it would take them more than 42 days, more than 90 days, more than a lifetime. No evidence exists. So if I were locked up, I would be in prison for 42 days, or 90 days, or however long the limit is set to.

This is exactly the problem with this bill. Innocent people cannot prove their innocence!

So, the longer this limit is set, the longer innocent people are locked up for. 12 days has been enough so far. Perhaps cases will be more convoluted in the future, but we have to draw a line. I'd draw this line at 24 days. Twice as complicated as the most complicated case so far.

*IF* a person is convicted and it takes this long to convict him, *THEN* maybe an extension is called for. If not, the increase does not help catch terrorists, it merely detains innocent people for longer!

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

I've read through 11 pages of the same arguments going round the houses and decided to fast forward to this page. Sorry if I missed any fresh ideas. I sincerely doubt I did though.

It pains me to say if but I agree with Tory boy. (:D - Sorry mate)

Let's just get one thing clear; the single objective of terrorism is to cause fear. That's why it has it's name. This fear is shown in everyone who is in favour of the 42 day scheme. Well done Osama, you've won with 315-306. That evidence free fear is what leads people into stupid acts such as the war in Iraq.

Raising the time of detention when no suspect has required that long is absurd.
I would agree with the move for 42 days if just one terror suspect required longer than 28 days' detention - but none have.

42 days is unnecessary and only moves to increase terrorist's anger and point more bombs & guns towards us.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

There have been 1,126 arrests of innocent people (they weren't convicted) under the terrorism act. 52 people died in 7/7. 1,126 people had their lives seriously destroyed, 52 people physically lost their lives. It's a tough call to make about the lesser of two evils in my opinion...

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Summed up by George
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y...eature=related

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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:D

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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.:cool:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

There is no need to prove people stupid.

They do it themselves.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

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:rolleyes:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Don’t believe it.

There will be a few puerile brains working overtime to try and find what they think of as a witty and put down answer.

You can’t have a decent debate on here without some idiot getting personal or just plain nasty because they can’t put forward a logical counter view but they have to say something even if it means dragging the thread off topic.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Nothing to do with having the last word, just pointing out that the CCTV that you seem to so fear, has been used successfully to apprehend and prosecute those intent on terrorist violence.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

How ironic is that?

Perhaps this should be in red, so it appears as if I'm shouting.:rolleyes:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

If you'll read what I said JB I wasn't getting at you, it just worked in with your post, in as much as that I have asked a question about the 28 days legislation and of those who support the 42 day limit have not answered, so It worked in well with what you said about the last word, If you took this as an insult to yourself JB I'm sorry its wasn't ment for you:hidewall:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

It's taken me a while to read through this thread.

So far on the poll 12 people have voted for 42 days and 11 people have voted to leave it at 28 days. It's surprising, so far in the thread it appeared that more people wanted 42 days.

I would have thought that 28 days was quite long enough to find out if someone is a terrorist....I don't advocate being soft on terrorism but I don't think that it's necessary to increase the time from 28 days.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Can i have a night off till the Lords debate:hidewall:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

yes people prove many things themselves,don't they?

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

As far as I recall those for and against in this thread seemed equally split, which is reflected in the poll so far.

What is suprising is that our poll doesn't seem to reflect the ones taken nationally, which have between 65-70% of the British people suporting the increase from 28 to 42 days.

Which either means we are soft on terrorism or worried about civil liberties, depending upon your point of view.:D

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

By all means Beni, you have a night of, because there will be plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth when that starts:D

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Thanks for that because after 19 pages of calm meaningful debate the poll is looking a bit like my front room(not a lot in it):):)

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Or as the Professional politicians say its to close to call:D

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

LOL!!! karma sent u humourous chap!

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Thanks onlyme your a star, at last some one who appreciates my very dry scence of humour:D:mosher:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

I know you weren’t getting at me jaysay.

I was just pointing out what happens far too often from some members – present company excepted.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

In spite of some people’s beliefs in polls, they are not, have not and never can be representative of the country as whole. They rarely if ever ask more than 10,000 people and they cannot show if someone answers the questions truthfully or not.

How the can the views of 10,000 people represent the real views of some 55 million people?

So your claim that 65-70% of the British people support the increase from 28 days to 42 is a load of old cobblers and has no validity whatsoever.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

I make no claim for this, or any other poll.

As an obserber I just take an interest in the results.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

when elections come around the "seat" polls always seem pretty accurate to me.

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

if he was dead on 100% it would still be disputed by some.:rolleyes:

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

:dummy:I tried to make the wording as fair as I could.

I'll stand my ground to the cows come home that I totally support the increase in time suspects can be held.

So far this poll doesn't really reflects those taken nationally, but that's democracy.

(Luckily for our national security there is a narrow majority in favour of increased measures against terrorism here, just as there was in our parliament.):)

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Thank god for that!!!

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

i dont need thanking Bernie.:D

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

You and a few sensible people that can see further than the end of their nose then:p All well and good saying longer detention isn't needed, wonder what the shout will be WHEN the next terrorist attack occurs. But then again if none of their family are killed or injured what does it matter??

Re: new concession for terror bill.
 

Bernie the present legislation has been quite sufficent, in handling terrorist, like I have said and for all the posturing nobody has answered my question on the 28 day legislation, how many people have been released because the time ran out under the existing 28 day legislation. Much in the same way as, has gun crime dropped since banning hand guns. has knife crime dropped since new legislation, is the introduction of speed cameras cut road accidents or just raised millions of pounds for the treasury, have ASBOs curbed peoples bad habits or are they just a badge of honour. This government just make poliy on the hoof:(