Originally Posted by cashman (Post 590704)

just seen for the 42 day detention fer terror suspects, a concession to try get the bill through that fer each day after the 28 a suspect who is not charged will recieve up to £3000 per day compensation, so if they keep em the 42 that means a bag of £42,000, dont know about you, but hope they pull me as a suspect. what dya think?

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590706)

Personally I don't think you can put a price on freedom.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590709)

They could use that money for a nice holiday.

There are some great deals to Cuba.:D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590711)

Personally I don't think you can put a price on the lives of the men, women, and children of this country.

I'd hold 'em for 4 years and 2 months if another bombing could be prevented.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590711)

Personally I don't think you can put a price on the lives of the men, women, and children of this country.

I'd hold 'em for 4 years and 2 months if another bombing could be prevented.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 590722)

Agree if there is the slightest bit of evidence hold them for however long it takes to prove otherwise. If any suspect can prove they have been held unlawfully no doubt they will prove it and be will compensated for the privelege

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590717)

I don't think you can defend freedoms by taking them away.

We need to tackle young Muslim radicalism. If we lock up an innocent person, is it going to make the Muslim community more likely to help or less?

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590728)

Nobody would disagree with you here! The thing is this bill is for detaining people with NO evidence! If there was evidence they could just charge them.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 590740)

Don't think they arrest people with NO evidence but if that is what you think they are doing so be it. Thought you were an intelligent sort of person(you are at university) but do you not think that sometimes suspects being moved out of the equation might help the investigation?? The suspects might have frighteners on witnesses or something like that. The real world awaits when you discard the fantasy that nobody is a threat

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590733)

Except no evidence has been given that shows we need to increase from 28 to 42 days. We're increasing it with no justification, how does this help improve relations? We should be tackling terror smartly.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590738)

Then you'll be happy to change your mind because members of all political parties accept that more than 28 days has never been necessary.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590748)

Sir Iain Blair, head of the Met, supports the changes.

Originally Posted by blazey (Post 590752)

I don't quite understand with the increase is needed. Unless we are expecting a terrorist attack any time soon and we are unaware of it as the public, then I don't really see the need to lengthen the current time.

Then again, if it hasn't been needed to date then creating a longer time doesn't necessarily mean we are intended on commonly applying it, it could just be seen as a 'just in case' measure.

I wouldn't like to be head for such a long time though under that law.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590728)

Nobody would disagree with you here! The thing is this bill is for detaining people with NO evidence! If there was evidence they could just charge them.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590756)

Indeed but as we can see all the time they're given is taken. USA manages to do it in 2days.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590751)

Yes and Gordon Brown supports it too. A long list of people don't support it. Lets deal with fact, fact remains it is not necessary.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590746)

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As stated earlier, loss of freedom, if innocent, can be compensated.

No amount of money can bring people back from the dead.

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 590761)

I LOVE this idea! In fact, I love this line of reasoning so much I hope Mr. Brown listens to my idea. Why don't we change vast amounts of Britain into rows and blocks of cells, and everyone is compulsorily locked in them until the police have adequately scared them into never stepping out of line ever, then when they're out they can join the police! BRILLIANT!

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As long as they're innocent then when they get out they get the awesome compensation of joining the police. God, I'm going to go write the letter now...

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590760)

Total hypocrisy.

The Conservatives think it's totally okay to hold suspected terrorist without charge for four weeks, but six weeks is bang out of order?

What on earth is the difference?

That's just about a time scale, and nothing at all to do with principles.

If you really believed in the principle of freedom you'd be lobbying that people shouldn't be held without charge at all.

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 590761)

I LOVE this idea! In fact, I love this line of reasoning so much I hope Mr. Brown listens to my idea. Why don't we change vast amounts of Britain into rows and blocks of cells, and everyone is compulsorily locked in them until the police have adequately scared them into never stepping out of line ever, then when they're out they can join the police! BRILLIANT!

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As long as they're innocent then when they get out they get the awesome compensation of joining the police. God, I'm going to go write the letter now...

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 590761)

I LOVE this idea! In fact, I love this line of reasoning so much I hope Mr. Brown listens to my idea. Why don't we change vast amounts of Britain into rows and blocks of cells, and everyone is compulsorily locked in them until the police have adequately scared them into never stepping out of line ever, then when they're out they can join the police! BRILLIANT!

If any more young mums, going about their daily business, can be prevented from being blown up, and some bloke spared the agony of telling his kids their mum is dead, I don't care!

As long as they're innocent then when they get out they get the awesome compensation of joining the police. God, I'm going to go write the letter now...

Originally Posted by blazey (Post 590764)

I don't agree with andrew but I don't agree with this view either. There is such thing as 'excessiveness'.

For example, I personally think 24 weeks is excessive for abortions, and a much shorter time was appropriate. I guess the difference is the effect on ones being after being held captive for such a long period without charge or knowledge of what is likely to be decided. Like a baby that is allowed to develop too long in the womb before being aborted, it feels pain. Allowing the government to hold people captive for so long without reason causes [in some cases at least] unnecessary stress and anxiety.

That's the way I see this issue.

How many terrorists are expected to be held for these kind of periods? I imagine that they are only going to be held within good reason for this extended period, so I don't see a problem with legalising it, but I can see andrews view of it not being needed to date so why now.

I'm in favour of it I think, but I don't really know enough about it.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590765)

....and by the way, I was fighting for real civil liberties whilst you still had brown stuff leaking out of your nappy.;)

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590769)

It comes down to principle.

You either believe suspected terrorists can be detained without charge, or you don't.

The time scale is irrelevant, principles aren't.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 590758)

I don't for one minute think that suspects are picked up on the basis of NO evidence. However long it takes to prove or disprove that the evidence is right or wrong as long as innnocent lifes are not taken I for one am all for the longer detention period!!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590760)

Total hypocrisy.

The Conservatives think it's totally okay to hold suspected terrorist without charge for four weeks, but six weeks is bang out of order?

What on earth is the difference?

That's just about a time scale, and nothing at all to do with principles.

If you really believed in the principle of freedom you'd be lobbying that people shouldn't be held without charge at all.

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 590770)

Sorry, sir, I'll leave you to erode my right not to be in a cell for a ridiculous chunk of time now. Far be it from me, the youth, to question the ineffable wisdom of my elders, who know best, amen. Whilst I have leaked brown stuff from my nappy, now, like a beautiful circle of life, I see it is leaking from your mouth.

BRING ON THE PRISON CELLS!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590776)

Appology accepted.

Dismissed.

Now go and practice using quotes in your posts, so other people's words don't appear in the middle of your own.

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 590770)

Sorry, sir, I'll leave you to erode my right not to be in a cell for a ridiculous chunk of time now. Far be it from me, the youth, to question the ineffable wisdom of my elders, who know best, amen. Whilst I have leaked brown stuff from my nappy, now, like a beautiful circle of life, I see it is leaking from your mouth.

BRING ON THE PRISON CELLS!

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590773)

Well they are, this is what the terrorism act is for Bernadette! Is hard to believe isn't it! I hope you can rethink now you know this.

The Crown Prosecution Service deal with saying if evidence is enough to prosecute terrorists. They have said that they do not need more than 28 days.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 590781)

Sorry but they are not held with No evidence there must be something or they wouldn't be detained in the first place. The CPS can take months to decide on a domestic case so pray tell me how twenty eight days is enough time to sort a suspected terrorist case??

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590775)

Not at all. There is a fine balance to be made. That balance is broken when you can detain people for longer than it is necessary. 42 days has never been necessary. Fact.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 590781)

Sorry but they are not held with No evidence there must be something or they wouldn't be detained in the first place. The CPS can take months to decide on a domestic case so pray tell me how twenty eight days is enough time to sort a suspected terrorist case??

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590783)

A lot of people, detained without evidence, have been released after 28 days. Clearly no evidence was there or they'd be charged!

Ask the CPS, they're the experts who say they don't need it for doing their job.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 590789)

Do you want this country to be safe? I for one don't think that these proposals are just thought up overnight but if you really believe they are I can't change your opinion. Personally I feel that the terrorists are just waiting to strike again and if these extra days can avoid another attack they are worth it. We will wait and see, hope you are right and I am wrong!!

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 590786)

Oh, how I wish I was in prison, counting the walls in the room (6)

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590728)

Nobody would disagree with you here! The thing is this bill is for detaining people with NO evidence! If there was evidence they could just charge them.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 590822)

i am all for this 42 detention, as i already told cyfr last week, n if hes against it on principal, well theres a divide in politics for/against so i suggest put it to the people including immigrants who live here so long as they are here legally, my view remains there aint enough police specialists etc to investigate things especially when a terror threat is imminent, like much of any industry they are stretched, thats life, principal is all fine n dandy when yer young (had it meself) on CND marches etc, but as i matured i came to the conclusion,i was a well meaning dickhead, no doubt cyfr will do the same at some point.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590886)

Go on, do a poll, we know you like 'em.


See how many of us support the move to increase the time someone can be detained without charge, from four to six weeks, and those who don't.


Then you'll know whether your Conservative party, or Gordon Brown has their finger on the nation's pulse regarding this issue.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590890)

Playing politics with liberty.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590894)

Not really sure why you're suggesting a poll, if you want one, go ahead.

The likely hood is that people will be with the Government, but that's why they're doing it, because scare mongering works, even when there is no justification for it other than to LOOK tough.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590901)

I think when it comes to U.K. citizens being maimed and killed by terrorists, people prefer tough.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590906)

I suppose I'm just a kid who wants to actually look for evidence, or any argument at all, rather than having my views dictated by emotive scare scaremongering.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590912)

Or just a member of a political party that cares more about scoring points, rather than accepting that this measure could save lives.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590920)

Garinda I hope you're winding me up. Why should it be 4weeks and not 6?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590928)

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

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590930)

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

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 590931)

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

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590935)

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.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 590953)

But how do we know?

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 590971)

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

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 590977)

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

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591001)

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.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 591002)

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

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591003)

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!

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 591005)

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!!!

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591006)

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?

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 591007)

I didn't say that and you know it.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591009)

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.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 591014)

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.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591016)

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.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591003)

So are you happy with 6months, a year, 5 years?

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591043)

so anyone found GUILTY of some forms of terrorist activity you do not regard as serious? thats gotta be the stupidest comment i ever heard.:(

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591044)

Why not, as you seem more than happy for them to be held for four weeks without charge?

By the way, it's detained without charge, not without evidence, which with new technologies being used by terrorists, is getting more and more difficult to gather in the shorter time scale.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591048)

I'd really understand your argument more if you were trying to scrap the whole system of detention without charge, although I still wouldn't agree with it, at least I could see you had principles.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591047)

I have not heard one person suggest that ANY threat has needed more than 28 days. Not one.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591045)

By serious I mean those guilty of murder, or those guilty of planning murder. Of course people guilty under the terrorism act are serious in the sense you mean.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591049)

Gary I am tired of this now. You are being ignorant. You're not stupid, you know full well I am arguing for only increasing detention if it is necessary, which it is quite simply not.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591052)

yer still spouting garbage, those who aid n abet, give em safe houses, false alibis etc are just as bad as the murderers, they are helping to perpetuate terrorism, get real theres NO non serious as you stated.:(

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591054)

Ignorant?

No just trying to understand your lack of logic.

Civil liberties are being attacked, as you seem to think, by any detention without charge, the time scale, when it comes down to that principle, is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591057)

From the callers to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2, which covered this issue today, the vast majority of people supporting the proposed change.

There were a few callers who identified themselves as Tories, who said had they known the Conservatives were not going to be tough on terrorism, they wouldn't have voted for them in the recent local elections.

Their words, not mine.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591055)

Jesus I'm just quoting those in the know. I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591058)

Here it is then. Detaining people without charge is justified if its actually needed. Detaining people without charge when it is not needed is not justified.

You might live in a black or white world, where it has to be no detention or absolute detention, but I thought we were arguing about the real world. The fact remains more than 28 days is simply not needed. There is no more to it.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 591060)

please explain how those NOT in the know end up charged n convicted?:confused:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591062)

I take it you mean 42 days, in the second last sentence?

Your opinion.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 591062)

Your opinion.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 591063)

What? Why would the Crown Prosecution Service be charged and convinced?:confused:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 591066)

Although you cannot put a price on freedom it is right that if someone is arrested and imprisoned and then released without charge, that person should be compensated for amongst other things – loss of earnings or job, being incarcerated without just cause and for hurt feelings.

What is wrong is that this proposed compensation doesn’t come into effect until day 29.

What is even more wrong is people being arrested and incarcerated on suspicion alone.


Or is it a case of it’s OK to have these Draconian laws for others but not you?

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.