new concession for terror bill. - Page 13

BERNADETTE · 12-06-2008, 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

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?

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

blazey · 12-06-2008, 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

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

I quite agree, he's certainly not.

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.

andrewb · 12-06-2008, 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

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

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

blazey · 12-06-2008, 01:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

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

Terrorists, it's in the title. It doesn't say 'muslim terrorist act' does it?

BERNADETTE · 12-06-2008, 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

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

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

Rosencrantz · 12-06-2008, 01:49

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

.

garinda · 12-06-2008, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

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

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.

andrewb · 12-06-2008, 01:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

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

You just accused me of string things when I gave a legitimate comment! What is wrong with mentioning Muslims?

blazey · 12-06-2008, 01:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

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.

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.

garinda · 12-06-2008, 01:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

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.

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.

garinda · 12-06-2008, 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

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.

Totally true. I hinted at as much earlier.

There were victims of every race, colour and creed attacked in the London bombings, including innocent Muslims.

blazey · 12-06-2008, 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

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.

Did you just quote a post where I said no such thing about them knowing each other? I thought it was quite obvious from the fact he was from Hull, I didn't even have to ask.

andrewb · 12-06-2008, 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

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.

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?

blazey · 12-06-2008, 01:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

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?

Innocent, or just not proven guilty yet? Where are the statistics to show this Andrew? I'm curious.

garinda · 12-06-2008, 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

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

.

No.

Your earlier comments disgust me, and thus prevent me from dignifying anything you say.