Habeas Corpus

Originally Posted by Ed

I don't think 42 days is unreasonable. I reckon that the public would probably support 42 days for suspected terrorists. I do. Erosion of fundamental freedoms, well it's my fundamental freedom not to be blown up, and I accept the Government's case that getting the evidence in suspected terrorist cases can be a time consuming business.

I think David Davis is a twit. I don't like him anyway, he looks shifty.

you're therefore - im my humble of course - subscribing to the governments ideals that there's a bogeyman out to get us all. terror threat? what terror threat? its propaganda at its best. 42 days is simply an OUTRAGEOUS amount of time to hold somebody without charge (see what i did there, i put it in capitals which means i meant it!), no other civilised country holds suspects for as long as we did with our 28 days, now its nearly been doubled? orwell was right you know

Originally Posted by keithd

you're therefore - im my humble of course - subscribing to the governments ideals that there's a bogeyman out to get us all. terror threat? what terror threat? its propaganda at its best. 42 days is simply an OUTRAGEOUS amount of time to hold somebody without charge (see what i did there, i put it in capitals which means i meant it!), no other civilised country holds suspects for as long as we did with our 28 days, now its nearly been doubled? orwell was right you know

I don't have any statistics on this but we often read of people arrested under the anti-terrorism laws.

What's the bigger interest - the fact that someone might be banged up, unfairly, for rather longer than might ideally be desirable, or the safety of the public?

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Ed

I don't think 42 days is unreasonable. I reckon that the public would probably support 42 days for suspected terrorists. I do. Erosion of fundamental freedoms, well it's my fundamental freedom not to be blown up, and I accept the Government's case that getting the evidence in suspected terrorist cases can be a time consuming business.

I think David Davis is a twit. I don't like him anyway, he looks shifty.

I dont care about Davis either - its probably some plan in a Scheme of his TBH

I do care about the fact that if the Plod actually cared about the Soho Massive parking on double yellows and decided to do something about it, they could quote "Prevention of Terrorism", accuse us of purposefully blocking a street and haul the lot of us off for 42 days holiday.

As it is, TSM was stopped on his way home once (a distance from Soho I will admit) and the reason given was Terror related. (and that was about 5 mins walk from my house)

I think that the Orwelian Powers that the govenrment have given themselves HAVE to be taken from them, and PROPER laws be brought in, all the CCTV cameras should be ripped down and very long and hard consideration taken on where and if any of them should be re-instated.

[Viney]

Hmmm, 2 sides to every coin i suppose. If you where to ask the families of people of say, 9/11 or 7/7 attacks, or other terrorist stuff, or that you were one of those said familes, i am sure that your opinions/views would be different, and if you say not, then im sorry you are lying.

Personaly, i dont really care if poeple are banged up for 28 days or 42. How many people a year is this going to affect in reality?

Originally Posted by Viney

Hmmm, 2 sides to every coin i suppose. If you where to ask the families of people of say, 9/11 or 7/7 attacks, or other terrorist stuff, or that you were one of those said familes, i am sure that your opinions/views would be different, and if you say not, then im sorry you are lying.

Personaly, i dont really care if poeple are banged up for 28 days or 42. How many people a year is this going to affect in reality?

from a horses mouth...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rity.terrorism

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

Mind you; for ?3k a day compensation I might see if I can get myself locked up. Maybe protesting outside Westminister as that's NOW a terrorist offence?

... and once 'board and lodging, at a bargin price of 5k a day is subtracted, you'll end up owing the government money.

Originally Posted by Ed

I don't have any statistics on this but we often read of people arrested under the anti-terrorism laws.

What's the bigger interest - the fact that someone might be banged up, unfairly, for rather longer than might ideally be desirable, or the safety of the public?

Banging people up unfairly, by a long way.

Why do you ride a motorbike? Because you've run it through your mind and decided that the reward outweighs the risk. And you know more than most how real those risks are, yet you still do it.

The same logic can be applied to this anti-terror business. The risk from terrorism is laughably small. Yes 53 people died in a horrific attack, but that was three years ago. Many times more people will have died slipping over in the bathroom since then, but you don't call in the flying squad becaue you noticed a shifty looking bar of soap in the shower.

The reward for choosing to proceed with life dispite the risk is to remove the oppertunity for an arrogant government run by a phsycotic scotsman to randomly lock people up.

Tiny risk, large reward. The new law is a travisty.

Once again I offer my services as your new world ruler... I can sort all this easy.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Grinch

rOnce again I offer my services as your new world ruler... I can sort all this easy.

Sorry Grinch - thats MY job.

You can be Minister for Cake tho

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Sorry Grinch - thats MY job.

You can be Minister for Cake tho

I think if it came to a vote, people could easy direct there hate towards me, after all thats one of the leaders jobs.

[the_lone_wolf]

ironically as we reduce the liberties of our populous, the US supreme court extends hope to people stuck in what is the greatest affront to due process and the right to a fair trial in the western world...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7451139.stm