User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Too many innocent people are being arrested. Therefore police ned to brush up on their investigative skills.
Few people are being held for 14 days. That's OK. But why then increase it to 90 days just to be able to hold 1 or 2 people for longer?
Police are doing a bad enough job as it is, why give them more powers to abuse?
of course its relevant. If they plan on paying fixed compensation unless magically money grows on trees then yeah tax payers will have to pay an also by keeping suspects in prison longer will mean increase for tax payers to accomadate suspects. So i think it has
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
Anyone know exactly what got through?
Did it all except the 90 day clause get through?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Glorification of terrorism got through.
As did 28 day detention without charge.
But all is not lost.
The House of Lords will refuse to pass it.
yeah........and they wait a year, ignore the House of Lords.....and pass it through anyway
:roll:
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
This isn't something they can ignore the the House of Lords on. Or at least this isn't something that they [i]should[/i] ignore the Lords on.
But the Dear Leader could be gone by then anyway.
And the new PM might not carry on with Blair's plans as stubbornly.
they can ignore the H of L, and if TB is still there.......they probably will
agreed, the soon-to-be PM will hopefully be less stubborn.........but im not counting on it
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
True. afterall he ios the one who has to bankroll TB's plans. He has accepted that.
Why would he reject the same policies later?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
TB needs these measures because they put the focus on Muslims in this country and their failure to integrate. Such laws take the focus off the Iraq War.
Blair went to war in Iraq against public opinion. Iraq War led to 7/7. Blair was responsible for 7/7. (Generalisation, yes.)
But Blair doesn't want us to think this way. These laws take the heat off him about Iraq and present him as someone fighting (politically) for the security of the country.
His successor isn't likely to be bothered about preserving the Dear Leader's legacy.
I don't think you know when you're doing it, but in framing government's intentions some of you are sooo conniving. Really reeks.
What do you mean 'framing'? Aren't we allowed to analyse the gov's decisions?
Conniving with who?
Naz,
It isn't relevant. Efficiencies, not taxes. The treasury deals in big sums of money one way or another. Making the police force pay from a limited budget for serious errors, but fall short on all their other targets if they do not effectively combat crime and terrorism, is a straightforward system for ensuring that the police do not err on arresting the innocent, nor on neglecting crime. And if it takes 90 days to establish what is required to prosecute likely terrorists, and if it is unsafe to release them, then there needs to be a law permitting 90 days, and ensuring that those 90 days are not harsh.
Irfghan,
I mean in defining what the government intends, which is a very speculative 'analysis'. If that were my attitude to analysis I would not be here and could work off sheer guesswork, my own perception, and incidental experiences when discussing anything to do with Muslims. Instead I converse with you guys and learn what the story is. Conniving as in, using your opinions to create consensus, severely tarnishing any chance of level-headed understanding of and discussion with 'the other'. It is distressing, and brings to light the possibility that frank, honest conversation will always be impeded by gossip, assumption and smear.
I've heard pundits on the news talking about how Blair is trying to take the focus off his role in the Iraq War with these laws.
It is generally understood that there is an emnity between TB and GB. Seeing as GB will be the next PM he is not likely to be worried about covering TB's back.
Pundits, though. If that is what they believe, all they need do is keep their focus. Speculating that a man ties his shoes so as not to be brushing his teeth is pretty prejudicial and non-constructive, and we descend into partisanship. We have found that it is certainly possible to maintain numerous discussions at once, so in terms of being effective, rather than winning the front pages, this stuff about focus is nonsense.
There is a big difference between speculation about a man's character and principled debate, and I notice a heavy tendency in all internet discussion to declare false consensus and smear opposition, and it should be avoided. When more than one person does it, it is 'conniving'.
You're right.
The Dear leader is a great Prime Minister. One of the best that this country has ever had.
He has a one track mind when it comes to security. His only concern is the defence and safety of every member of the public.
He doesn't care about his legacy, or what the public thinks of him, or the political fallout from the Iraq War, or the democratic and liberal tradition of this country. When it come to security, Tony couldn't care less about anything else.
Party politics doesn't come into it. (That's why only 1 Tory voted with the gov on 90 days)
And he's a man of his word. He said he'll protect us from Saddam's WMD... and he has done. I've not been attacked with WMD, have you?
Harsh, repressive and ambiguous laws are what make this country great. And the law-abiding majority of Muslims in this country will welcome these laws.
It is not too much to tell Muslims of this country to watch what they say. It is not too much to tell the Muslims of this country to be careful of who they talk to. It is not too much to tell the Muslims of this country to go to jail for 90 days while the police work out if they're planning or inadvertantly inciting terrorism.
Oh and another thing... Muslims who have the same political views are conniving. They're up to something... they should be locked up for 90 days or deported... or both. Yes, both.
That is just an extremely cynical response to my call for YOU to be responsible. Instead you redoubled your cynicism. You talk as if you knew. There would be nothing wrong with writing about your frustrations non-speculatively. I'm astonished you spent so much time typing THAT instead.
I have to go out for a few hours. I mention this so that anyone reading understands if I drop conversations, I am going to be really tied up for several days, I'll be able to spend some time here ('thanks, 100man!') maybe Monday night or Tuesday. I might even pop back in later but it wouldn't be for long.
So your saying I should make my crticisms but not get personal.
I should diss the laws not the Dear Leader - is that it?
So you're saying so you're saying, is that it?
I'm gone for a few days, have a good weekend, Shabbat Shalom.
Sometimes it's hard to get what you mean.
It takes a bit of explaining.
Pages