Police State

[oilman]

Oilman, it sounds like you are on the side of these peoples human rights regardless of what evidence is there. Out of a population of 58 million the police arrested 12. Now to me that sounds like there was something going on. And don't forget, that bloke they arrested in Gloucester.........he pleaded guilty to trying to blow up an aircraft. We are too soft and it is attitudes like yours which make it easy for these people

Er.....it might just be that I am the side of YOUR rights as well. You can be locked up just as easily. So there's something on because 12 of 58m are arrested? lets have them charged and tried then. The bloke in Gloucester pleaded guilty, was he tried then? no problem there. Problem is when people are locked up without trial. Where does it stop? Can you trust the politicians who have been proved to be liars? Do you know what my attitude is then? From what? I've just been putting a of a debate.

 

[Thermo]

no you cant trust the politicians, which is why the argument for a review for a judge to be involved was bought up. I for one have been involved in the security services, both from a military and police point of view and not as the average plod on the street. This may give me a somewhat more tainted view, but i am also well aware of the way they recruit, act, scheme, and the way they use their tactics (to be honest you probably wouldnt want to know some of the things). I for one feel that it is a real problem that does need to be dealt with. I am not saying just kick people out for no reason, i fully believe in due process of some kind. But if you think people are going to get locked up willy nilly on whims and fancies because they feel like it then get in the real world. As soon as that happens the power will be removed. Its a problem and its got to be dealt with. We are not talking about level headed people, like we dealt with in ireland. Mr ira terrorist did not want to die, despite all their rhetoric, these guys we are dealing with do. That makes it a big problem and one that HAS to be dealt with.

 

[kendor]

when it is taken through the correct judisiary procedure then there are safeguards in place to protect human rights and the innocent whereas locking up individuals without trial leads to the witchunts of old.

 

[jasy]

There are things the security services do in OUR interests that we do NOT need to know about. If someone is a liability to ALL our safety and the SECURITY of this COUNTRY , where we all live, then they should be taken out of circulation, end of chat I have to agree with thermo. The IRA you could sit down and discuss an agenda with because they had one. The Islamic fanatics we are dealing with are non negotiable. They believe all westerners and their beliefs are evil and should be destroyed. So come on Kendor and Oilman, how do we sort that out?? Take them for a sitdown at the local chinese?? No!, we treat them as suspects until THEY can prove they are of no threat to the security of this country. We have more to lose than they do. The normal rule of law goes out the window. Extreme circumstances need an extreme response and if that means upsetting the few for the safety of the majority then so be it!

 

[Damocles]

You mean the guy who had a bomb and a flight ticket? The one they had EVIDENCE about? The one who actually chickened out of setting off his bomb? I have absolutely no problem locking up people who are planning to blow anyone up. I have a problem locking people up because someone thinks they MIGHT be terrorists. History says that innocent people WILL be locked up if you start doing that. And if the wrong people get into government, LOTS of innocent people get locked up.

So what is your likelihood of being blown up by bin laden in the uk? So far absolutely zero. No one has been blown up here by him. And what is your chance in general of being blown up by terorists in this country? One in a million or less. More likely to be injured in an electrical fire. Very very much more likely to be killed by a doctor treating you.

We had TWO ira bombs in our part of London. Mate of mine had his front door smashed down and was carted off by police by mistake. Another guy locally to me was unarmed, asleep in bed and shot dead by police. I witnessed a speeding police car smash into two civilian cars trying to rush to a callout.

I still do not believe in locking people up without evidence. I can see perfectly well that half the people who were rushed off to jail because the government had to find someone to blame were innocent.

 

[kendor]

You mean the guy who had a bomb and a flight ticket? The one they had EVIDENCE about? The one who actually chickened out of setting off his bomb? I have absolutely no problem locking up people who are planning to blow anyone up. I have a problem locking people up because someone thinks they MIGHT be terrorists. History says that innocent people WILL be locked up if you start doing that. And if the wrong people get into government, LOTS of innocent people get locked up.

There you go jasy, that's the reason why.

 

[david and julie]

And if the wrong people get into government, LOTS of innocent people get locked up.

But surely if the wrong people got in government they could make new laws even more extreme than this, if they wanted too.

I know the terrorist threat has been worsened since the illegal Iraq war, but we can't change that now. With that in mind what would you do about the problems we face?

 

[pipme]

Police state ? Tell that to the silent majority in Nottingham ... Coming to a place near you ...soon ! When the cops are busy street tidying for the all nighters ..... The wild west - now !
Privatisation of Murder inquiries - perhaps ?
Hey Tone, never mind Al-qaeda, Some people living in enough fear from mere crims --- here and now !
We are shooting the wrong people in the wrong countries !!

 

[david and julie]

If neighbouring forces have the capacity to do the work does that mean they are overstaffed?

See the old gravy train will be back though, subbing out work to the early retired again.

 

[Damocles]

If the wrong people get into government then I am sure they will produce far worse laws. These are bad enough. Why have we given them a head start by putting the framework in place already? Remember how Hitler came to power? Bit of a mistake letting that happen.

I absolutely DO want to know what the security forces are doing in my name. I want to know who they are kidnapping, torturing, killing. Where they have planted their own bombs. Who they have framed for what. I want to know because if they are doing any of these things then they are no better than the people they are trying to catch. i do not want a way of life that means I am acting as a terrorist myself.

This is supposed to be a moral war against terrorism, because terrorism is bad. But it would seem that a lot of politicians are saying it is OK to use terrorist methods to fight terrorists. How can they claim to be better than the other terrorists?

More Brits have died as a result of invading Iraq than would ever have dies from Iraqi terrorists. There were no Iraqi terrorists, Sadam had them all under control. He had absolutely no interest in anything outside Iraq.

I would not adopt a policy which produces terrorists. I would not go round unilaterally invading other peoples countries. i would not go round manufacturing evidence to support my actions. I would not go round acting as an imperialist in virtually every country and upsetting just about everyone all at the same time.

 

[david and julie]

If the wrong people get into government then I am sure they will produce far worse laws.

But they will have been voted in by the people, just because you think they are bad others may not.

Sadam had them all under control. He had absolutely no interest in anything outside Iraq.

Kuwait.

 

[Damocles]

you are missing the point about democracy. It is not voting IN people that is important. It is being able to vote them OUT. I

f you don't have enough rules in place to make damn sure that they can be voted OUT, then you have had it. All it takes is a bit of apathy and suddenly an extremist party gets in. Who can stop them? House of lords stop their new terror laws? Queen refuse to sign them? Did you hear the commons bleating about how dare the lords hold up their new law for a week? The British constitution is totally in pieces. There is no one left who has the power to call a government to account.

Indeed, Kuwait. Bush senior knew damn well that invading Iraq himself would be a very very bad idea. Rescuing Kuwait was a proper response to real aggression. There would have been a justification to carry on into Iraq but everyone concerned realised that this would make matters worse, not better.

I regret it, but you cannot have a constitution which simply relies on good faith. You always have to stop and think what are the bad results which could follow from a new law. Because they will happen.

 

[pipme]

........ He had absolutely no interest in anything outside Iraq......

Except the odd holiday excursion to Kuwait .... I do wonder why he (Sad dam) did not see the writing on the wall after that debacle ... He had time to play the reformed character ... I guess he was motivated by machismo and the ludicrus desire not to be seen 'to lose face' ... They've never, in recent times succeeded in doing anything else in real confrontation.....
There is a lot more to all this than meets the eye ..... On the other hand maybe not ..

 

[Damocles]

No evidence has been produced that Sadam was building any terror weapons or planning anything outside his own country. All we have had are excuses why they got it wrong.

Sadam bluffed and blustered a lot. That was his mistake, the Americans used his own lies about how strong he was as excuse to invade his country. Mr Blair said to trust him that Sadam was doing all this. We did. He wasn't.

 

[pipme]

But he did invade Kuwait, that provoked a little skirmish... Or perhaps he was making a movie ... oops !