Politicians: representatives of the people?

[joe-90]

I thought we elected our politicians to represent us, the people?

If that is the case, why was the 90 day holding of terror suspects defeated?
I believe that the public were strongly in favour of the measures.

So what gives politicians the right to overrule the people?

Just who do they think they are?


joe

 

[johnny_t]

I think they are there partly to represent us, and partly to consider things on our behalf and then vote on them. For example, opinion polls over the years would show public support for the death penalty, but politicians would consider it to be wrong and vote it down.

 

[kendor]

if we were to have polls on every issue that sprung up then nothing would get done, therefore you vote in a government for representation that doesn't mean that you will be happy with every decision and certain things have to be done which you will positively hate but necessary to keep a balance.

 

[johnny_t]

True, and also, in this case, the public really hasn't got a clue how long it is necessary to detain someone without charge for anti-terrorist measures. They only know what the papers tell them to think on the matter. MPs are therer to debate the facts, so lets leave them to it.

Sure you can lock everyone up indefinitely and the three people left walking the streets will be safe, but the cost is too high, IMHO.

 

[joe-90]

Only the police know how long they need. To use your logic "We should let them get on with it". The Police asked for 90 days. Let's face it, it's the same old problem

"Don't upset the Muslims".


joe

 

[kendor]

It's the cases of mistaken identity that worry me where an innocent person could be dragged into confinement for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and then being held for so long without being able to plead their innocence.
we have all seen in recent times and a couple of decades ago how wrong the police can be sometimes in their work.

 

[joe-90]

How many people have been wrongly imprisoned for decades? Should we not detain people at all?

joe

 

[johnny_t]

The police do know how long they need, but they are also going to err on the side of caution that will benefit them most. If you asked me how long I need to do a job at work, I would add some time and then look good when I finish early, rather than allow myself the bare minimum. Given that, in my opinion, Ian Blair has allowed himself to be used as a political tool in the past, I think that his words do need some analysis.

Its not a case of 'don't upset the muslims' - That may be a current hot potato, but there are other issues in this world. Where will the bar be set for being arrested as a terrorist - Heckling at a Labour Party Conference ?? Going on an anti-war march ?? Posting uncomplimentary things about the government on a forum ??.

Might sound silly now, but it might not in the future. This isn't a case of not upsetting anybody, its a case of standing up for the rights of the whole of society.

 

[kendor]

that last bit was referring to the mistaken identity fatal shootings albeit a more permanent damage caused to the individual but used in making a point as to how wrong the police can get things sometimes.

 

[joe-90]

Is it not a case of 'Desperate maladies require desperate remedies'?

If you water all legislation down so as not to offend anyone we end up with the law of the jungle, anarchy.

If the Police say they need the time - why call them liars?

Isn't it better that one man be incarcerated than 52 dead and 100s limbless?



joe

 

[kendor]

Is it not a case of 'Desperate maladies require desperate remedies'?

If you water all legislation down so as not to offend anyone we end up with the law of the jungle, anarchy.

If the Police say they need the time - why call them liars?

Isn't it better that one man be incarcerated than 52 dead and 100s limbless?



joe

fine as long as YOU arn't that man!

 

[johnny_t]

Is it not a case of 'Desperate maladies require desperate remedies'?

If you water all legislation down so as not to offend anyone we end up with the law of the jungle, anarchy.

If the Police say they need the time - why call them liars?

Isn't it better that one man be incarcerated than 52 dead and 100s limbless?



joe

Depends on if its the right man or not, and if that man is you or not.

But its not going to be one man - What is an acceptable number of innocent people to be detained to protect the public at large ?? If I had a bit more confidence in getting just the guilty then my answer would be different.......

 

[joe-90]

Is it not a case of 'Desperate maladies require desperate remedies'?

If you water all legislation down so as not to offend anyone we end up with the law of the jungle, anarchy.

If the Police say they need the time - why call them liars?

Isn't it better that one man be incarcerated than 52 dead and 100s limbless?



joe

fine as long as YOU arn't that man!

If white middle-aged men were going round bombing people that would be a risk I'd willingly accept. Wouldn't you?


joe

 

[johnny_t]

Nope

 

[joe-90]

Nope

Well like it or not you run that risk everytime a crime is committed. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time you may well get fingered. (ooer missus). You cannot be a part of society without being subject to that risk.


joe