General Chat

.

The sun says that those who voted against 90 days are traitors. Do you agree?

no dave,that is typical tabloid rubbish! but i would call them 'short sighted' bryan.

Absolutely not Dave!! I heard a chap on the radio tonite who said there are other ways the police can be supported including allowing phone tapping tapes as evidence among other things Kaz

Yes, I agree. I think authorities should lock up suspects for long as needed.

No. I think 90 days is too long. Lucia :-)

dave, to get to work,i have to travel on the london underground,if it wasen't for the presence of armed police,i really don't know what i would do...they give me confidence! bryan.

Dave, I don't think they are traitors but I do think they are misguided. I think in this instance the Security Chiefs and Police should be listened to and their advice accepted. As I said on another thread once again the politicians have ignored the wishes of the electorate. Like Bryan I use the London tube regularly and feel safer for seeing the amount of police now on the underground. Jean x.

What they have done is gone against what the majority of people want, I find this insulting.

Well that's just the sort of thing that the Sun would say!

The thing with most people is that would the Act be used in the manner it was intended for? It was used in Brighton against an elderly man for objecting to something said at the Labour Conferance also on the person who objected to the way he was 'Manhandled' Its a matter of trust in the Police,and I don,t think there is a lot of that at this moment. Hal.

No. Ninety days is too long. Terrorist suspects can already be held without charge longer than those arrested for any other offence; now the government wants an extension. Perhaps next year they'll go for a six-month period before charging them, then the year after that, a full 12 months. All this legislation wasn't felt necessary or helpful when the IRA were in full swing - and yet it was just as illegal for them to conspire to blow people up as it is for anyone else.

The problem is, as I see it, that the police cannot question anyone on a crime who they have already charged. Perhaps they should be able to charge them, under the terrorist act, and still be able to question them further. David

I'm slightly torn on the length of time someone should be held without charge, so I've been sitting on the fence on this one... but no, I don't agree with that sensationalist headline.

It is not goverments job to do what the majority want regardless, even a democracy. They also have to consider what is 'right' and 'good for the country' whatever those are! :-) Societies - and police forces - often want what is not good for them in the long term. I doubt that any 'average Joe' knows enough about the 90-day proposals to really make an informed decision and as usual, cries for one thing or another are based on a 'gut' reation. I know that I'm not happy with things as I see them at the moment though - too many loopholes and openings for abuse. Tabloid headlines don't make for healthy debate though.

Am I alone in thinking that the tories voted against it for their own purposes and the rebel labour MPs just wanted to bloody Tony,s nose. Happy days

I'm not a Tory, but how could they vote for their own purposes when the polls say public opinion is against them. It is Blair who is using it for his own purposes, he wants to leave a legacy. That legacy would be a police state. David

Davo, The tories are supposed to be the party of law and order. In my opinion threy voted the way they did solely to embarrass the government. happy days

What about the labour MPs who voted against it? D

Davo, Mentioned that in my first posting. Happy days