General Chat

Jean, I agree with you when you said - It is a Governments duty to listen to the electorate and act accordingly. 'Act accordingly' being the operative phrase. It was the government's knee-jerk reaction to attacks by a few uncontrolled dogs and vociferous demands that the government 'do something about it' that got us the Dangerous Dogs Act, one of the most appaling pieces of legislation imaginable - completely unworkable. Just cos the electorate want it, doesn't mean it's a good thing was my point, or that the law will provide that which was intended either. It's governments job to look at the big picture and they can't please all of the people all of the time.

Perhaps it is worth pointing out, as it has'nt been mentioned, the 90 day rule had a sunshine clause, which means it would have had to be renewed or abandoned after 1 year also every 7 days the person in detention would have had his case brought before a high court judge. The police asked for 90 days because of the technological advances, ie mobile phone records and computers which in the hands of clever terrorists take a long time to evaluate even by experts, therefore i think 90 days is about right. Why should we bend over backwards to make it easy for any criminal to escape justice. David

Davo, thank you. Happy days

If the police can't find enough evidence after 28 days of dedicated searching, then release the person. They can always be monitored (or is our surveillance too shoddy?) and re-arrested if evidence is found. This is supposed to be a free country, the definition of which is not that we lock people up until we find something incriminating. The effects of holding someone who is innocent for three months are far-reaching. They may lose their job; at the very least they lose their pay. No wages means an inability to pay for bills, rents or mortgages. We all know that the intelligence services are fallible - WMD and Jean Charles de Menezes taught us that! And yes, that old man arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for heckling - is that the sort of dangerous person the government has in mind? Is publicaly disagreeing with the government automatically considered grounds for suspicion. If not, why was that man arrested under that particular legislation?

Harry Have deleted that line. I remember terrorists threatening bombs on the tube in 1947. It didn't stop my dad taking me on the Tube. I worked in a national newspaper in London during bombing campaigns by the angry brigade and then the IRA. We had letter bombs, some of which exploded. All the post was then opened in the security office, which was next to ours. We got used to the bomb squad appearing. We had shattrerproof windows installed due to the number of bob threats we received. We were about 1/4 mile or less from the IRA Old Bailey bomb blast, which was the 2nd loudest explosion I've heard. The loudest being a V2 rocket which landed about the same distance awaywhen I was a child. We have lived through this terrorism and did not expect our civil rights to be restricted. David

Jim, I'd have felt a lot worse if one of my daughters or grandsons had been on the tubes or bus on 7.7.

Davo, 4.49pm, but as you acknowledge you shouldn,t have said it, its fine by me. Happy days

Harry I agree I shouldn't have said that but I can't find it. What time was it? David

Jean, You are right, the freedom and safety of the individual is paramount, but that must surely include the freedom from being locked up on suspicion of wrongdoing for three months without legal assistance. Unfortunately it appears that some are quite happy for there to be 'civilian casualties' or innocent people locked up if it may make them safe. But how would you feel if it were one of your children, or even yourself?

Twas the'don,t talk rot' bit I object to. While we are running down MPs, they usually manage to say the same thing but in a less forceful manner. Happy days

Jim, Isn't that what the legislation was trying to do. To allow the ordinary citizens of this country to move about freely without fear of being blown to smithereens?

Well said Jim

Well said Len. We are not talking about the instigation of a 'police' state - Tony Blair and the like are merely trying to secure the country against 'savages' who would take great delight in blowing as many UK citizens to pieces as they possible could a Jacqui

I think that what we are forgetting is what we are supposed to be fighting for. What we have had in this Country and developed ever since King John sealed the Magna Carta. The freedom of the individual. The right to free speech, freedom of religious belief, and, more recently, freedom of women and freedom of sexual choice. We reached a stage where all legislation encouraged the equality, under the law, of every individual. From some of the things I have seen and heard about recently, that is what we stand at risk of losing.

I'm Sorry Len The only way we can be safe is to lock everybody up all the time and that means YOU and ME Why 90 days, why not 120 days why not 5 years, why not life? David

I dont like Tony Blair, but in this case I am in agreement, but only if there are safeguards in place, like contact with a solicitor, and by that I dont mean that they should be released but their welfare should be monitored. Its unfortunate but the more tangled the web these terrorists weave the more complicated the investigation. This means that it will probably take longer to look into all the evidence, and thats why I think that the 90 day clause should be used. Sorry but if you want safe you've got to have this in place. As for upsetting people, well if you dont like the way this country's run, then leave!!!! Len

I havent always agreed with Tony Blair, but on this occasion I do think he's right and the Police deserve the support they apparently have asked for. Jacqui

I've read most of the 'political' threads, and their replies, that have been put on the boards since July 7;and I'm very surprised that Tony Blair hasn't received more support from the contributors to this thread.

Harry, which particular post are you referring to? Earlier I removed a post that on reflection I thought was impolite. If you let me know and I agree I will remove it. Personally I think ALL the MPs were voting on what they think is best for the country. That means that some disagree with others and with what is thought to be public opinion. They cannot ALL be right, but they can All be wrong. David

Davo, Re your reply to my earlier comment. Quite often we disagree with other peoples views on this channel. Most do it in a polite manner. Happy days