General Chat

Exactly Sheila - the MPs who voted against the 90 days are representing the opinion of this member of the public:)

The phrase 'public opinion' seems to be thrown around every time there is a debate like this (not just on here but in the media generally). What is the 'public opinion' in this case? Is it pro the 90 days or against - I haven't seen any polls on the subject and can only conclude that 'public opinion' is as divided as it is amongst the small sample of replies on here over the last few days!

I agree with Harry, yet again!!lol

I am sure that Mr Bliar has forgotten that he has been put in charge of running the Country for the benefit of the electorate. He seems to think that he has been given the Country as his own private concern and has no interest in what we the electorate want, just what he wants. I believe that most of us want to see all the illegals exported, more homes which we can afford, a better NHS, better roads, better Public Transport and an end to this belief that the masses don't matter. As for Terrorism, as has already been stated the IRA didn't create the need for a 90 day holding period, so what has changed? See my thread on time to teach politicans a lesson.

Definitely misguided.............and out of touch with public opinion. But what's new about that? Rose

Eh? Traitors to what?

If anyone has been arrested for something they haven't done, gets put in a cell for several hours before seeing a solicitor or being questioned, and finally released without charge, they will understand why so many people are against this overuse of Police authority. Especially as it can now be considered an offence to even be THINKING about an act which could be considered vaguely terrorist.

Sir Ian Blair said they had proof that they had stopped several terrorist attacks. If they have proof, they don't need extra time. 28 days is long enough. Remember, It COULD BE YOU! David

David, That is the most ridiculous statement I have every heard. I know I'm in the minority on these Boards in my support for Tony Blair but in this instance I think he was very brave to go for the 90 days. He knew there was a very good chance it would be defeated but because he believed it to be right for the Country he went ahead. Its a pity the Tory opposition didn't consider the Country instead of voting for their own ends. Felicity, I disagree with you. It is a Governments duty to listen to the electorate and act accordingly. Jean.

And the liberals And the SDLP And the SN And the DUP etc D

Davo, Mentioned that in my first posting. Happy days

What about the labour MPs who voted against it? D

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.