Political Crossfire Forums

clarity · Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 280 Location: Burton

Tony Blairs recent attempt to allow the police to hold terror suspects for 90 days was thrown out of Parliament.

Could this be because the idea wasn't a good one? could it be because it didn't have the support of the people?

No, it was a good idea that was in the best interests of the British people and it had the majority of our support. It was rejected because of childish attitudes towards Tony Blair who in my opinion has done a good job overall. Yet a good idea which the police will find very useful has been turned down because people in the labor party have some sort of problem with Tony Blair. They have even called for his resignation which is an absolute ridiculous thing to do. We the people of Britain have voted Tony Blair into power because we want him there, and now for childish and unwarranted reasons they want him out so they can but Gordon Brown in his place. Someone who we did not choose as our Prime Minister.

The government should put their squabbling aside and do what is best for their country not what is best for them. At this moment in time i am very disappointed in my Government and i still support Tony Blair

johnz · Joined: 11 Sep 2005 Posts: 381 Location: Costa Del Leeds

clarity wrote: Tony Blairs recent attempt to allow the police to hold terror suspects for 90 days was thrown out of Parliament.

you've said it right there, suspects thats all they are until proven otherwise. have you forgot how long 90 days is?

tony blair has said he would do alot of things in order to get in power, has he done these things? no, not by any strech.

He should be brought before the courts on account of mass murder of the Iraqi people in an illegal war, a war crime if ever i seen one.
thats all the time im giving tony and this thread!

clarity · Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 280 Location: Burton

What? ok if you see a shifty man walking down the street holding a package IN A TIME WHERE SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE A REAL THREAT WHAT WOULD YOU DO. think oh its nothing serious and theres no evidence to do anything anyway and let him on his way. What would you do if he killed dozens of British citizens.

The 90 days is just an option for the police to make sure the person isnt a terrorist.

And the arguement ism't fully about the 90 day bill its about why the goverment didn't except it.

Windy · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 3451 Location: Wolverhampton

clarity wrote: What? ok if you see a shifty man walking down the street holding a package IN A TIME WHERE SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE A REAL THREAT WHAT WOULD YOU DO. think oh its nothing serious and theres no evidence to do anything anyway and let him on his way. What would you do if he killed dozens of British citizens.

The 90 days is just an option for the police to make sure the person isnt a terrorist.

And the arguement ism't fully about the 90 day bill its about why the goverment didn't except it.

Right so your saying that the police should arrest anyone walking down the street with a bag or box that could contain a bomb until they can prove their not a terrorist? Or perhaps they should just shoot them 7 times in the head?

johnz · Joined: 11 Sep 2005 Posts: 381 Location: Costa Del Leeds

give up now clarity!

clarity wrote: What? ok if you see a shifty man walking down the street holding a package IN A TIME WHERE SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE A REAL THREAT WHAT WOULD YOU DO. think oh its nothing serious and theres no evidence to do anything anyway and let him on his way. What would you do if he killed dozens of British citizens.

The police already have the powers to check whats in that package!

and take action if necessary.

How many inocent people will it take to be held for 90 days and then released for tony to come to his senses?

clarity wrote: The 90 days is just an option for the police to make sure the person isnt a terrorist.

it doesnt take 90 days to make sure, the police should already be sure of that before they make the arrest.

clarity wrote: And the arguement ism't fully about the 90 day bill its about why the goverment didn't except it.

The government didnt exept it because it was flawed from the start, they said no to a police state and won.
The whole act of the government saying no was democracy at ist most prominent, and tony didnt like it! makes you wonder eh

Snow Patrol · Joined: 30 May 2005 Posts: 2175 Location: Glasgow

clarity wrote: And the arguement ism't fully about the 90 day bill its about why the goverment didn't except it.
Paliament did not accept it because it is an unjustifiable breach of civil liberties. Are you possibly suggesting they voted against it out of spite against Tony Blair?

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:51 am Post subject: Re: Parliment being childish?

clarity wrote: Tony Blairs recent attempt to allow the police to hold terror suspects for 90 days was thrown out of Parliament.

Could this be because the idea wasn't a good one? could it be because it didn't have the support of the people?

No, it was a good idea that was in the best interests of the British people and it had the majority of our support. It was rejected because of childish attitudes towards Tony Blair who in my opinion has done a good job overall. Yet a good idea which the police will find very useful has been turned down because people in the labor party have some sort of problem with Tony Blair. They have even called for his resignation which is an absolute ridiculous thing to do. We the people of Britain have voted Tony Blair into power because we want him there, and now for childish and unwarranted reasons they want him out so they can but Gordon Brown in his place. Someone who we did not choose as our Prime Minister.

The government should put their squabbling aside and do what is best for their country not what is best for them. At this moment in time i am very disappointed in my Government and i still support Tony Blair

No it was rejected becuase some people in parliment arnt happy about us becoming air strip one.

Also its sorta against the mangna carta

Article 39 wrote: No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

Article 40 wrote: To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

Un-freaking consitutional.

Angela · Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:03 am Post subject:

actually 28 days seems already too much for me. I mean 28 days in the hands of the police without a judge to confirm or deny the arrest warrant? . Just to make a comparison in Italy (and in most of continental Europe) the police can't hold anyone for more than 48 hours if a judge doesn't confirm the arrest. Don't know why but i find the idea scary.

On a side note is the Blair's government in danger?

bob.appleyard · Joined: 15 Oct 2005 Posts: 7543 Location: Manchestar, innit

Britain has had the broadeast anti-terror legislation in Europe for a long time now. And it is rather scary how much power they have. IT used to be as you describe (24 hours, I think), but that has changed. It's still 14 days, but if the lords pass this bill it will be 28. I think there is judicial oversight of some kind, though.

Blair staked his personal authority on getting this bill passed. They brought everyone in (including getting Gordon back from a foreign visit, and someone out of hospital, I think) to vote on it, but one of the largest Labour rebellions (though not the largest -- there were larger ones in the previous parliament, but the bills still passed) kept it off the statute book. This was the largest margin of failure for a sitting government in a whipped vote since Callaghan in the 70s, when the last Labour government was totally on the rocks.

Labour has a comfortable majority, and this was a special issue, but this is the first time a Labour rebellion has been successful. And has often been repeated that once rebellions have drawn blood, they begin to get a taste for it. There are a number of "special issues" coming up, which happen to be central to Blair's "reform agenda". This might wreck him. Too soon to say though, as this is quite singular.

This was not just the Labour rebels. The rebellion may have been strengthened by it, though.

JDnCoke · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 1153 Location: Oxford, Queen's

I just want that cheesy bastard out, not only is he selling the family silver, his popularist measures are destabilising the most complex institution in the world, he's turned Britain from what was one of the most Liberal democracies in Europe into a Statist Paradise, took us to war on a premise of lies and deferred every real issue that doesn't whet his appetite.

Get the grinning bastard out of our Government. He can take Henchmen Prescott and Dictator Clarke with him.

clarity · Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 280 Location: Burton

Snow Patrol wrote: clarity wrote: And the arguement ism't fully about the 90 day bill its about why the goverment didn't except it.
Paliament did not accept it because it is an unjustifiable breach of civil liberties. Are you possibly suggesting they voted against it out of spite against Tony Blair?

yes that is what im saying. it is a good idea and parliment had no real reason to throw it out.

Windy · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 3451 Location: Wolverhampton

clarity wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: clarity wrote: And the arguement ism't fully about the 90 day bill its about why the goverment didn't except it.
Paliament did not accept it because it is an unjustifiable breach of civil liberties. Are you possibly suggesting they voted against it out of spite against Tony Blair?

yes that is what im saying. it is a good idea and parliment had no real reason to throw it out.

Apart from the fact it is unconsitution and unnessacary. The police had no evidence that they need 90 days, or even more than 14.
They only got 28 because that was the only opinion MPs had.