Just realised that for the first time ever (I think) I'm cheering on the Tories against Labour!

[Caligula]

OMG I'm going to have to rush out and buy a union jack and get my hair done in a blue rinse. I found myself saying during PM "Good on yer, Tories" about them not supporting the 90 days extension this evening.

Do I have to move to Surrey now?

Mmm, so did I - was never going to make any diff where I live but still. I am not happy with much that this Govt does but can't imagine a Tory Govt making things any better or a Lib Dem Govt ever existing

That's probably the truth of it

oh good. paxo on newsnight.

sadly i don't think this is the end of blair at all

re the argument that the police want it therefore we should ahve it: they've asking for phone tapping evidence to be admisible for ages (sorry for all the spelling)....the whole big point thing is that they are the police and the govt are the govt...saying that the police want it is just NOT an argument.....fgs the majority of this country want the death penalty!!!!!!!

ha! rushes back from commons debate to greet the chinese president!!!! he is eviiiiilllll (blair rather than chinese pm but actually both!)

FFS did anyone see the programme on more4 last night about the compulsory registration of any out of status or Muslim man from ( list of all Arab nations basically) after sept 11.
One Algerian man had emigrated to the US, married and had a child, was awaiting his green card when he registered - deported
Another man was detained for 37 days because someone (no relation) had stolen a car or not returned a hire car or something. 37 DAYS, then one day the FBI said, ahh shit we should not be dealing with car crime and let him go without a word of apology - he now needs psychiatric counselling.
Another Egyptian man with US wife and 2 kids (5 and 1) was deported (missed a lot of that one) he is now banned for 10 yrs, watching them visit him in Egypt was gut wrenching.
That programme was really important and I hope they show it on regular ch4 soon.
End result 87000 men registered
0 terrorists found, as they said only genuine people comply.
Bastards.

I'm sure lots of policemen would like the right to beat up suspects as well, or not bother to investigate racist killings, or shoot anyone in the street who might be making them feel a bit jumpy, but the day the police make the rules about how the justice system works is the day we may as well just do away with the legal system altogether and let them just do as they like.

well it is selective hearing really isn't it...

the police don't want 24hour licencing but the government chose to ignore that piece of advice

I still think it is very odd that Blair went for the 90 days and I'm starting to wonder if he's planning this as the beginning to his end, if you see what I mean. That comment about trying to do the right thing and failing being better than doing the wrong thing and succeeding is extraordinary!

I mean they can take passports if there is enough circumstantial cause, use covert or non covert surveillance if they are that convinced allsorts of other ways they can keep tags.
By doing a wholesale 90 day detention without charge you risk losing the goodwill and therefore alienating the very communities you need the support of the most.

yeah a bit tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all
Hah
no its NOT LOL

Message deleted

carla: [quote]Anything that saves lives is ok in my book. [/quote]

are you sure?

How can we take away some innocent person's freedom without losing some of our own.

And it is not certain that this will save lives.

What saves lives is a sense of fair play. What endangers is injustice.

Internment of innocent people in Northern Ireland caused so much anger and outrage, that many young men who would otherwise not have done, went and joined the IRA.

So lots more people were killed, who otherwise wouldn't have been, because thre were a lot more IRA members, than there otherwise would have been.

Locking innocent people up doesn't save lives, it costs them. I can't understand why the government's memory is so short.

Message deleted

caligula i couldn't agree more.

Message deleted

Message deleted

No Carla, I don't believe it is.

All of us might be guilty of something, and the State could round us all up and throw us into prison. Most of us would be innocent, but a few of us would be guilty, so it would be justified absolutely devastating our lives in order to catch the few guilty ones.

That's fascism, or totalitarianism, or slavery, or whatever you want to call it. But it's not the rule of law, and it's not democracy.

Message deleted

carla: "there's no justice in 60 odd innocent Londoners losing their lives. Or anyone from any other country, for that matter."

"they're not all necessarily innocent"

So, because some people killed 60 innocent Londoners, we jettison justice and fair play, and start holding people for long periods with police in charge.

and since some may be guilty, we are happy to treat the innocents similarly.

Suppose you are a redhead, and in you locality a breakin and murder has taken place. It appears from the evidence that the crime was committed by redheads. Would you be happy with a law giving powers to the police to hold redheads (they suspect) for 90 days. They could suspect you and hold you, during which you will be separated from your children; your job and marriage may get on the rocks etc.

Wwould you hail such a law?

Actually, redheads are easier to spot, but the aim of this law is the Muslims, and there would be many who aren't Muslims but would be punished nevertheless.

Remember the Brazilian being shot dead.

If the police are given such powers, you will eventually find yourself in a police state.

Message deleted

Carla, you'd be happy to kept in an underground cell, with no natural light, in a small room with just a wooden bed with hard plastic mattress and an open toilet in it which anyone can see you using. Freezing in winter, boiling in summer, for 90 days? You would be happy to be separated from your children, your husband, to lose your job, your reputation, just 'in case'?
Well why not bring in torture too? And why limit it to 90 days? Why not 90months? 90years? If the end justifies the means....where do we stop? For anyone interesting in why this was an assault too far on human rights this article by Gareth Pierce is worth reading.

Carla, you mean like that Brazilian electrician shot dead on the tube?

Message deleted

Read the article.
And yes, the shooting was terrible because the police got it totally wrong...and that was about killing someone. Imagine how easy it will be to bang someone up for 90 days in comparison to deciding whether to shoot them!

I think we need to be very careful of seeking simplistic solutions to a very complex problem. I am old enough to remember the painful times of dealing with Irish terrorism, and to know first hand how incredibly difficult it was to get any kind of evidence together to arrest, hold, charge, prosecute, convict terrorists. and although I don't have any personal experience (thank god) of dealing with terrorism in the 21st century, I think it is an over simplification to think that, just because the police and/or the govt/ and/or the intelligence services want certain powers that they should therefore not be allowed them.
I agree with you Caligula about internment, that was a political disaster, for sure. and no-one would want to risk another brum 6/guildford 4.
but I think that many thoughtful people believe that some additional powers are or might be necessary to control terrorism and prevent death and injury. I don't know if that means 90 days (I doubt it) but I am prepared to be persuaded by thoughtful debate about those additional powers.

Irish terrorism persisted for far too long and in the end (IIRC) led to the deaths of around 4000 people. Did internment prevent any further but there was a political solution to that situation and in the end through delicate and careful negotiation.
as far as I can see, there is just no possibililty whatsoever of anything approaching a political settlement to this current terrorist wave (or nothing that would be in the least palatable in a democracy).
so I can see that those who are responsible for establishing policy to deal with the terrorist threat are scared, do feel impotent, and I don't judge them too harshly.
because if they can't negotiate an end to the killing, then what can they do?
because it is pretty clear that no-one but no-one had the first idea how to prevent a terrorist attack on London.
so what should the response of the government be?sorry, rambling