PDA

View Full Version : Davis-Chakrabati Alliance


Effluent Man
13th Jun 2008, 09:31
Listening to Kelvin McKenzie on R4 this am I found myself agreeing 100% with his reasoning regarding security checks.What have I got to fear from CCTV?
Will I,for example,be identified as the guy punching a fellow shopper to death in Sainsbury's and sent down for a couple of years? Which worries me most,some nutter detained for an extra 14 days and forced to watch TV and get fed at my expense or the possibility that he might blow me up?

I have to say that I have always regarded McKenzie and his ilk as the most unremitting little s***s.This seems to have created the most unlikely bedfellows as my title indicates.

vee-tail-1
13th Jun 2008, 10:13
42 days detention without charge seems reasonable when dealing with Muslim terrorists, who are likely to be considering suicide bombing in UK. The problem is that the same draconian measures could be used by some future government against us, the non-muslim, non-immigrant British.
At their present rate of breeding and immigration, in 20 years there will be enough Muslims to elect a government which can impose sharia law in UK.
Tudor Owen recently jailed two Muslim yobs who shined lasers at police helicopters, temporarily blinding one pilot. My understanding is that he imposed the maximum sentence available to him, of 6 months. Surely judges, should be provided with the option to return Muslim criminals to their country of origin, under a "One strike and you are Out" regime.
How much longer must we tolerate an "Enemy Within" in our country.:yuk:

Whirlygig
13th Jun 2008, 10:18
What have I got to fear from CCTV?
Mistaken identity, misinterpreted circumstances, misuse of the tapes recorded, loss of privacy to discreetly pick your nose!!!

Cheers

Whirls

Effluent Man
13th Jun 2008, 10:25
I would have thought that CCTV would have been one of the factors in avoiding cases of mistaken identity.If it isn't possible to make a positive ID from a tape it is highly unlikely a conviction will be secured from it.

Whirlygig
13th Jun 2008, 10:27
And in the meantime, you've been detained for 42 days! However, you may be able to earn £3k a day so it can't be all bad! :rolleyes:

Cheers

Whirls

BarbiesBoyfriend
13th Jun 2008, 11:29
I know there's public support for '42 days'.

There's also public support for capital punishment but don't expect to see that anytime soon.

There are good reasons for not having the Death penalty and equally there are good reaons not to have 42 days at the whim of HMG.

I applaud Davis for his stand. I happen to agree with him too.

Quite apart from the 42 day thing, tho, I admire the fact that he is prepared to make a stand.

To take a position and defend it, stand for it. To show he has some principles and is not merely trying to hold onto power or office as an end in itself.

Can you imagine Brown or any of his self-serving spineless MPs doing the same? Me neither.

If more politicians had the guts to even speak out about what they believe in- yes, just to SPEAK out, never mind stepping down to force an issue into the limelight- then perhaps they'd be held in less contempt by those they claim to represent.

However it turns out for Davis and the 42 day thing- which is never getting past the Lords btw, I think his stand is as refreshing as it is unusual.

Well done Sir!:ok:

WG774
13th Jun 2008, 11:36
If you look at the precedents set by other legislation that the New Labour criminals have introduced, it's rarely used against those whom its drafting is supposedly targeted at. My prediction is that this law will be employed against anyone with a viewpoint that the Govt. deem a threat to stability within society - and that is a large remit!

McKenzie and his tabloid vermin ilk make my toes curl. However, it's nothing to be ashamed of in agreeing with his stance on this issue; the argument against ID cards and various measures that curtail our civil liberties goes across all political divides, Left or Right wing.

Effluent Man
13th Jun 2008, 11:40
It's unusual alright,or put another way bizarre.To think that yesterday this man would potentially be in a position if his party won an election to be setting terrorists free to roam our streets and kill indiscriminately.I think a more logical explanation is that he is so bitter at his defeat by DC that he wants to destabilise the whole shooting match.If Cameron fails to win I cannot help thinking that there will be an element of schaudenfreud on the part of Davis.All he has demonstrated is that he is unfit and Cameron is better off without him in the long run.Archive film of the young DD put me in mind of another great white hope of the Conservative party.

Effluent Man
13th Jun 2008, 11:42
WG774, You seem to be under the misapprehension that McKenzie is in support of Davis.He isn't,my original post was saying that I was in agreement with McKenzie.

eastern wiseguy
13th Jun 2008, 12:00
Vee Tail


Surely judges, should be provided with the option to return Muslim criminals to their country of origin, under a "One strike and you are Out" regime.


So when they arrive back in Birmingham Leeds or Southall........being British citizens ...what do you do to them then?:bored:

BarbiesBoyfriend
13th Jun 2008, 12:01
Effluent man.

Do you really think Davis would be likely to let 'terrorists free to roam our streets' etc. as you stated? Why the hell would he (or anyone else for that matter) want to do such a thing?

Why say such a daft thing?

Being against 42 days doesn't mean he's a dissident or a terrorist sympathiser!

If we're not careful then we're going to find ourselves living in a Police state right here inthe UK. 42 Days, ID cards, CCTV everywhere, state interference in more amd more aspects of your life and mine.

The Nanny state is becoming more like Orwells 1984 'Big Brother' state every year.

Where will it end?

sitigeltfel
13th Jun 2008, 12:23
What is this stunt going to cost the taxpayers? It seems to me to be nothing but a "toys out of the pram" exercise dresssed up in the cloak of "principle". Labour have not yet commited themselves to contesting this bye-election, which has probably nothing to do with their views and everything to do with the fact that they are skint.

G-CPTN
13th Jun 2008, 13:07
I confess to be confused as to what this will achieve.
I understand that the Commons vote was 'rigged' and I deplore this abuse of democracy.
It seems likely that Davis will get re-elected regardless (unless one strong candidate such as Martin Bell opposes him, but what would be the 'platform'?).
I'm uncertain what use the rumoured journalist might have . . .
The cost of holding a by-election has been suggested as being £80-90,000, but, regardless, I don't understand exactly what it will achieve. Labour are hardly likely to respond by abandoning the enforcement of the bill following the (almost) inevitable rejection by the Lords.

That many members of the public are in favour of extending the time that 'terrorists' can be held before being charge is also clouding the affair.

I don't understand why suspects (of any offence) cannot be bailed whilst investigations continue (or do the authorities fear they will abscond?) or why questioning cannot continue after being charged. We need a lawyer to explain these points.

I believe that approximately half of those arrested and held under suspicion of terrorism are subsequently released without charge and are genuinely believed to be innocent (though I don't know whether this is lack of evidence or really wholly innocent and mistakenly arrested).

Wedge
13th Jun 2008, 13:27
The problem is that the same draconian measures could be used by some future government against us, the non-muslim, non-immigrant British.
At their present rate of breeding and immigration, in 20 years there will be enough Muslims to elect a government which can impose sharia law in UK.

I seem to remember the same kind of prejudiced nonsense emanating from your keyboard before. Your very use of the word 'us' to differentiate White British people from asian Muslims immediately raises my hackles as I am White British and I can assure you that you do not speak for me, sir.

Your hysterical comment about Muslims' 'breeding and immigration' being now at a rate which will see 'them' able to impose Shariah law here within 20 years is nothing more than very thinly veiled racism, not to mention so far from the reality as to be risible.

We do have a former member here who now sits as a crown court judge, and while I can't speak for him, I very much doubt he would appreciate your attempt to put a political and racial slant on one of his judicial decisions, which would have been taken on the basis of the law and free from the kind of prejudices which you've ably demonstrated above, and I think you should edit it out pronto.

Surely judges, should be provided with the option to return Muslim criminals to their country of origin, under a "One strike and you are Out" regime.

Just one question, what if the Muslim in question's country of origin happened to be the UK: which country would you return him to?

On the topic of the thread; while I agree with Davis on Labour's assault on civil liberties, it's clearly a vain and calculated move to enhance his credentials as the next Tory leader.

Effluent Man
13th Jun 2008, 15:52
This point really sums up how I feel.Davis having lost to Cameron is putting his money on the latter failing to make it to No 10.Davis will then come out with the line that "It's the touchy feely,hug a hoodie Cameron Tories that did for us" and try to put himself up as a Neo-Thatcherite candidate.

It's high risk as he has now made himself look like an extremely loose cannon.I very much doubt that DC will give him his job back and will make every effort o keep him out of the shadow cabinet.

frostbite
13th Jun 2008, 18:06
How many members of his family will have been made unemployed as a result?

max_cont
13th Jun 2008, 19:05
Just one question, what if the Muslim in question's country of origin happened to be the UK: which country would you return him to

Wedge, what’s wrong with deporting convicted criminals to their country of origin?

Note I don’t mention race or religion. If you weren’t born here and commit criminal acts why should we not show you the door?

If a visitor to your home behaved in an unacceptable way, I bet you would kick them out and never let them return. Why should the UK be any different?

Yarpy
13th Jun 2008, 19:07
I confess to be confused as to what this will achieve.

Debate. David Davis reminded us that Alistair Campbell had remarked that if a story is in the press for only three days then the public will forget about it. The surveillance society has been created bit by bit, story by story. As each new measure is announced there is a press reaction and then the matter dies down. However, look back a few years to see how things have changed and you get a different picture. There has been a massive erosion of our privacy and this has changed the relationship between the citizen and the state.

But . . . it's very difficult to get the politicians out to debate this or do anything about it.

So, by causing a by election Davis will keep the story alive to catch wider attention.

We either start talking about the growth of the surveillance state or just let it roll over and smother us.

BarbiesBoyfriend
13th Jun 2008, 19:17
Yarpy

Agree 100%.

Question is, which will it be?

Davis is going to do his best here-and I commend him for it. It's a start at least and maybe if he finishes up with a senior post in the next government he'll get a chance to do something about it.

Come to think of it, with the next PM highly likely to be Cameron, maybe Davis is simply starting early on an agenda he is determined to pursue once the Tories get in.

If he handles himself well during this by-election business he will only increase his stature and with it the likelihood of high office in the next administration.

FWIW I think it's great that this vital topic is at least on the horizon if not yet on the agenda.:ok:

vee-tail-1
13th Jun 2008, 19:30
Wedge
Since you presumably favour mosques in all our major cities, and the call to prayer five times a day echoing over our rooftops. Perhaps you might like to see what else devout Muslims may have in store for us.
www.whatthewestneedstoknow.com
And if that's not enough, take a trip around France where the Muslim population has now reached 20% since the French gave citizenship to large numbers from their former colonies. If you can access France Trois TV you will find endless debate about the army of disaffected, rioting, drug dealing, Muslim youths in the banlieus. Do you want that sort of thing here, just because of a misplaced PC belief in the basic goodness of people?

Mini fan
13th Jun 2008, 19:46
Tudor Owen recently jailed two Muslim yobs who shined lasers at police helicopters, temporarily blinding one pilot

What has being Muslims got to do with it?

If it was two white british christians you wouldn't have said two christian yobs would you? No. Just two yobs. **** off.

Richard Taylor
13th Jun 2008, 21:54
Hmm...the only danger I feel for my safety is when Kelvin MacKenzie opens his big gub.:bored:

vee-tail-1
13th Jun 2008, 22:14
To get back to the thread.
Because of idiotic immigration policies by UK governments we Brits are faced with a dilemma.
Our centuries old freedoms are being scrapped, mainly because of terrorism from Muslims we have allowed to settle here.
The answer is to stop any more Muslim immigration, and deport those who commit crimes here. But we believe in religious freedom, and in helping those in need. We are like survivors in an overloaded lifeboat, pulling more & more people on board until we all drown.
No Muslims, no need for erosion of our ancient freedoms.
But the government and it's PC thinking supporters are actively encouraging immigration from the same Muslim countries that we are occupying & attacking. Where is the joined up thinking..why import people who have every reason to hate us?:ugh:

Brewster Buffalo
13th Jun 2008, 23:45
I support Davies in his actions. When interviewed today he mentioned a phrase often used by Mrs Thatcher of "liberty under the law".

Is it right that the state should be monitoring what innocent citizens are doing? Why do the CCTV cameras that record our car number plates need to store the information for five years?

One thing I admire about our American cousins is their determination to defend their constitution. This country needs someone prepared to roll back the state. Once the Tory party was the party of individual freedom but sadly not now.

BarbiesBoyfriend
14th Jun 2008, 02:08
Brewster

Well said.

Liberty under he law.

ie 'I ain't doing no harm so leave me , completely, alone'

Put the terrs in pris for 42 years for all I care.

But leave the rest of us alone.

Effluent Man
14th Jun 2008, 09:00
The problem is these guys are clever.Had my MP round for dinner last saturday.(No names,no pack-drill)And he openly admitted that the security services have pretty solid evidence against several hundred suspects. (Every one is Muslim BTW)

The problem is the good old golden thread of british justice ensures that it is virtually impossible to convict unless someone saw them do it,or it was recorded on CCTV - Hence the guilty pleas from the July 25 mob.

I'm with McKenzie on this,little s**t that he is.Those who have no intent on breaking the law have nothing to fear from modern surveillence.1984 was written at a time when someone tried to wipe out a whole race for political reasons.Whatever we think of parliament I don't see any MP of any party who I fear will take away my democratic rights.

Flap 5
14th Jun 2008, 11:29
My worries on this legislation can be summarized in two words - Function Creep.

Anti-terrorism laws are already used for many different things that they weren't intended for e.g. photography in public places and many others.

selfloadingcargo
14th Jun 2008, 11:59
while I agree with Davis on Labour's assault on civil liberties, it's clearly a vain and calculated move to enhance his credentials as the next Tory leader.

Correct in every regard. In the meantime, Brown breathes a hefty sigh of relief that the press will be off his back for three weeks. If Davis cared anything for his party rather than himself, he would realise just what an idiotic, self-serving piece of timing this is.

WG774
14th Jun 2008, 12:07
My worries on this legislation can be summarized in two words - Function Creep.

Anti-terrorism laws are already used for many different things that they weren't intended for e.g. photography in public places and many others.

My concern exactly - well put. Whilst I may not agree with everyone who protests against various government-backed schemes, I would defend their right to do so (providing they do so in a time-honoured fashion without jeopardising anyone's safety). Function creep in this case is all about suppressing dissent - even if it's expressed in a manner that's been acceptable for many previous decades.

Overdrive
14th Jun 2008, 13:55
Anti-terrorism laws are already used for many different things that they weren't intended for e.g. photography in public places and many others.


Yep. Like councils checking out school applications, benefit cheats... keeping people out of Labour party conferences... and many to follow I don't doubt; already, at this early stage. Lie detectors to check your veracity over the telephone, already in use I believe. Not so long back, they were inadmissible for even the most heinous crimes... priorities?

We can at least give Davis a chance. Anything that brings this worrying slide to wider attention must be good. He's a politican, so if it turns out to be balls, at least we won't be surprised.

Effluent Man
14th Jun 2008, 15:04
I fail to see how this is "giving him a chance". He already is the MP and it seems as if all he is about to achieve is a great victory over Miss Whiplash and the Monster Raving Loony Party.Meanwhile the taxpayer picks up the £100,000 bill run up by his eccentric shennanigans

Overdrive
14th Jun 2008, 17:42
Well he is speaking out against the erosion of freedoms, which he was unable to do pre-resignation, and has already got started. Since he is one of the few (only?) people willing to do it that will get anything like enough media time to possibly wake a few people up... then I am saying give him a chance to at least stick around long enough to maybe scare people away from gawping at Coronation Street, whilst the night crews are out fitting more shiny CCTV cameras along pot-holed roads.

If he elicits some awareness of this vital issue, then what is a hundred grand? How does resigning for what he (so far) purports to believe in make him eccentric?

Dark Star
14th Jun 2008, 18:24
£100,000 ?

How much of our money did Brown spend to buy the Unionist vote?

Silly me, I forgot, he told us that he didn't.

Flap 5
14th Jun 2008, 23:07
£100,000?

How much was spent on propping up Northern Rock?

How much was spent / is still being spent on the Iraq war?

It's about time we had a politician who resigned over something and I believe much of the cost is being freely and willingly donated by many people who strongly support his action.

Contacttower
15th Jun 2008, 19:22
while I agree with Davis on Labour's assault on civil liberties, it's clearly a vain and calculated move to enhance his credentials as the next Tory leader.Hardly; how can doing this help him be the next Tory leader? Most of the shadow cabinet at best see this as inconvenient and at worst probably hate him for it. He's also had to withstand public condemnation from several Tory MPs. He's thrown away an awful lot to do this.

The move has been completed misunderstood I think both in the press and in the "Westminster Village", both of whom are tied up in a sort of politics for politics sake and cannot understand a move that doesn't seem to help either party or personality.

What they don't seem to see is that Davis's decision is about public opinion; time and again Gordon Brown cited public opinion over the 42 days issue (even though is unwilling to mention it on anything else) and what Davis has set out to do is lay before the public, in a way that is rarely done, the arguments and see what they think....see if he can convince them. If he can convince them (and polls on 42 days suggest he faces an uphill struggle) then it will be a major victory for an attempt to engage with the public. If he at the end of three weeks of campaigning can't convince them then at least he tried.

It's also important to emphasise that is isn't just about 42 days, 42 days I think was just the last straw in what has been a long series of civil liberties issues that (according to one view) amount to a gradual encroachment by the state into people's lives and an attack on the essentials of the British criminal justice system.

In order for the by election to work the way he wants it to he needs a strong 42 proponent to argue against, it looks like the former editor of the Sun will fill that role so it should produce a good debate. Politicians in this country are endlessly calling for "national debates" on issues (immigration springs to mind) seemingly ignoring the fact that apart from the press there is no mechanism for "national debates" in this country. Well Davis has at least tried to give us one.

People are so cynical; we complain about the attitude of politicians to the public and then when one goes and tries to give the public a say on an issue people dismiss it as a vain stunt. It won't particularly help Gordon Brown either, if Davis plays his cards right then he should be able to portray this as Brown refusing to defend a policy.

Effluent Man
16th Jun 2008, 09:39
There are plenty of national debates and forums for them.The most obvious are the BBC's Question Time and Any Questions. These programmes have audiences in the millions and well reasoned and intelligent debates involving both the general public and big names.

Those who have been involved in politics will attest that some strange alliances do arise and indeed friendships in my experience tend to be more cross party than within them.The best venom is usually reserved for one's own side.Witness Heath-Thatcher,Blair -Brown.

My argument with Davis is that he has chosen an issue that the general public support,and probably favour more draconian measures than those that exist.I don't generally regard myself as racist but my view on this is that the potential culprits are very easy to identify and number around 2000.Most people,and I would guess about 95% on here,would have supported internment in the 1970's.I don't see what is wrong with that for these suspects.

Doors to Automatic
16th Jun 2008, 10:00
These programmes have audiences in the millions and well reasoned and intelligent debates involving both the general public and big names.


I don't consider any debate on Question Tme to be well reasoned. Dimbleby cuts dead anyone who has an opition that doesn't fit in with the BBC's ultra left views and the hand-picked leftie audience made up of academics, students and immigrants never claps when any statement remotely resembling common sense is made by the panel. It is an atrociously biased programme and should be taken off the air.

Effluent Man
16th Jun 2008, 10:06
It's as intelligent and well reasoned as you will get from the general public.They look better informed than Gerry Springer's audience who appear to have been selected from "My name is Earl". I would have said the BBC were more guilty of being PC than left-wing.

BarbiesBoyfriend
16th Jun 2008, 10:50
Effluent

Yes the public support 42 days.

But the public are wrong!

Hoefully the 'debate', should it happen, will force people to think about the issue of civil liberties a bit more carefully.

The public tend totake the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' point of view- and who's surprised at that? They figure that as they're mainly law abiding that they have nothing to fear.

So they put up with speed cameras-only to find automated number plate readers checking for tax discs- next they'll be checking where you've been-and why.

They put up with CCTV at crime hotspots- only to find them everywhere.

They put up with ever more draconian state powers-figuring they'll never be used agains them- but they will be. Ask that poor goon who heckled at the Labour party conference-or the Ricin 'plotters'.

And as for ID cards. The first thing you need to control people- is a list of who they are and a quick way of identifying them. We had them in WW2 for that reason.

A Police state is nearer than you realise.

Wingswinger
16th Jun 2008, 10:59
I think we should be clear. David Davies' by-election is NOT just about the 42 days vote. It is about the ever-growing state intrusion into our lives, ID cards, the "surveillance society" and the looming police state. The 42 days vote was merely the final straw for him. I applaud him. :D

Some things are more important than mere party politics.

Effluent Man
16th Jun 2008, 11:47
The surveillence society? Bring it on. Personally I risk a few speeding tickets.We don't have a police state,in fact they do very little to interfere with the everyday lives of generally law abiding people.A full DNA database would either deter criminals or else ensure that they got their collars felt.The judiciary have a lot to answer for as they seem to love letting terrorists out to roam the streets.

Davis is a maverick who has done harm to his own party. This election is going to descend into farce.You know the sort of thing: Trannies on stilts dressed in red oven foil with flashing lights on their hats.Busybodies with a bee in their bonnets about everything from aviation to apiary.And in between them all little eccentric Davis on his personal ego trip and a geezer paid £200k a year to read out the results.

BarbiesBoyfriend
16th Jun 2008, 12:55
Effluent

I think I see where you're coming from now.

You see 'Big Brother' or the 'Nanny state' as an essential to protect you from the idiots.

Therefore you'll put up with it as long as it keeps them away from you, right?

Trouble is, if you TREAT people like idiots, they start to ACT like idiots.

And that's what's happening here.

Because the state trusts NO ONE to behave properly-and treats us all like idiots- some people start to behave like idiots.

So of course, the only way to stop them is to introduce ever more controls in an effort to make them behave.

Which causes more of them to feel EVEN LESS RESPONSIBLE for themselves ans so more idiotic behaviour ensues.

In some countries the people are trusted by their own governments. Switzerland and the Scandic countries spring to mind. But in nearly ALL countries they're trusted more than we are here, in the cradle of Democracy (ffs!).

The question is- where does it stop?

When can trust be reintroduced?

Or shall we just have MORE rules, MORE surveillance, MORE state interference, MORE cameras, MORE tax to pay for it all etc etc.

Sooner or later it's got to stop.

YOU might pine for the nanny state to tuck you in every night.....but not all of us do.;)

Effluent Man
16th Jun 2008, 13:12
States don't come any more nanny than the Scandinavian ones.I remember working for a US company in the mid 70's and the (admittedly Texan) management being absolutely shocked by the rules and regulations that were enforced by the Norwegians.

Don't forget the long history of Social Democrat/Socialist governments in these countries that you might not thoroughly approve of.I believe there are areas that the state should be involved in and areas that they should not. Crime and/or terrorism definitely falls into the first. I don't want to feel that I need to carry a gun and be prepared to use it for self defence.
That doesn't mean to say that I would not happily blow away an intruder a la Tony Martin.It just means that I consider I pay my taxes to the state for them to prevent intruders in the first place.

The same goes for terrorist suspects.I expect the state, once they have collected sufficient evidence as to who is a risk to arrest those people and keep them away from the rest of us for as long as is necessary to either convict or safely release them.If there is a fundamental error in my thinking I am more than happy to be corrected.

The only thing I can think about Davis that fits the fiercely right-wing agenda combined with personal freedom views is that he is a "survivalist" along the lines of those who hide away in the mountains of the US. Armed to the teeth and with enough supplies to sit out a nuclear winter.I'm sorry.he IS eccentric.

beamer
16th Jun 2008, 14:14
Miss Chakrabati - mmmm. foxy lady !

Well, this is jet-blast after all......................

Effluent Man
16th Jun 2008, 15:22
Pretty certain she will be a Ms.

Wedge
17th Jun 2008, 00:10
I've met her. And she is married. :E

Overdrive
17th Jun 2008, 04:02
I've met her. And she is married. :E


Does she do a bit on the side d'you know? (or the front, or the back.....)

Overdrive
17th Jun 2008, 04:07
It just means that I consider I pay my taxes to the state for them to prevent intruders in the first place.




If that includes the system for even looking at immigrants, as opposed to virtually dragging them in over the last ten years or so... then I'd say you've received pretty poor value.

Effluent Man
17th Jun 2008, 10:34
Wedge, Ladies of a certain political orientation remain a Ms. even post nuptuals.I am not offering criticism of this because I don't disapprove,it is their right to choose.
I was merely pointing out that the good lady (And I presume we are all talking about Shami of Liberty,not Rita of the BBC) is of that political orientation.

Doors to Automatic
17th Jun 2008, 10:46
I can't stand that Chakrabati woman. Everywhere I look she is in my face expostulating her narrow-minded pro-criminal views. Who does she represent? Who elected her? No one! So why is she given the time of day?

Effluent Man
17th Jun 2008, 13:41
DtA, Because she represents Political Correctness.Most organisations have Compliance Officers these days.These good folk have studied long and hard for their degrees in Social Science and then need a well paid job to warrant all the hard work.

Clearly nobody is going to volutarily pay them to do such an unnecessary job so it has to be enshrined in legislation. How is Boris getting on BTW?

Unwell_Raptor
17th Jun 2008, 13:56
No Muslims, no need for erosion of our ancient freedoms.

Er - remember the IRA?

As for public opinion:- recent polls have the same majority of the public supporting 42 days as supports Davis in his stand. How do they work that out?

Contacttower
17th Jun 2008, 14:09
Apparently Kelvin MacKenzie isn't going to stand after all. Perhaps something to do with the poll that claimed he would only win 14% of the vote.

Effluent Man
17th Jun 2008, 14:21
Who is going to stand? I was looking at the old Reg Holdsworth this morning and thinking of pumping up the tyres.Thought of fitting a boat around it and cycling to Haltemprice as a Bill Boaks memorial candidate. Probably cheaper than advertising.Anyone want to chip in towards the lost deposit,or am I being a pessimist?

frostbite
17th Jun 2008, 15:40
When the leadership contest was on, I thought he was the best man for the job. Now I'm glad he didn't win it.

I would like to see UKIP take the seat from him.

Flap 5
17th Jun 2008, 17:51
I watched the 'This Week' programme on which Kelvin MacKenzie supposedly said he would stand (I record it - it is well passed my bed time). In fact he said he had been at a party where Rupert Murdoch suggested he should and hinted he would finance him. Kelvin then felt that he 'may well stand if no Labour candidate would'. Not quite the same eh?

Nick Riviera
17th Jun 2008, 18:39
And the award for using the phrase most beloved of politicians arguing for increased surveillance powers goes to.......Effluent Man for the classic 'If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear'.

I wonder how many atrocities have been committed down the ages under that banner.

Effluent Man
18th Jun 2008, 09:45
And I would have agreed with you had this been Germany in 1938.Things have moved on to such a point that I think we can be pretty certain that we are no longer going to get rounded up on the basis of our religion or political opinions.It seems that for the judiciary being a proven member of Al Quaida and having firm links with the 9/11 crew is no longer enough to warrant keeping someone locked up.

I am sure an electronic ankle tag will keep us safe from the suicide bombers.

pineridge
18th Jun 2008, 10:17
Barbies Boyfriend said...................


"In some countries the people are trusted by their own governments."


What the heck does that mean?

Effluent Man
18th Jun 2008, 10:25
95% of the population can be trusted.I have taken cheques in payment for quite large amounts for thirty years and not been let down once.It requires discretion of course,but it is fairly easy to tell the ones that might be a problem.

The remaining 5%,and let's remember that is about 3 million people are a risk.Only about 3% of that number is being entertained by Her Maj and any point in time.

Unfortunately when you put a jury together there is almost certainly one of the twelve who believes in cosmic destiny,another one who will consult the tarot cards before coming to a decision and a third who has parted with a hundred quid to claim a $15 million prize from a geezer in a mud hut just outside Lagos.Quite possibly one of them is the judge.

BarbiesBoyfriend
18th Jun 2008, 10:36
Pineridge.

My comment is 'en clair'.

However, for your benefit. My point is that we are trusted less in this country (the UK) than the citizens of other countries.

An example. In Switzerland, after your National Service is over, you go home and put your machine gun in your house somewhere-along with the ammo.

The Government trusts you not to misbehave. So you don't.

The UK gov would never dream of similar action-why? Because they DO NOT TRUST us to behave.

But the real point is this: By never trusting us- they've made us less trustworthy.

In other words, by treating their own population as irresponsible, they have encouraged irresponsible behaviour.

An example is the growth of the Welfare state. If a man is continually provided with support from the state- who can be surprised if eventually he tends to look to the state for support?

Instead of to himself.

Maybe read this a couple times before replying, eh.;)

Effluent Man
18th Jun 2008, 11:29
Maybe the way forward then.Instead of bnaging up suspected terrorists we giv them an Uzi and a few hundred rounds.Then realising that we trust them they become model citizens.

*Small cash prize for first to spot the flaw*

BarbiesBoyfriend
18th Jun 2008, 11:39
Effy

Do you really not read any more into my post than that?:ugh:

The point is the Swiss can. But we cannot.

Effluent Man
18th Jun 2008, 12:05
BB, I must confess as to being confused as to what your point is exactly.I would presume there to be significantly different levels of gun related deaths according to ethnic make up and the culture of the nationality involved.

For example I would expect that if a Scandinavian had a grievance he would be less likely to shoot someone than would for example a Turk.

There are however some 12,000 + gun deaths in the USA so that raises the question are they right to trust people to own a gun? I realise that there are many complicating factors.For example while I have no desire to own a gun if people I considered a threat also did that would alter my thinking and I would tend to shoot first and ask questions later,possibly causing me to contribute to the statistics.

Nick Riviera
18th Jun 2008, 12:26
'And I would have agreed with you had this been Germany in 1938.Things have moved on to such a point that I think we can be pretty certain that we are no longer going to get rounded up on the basis of our religion or political opinions.'

Well, EM, I admire your confidence even though I don't share it. History is full of examples of people who shared your view and ultimately found themselves beign rounded up exactly as you state. I am interested to understand why you believe history will suddenly stop repeating itself if we are not vigilant.

Hypothetical situation - the government announces that all private homes will be searched by police looking for terrorists. Are you happy to comply? After all you have nothing to hide. An extreme example perhaps, but at what point of the process of creeping invasion of our liberties do you decide that it has gone a step too far?

Effluent Man
18th Jun 2008, 12:41
With the possible exception of Franco's Spain I cannot think of a country in Western Europe where this totalitarian scenario could have taken place post WW2.

As regards your question,if there was reasonable cause for houses to be searched for terrorists I would be very happy to comply.As it happens where I live all they might root out could be the Norton Subcourse cell of the Turnip Liberation Army.

Overdrive
18th Jun 2008, 13:35
As regards your question,if there was reasonable cause for houses to be searched for terrorists I would be very happy to comply.



Great... you comply then. You wouldn't mind someone coming into your house?!

When the "search for terrorists" power is abused, becomes an excuse, i.e., it's untrue, you may see things differently.The powers get used for a completely different intent.. and how does your average Joe fight that? By disagreeing with the definition of "reasonable cause"? Franco's regime happened because it was possible. Look at the transformation of inter-war Germany in less than two decades. What separates the brutal governments from those that are not is possibilty.The prevailing powers, the current conditions and the amenability of society to the ever-tightening grip.

The 82-year-old guy manhandled out of the Labour Party conference. A Labour Party member. He was arrested under,and prevented from re-entering the conference the next day by use of, the Terrorism Act... for heckling!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4292342.stm


Local authorities have already used these powers for trivia. This doesn't concern you? I guess you believe there is some intrinsic "good egg" gene in those in power that will always save the day...

BarbiesBoyfriend
18th Jun 2008, 13:39
Effluent

I don't wish to sound harsh but there seems to be little point in having a discussion with you.

Is English your first language?

max_cont
18th Jun 2008, 13:40
Effluent Man, try the Portuguese revolution 1974. The police only killed four people…bit of a [email protected]@er if you were one of the four though.

Your complacency and willingness to hand our civil liberties over to the state in the name of security is frightening. I would rather put up with the terrorists than live in a police state.

FWIW the spin and bogeyman terror stories that we have been force fed by those spineless wasters in Westminster are used to justify the ineptness and cowardice they have displayed over the years. No extra powers would have been needed if they used a more robust solution (kick em out) with the hate mongers in our midst at the outset. Instead we as a nation give succor to our enemies and the citizens of this nation has to surrender yet more freedoms to allow the state to keep tabs on those that shouldn’t be here at all.

Effluent Man
18th Jun 2008, 15:51
BB, On somewhat dodgy ground there.Not only my first language but I have a (mediocre) degree in it. Admittedly 35 years out of date and from a so/so university.