Disgrace; 42 days passed to Lords...

[EnderWiggin]

Are you really telling me that some small part of you actually thinks this is justified?

 

That's not even close to what I said I said I see it from both sides - I understand why the government thinks it's a good idea. I never said I thought it was justified.

 

There are quotes for lots of things, but quotes in and of themselves aren't terribly meaningful. What is important is whether or not the quote says something worth supporting.

Yet why would I post it if I didn't think it was worth supporting?

 

Back to the point: guilt or innocence really has very little do with what we are talking about here. Guilt is established via the trial. Delaying charges is nothing more than a blatant attempt to get away with wanting to throw anyone you want to in jail (presumably so that the police can have more time to find something to charge you with).

 

However, the measures that the government are taking are done (from their point of view) in order to give them more time to charge criminals. My quote (which is worth supporting) explains what I think - It is better for them to err on the other side and allow those who are wrongly being held to be free.

 

Thanks for reading

 

_EW_

[Totenkopf]

But if due process reduces the number of innocent prissoners' date=' then that's surley a good thing..[/quote']

 

Problem is that you don't know that due process is actually keeping more innocent people out of jail or just more efficient police work. You can use due process and still imprison a lot of innocent people, as all you need to do is follow an established procedure.

[Achilles]

That's not even close to what I said I said I see it from both sides - I understand why the government thinks it's a good idea. I never said I thought it was justified.

That thing on the end is called a question mark. It denotes that a question is being asked

 

I do appreciate your attempt to clarify, but you're still not telling me where you stand.

 

Yet why would I post it if I didn't think it was worth supporting?

Then support it. It isn't doing a terribly good job of supporting itself.

 

However, the measures that the government are taking are done (from their point of view) in order to give them more time to charge criminals.

"You're coming with me."

"Why? What did I do wrong?"

"I have 28 days to decide that."

 

Please help me understand why the police need 28 days to charge (not try) someone.

 

My quote (which is worth supporting) explains what I think - It is better for them to err on the other side and allow those who are wrongly being held to be free.

Your quote, because it deals with guilt and innocence, is only applicable to the trial. Within it's applicable context, I would argue that the reasoning is horribly flawed but that's another argument for another thread.

 

Thanks for reading

My pleasure. Take care, sir

[jonathan7]

Much as I hate to praise a member of the Conservative party good on David Davis;

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4120459.ece

 

David Davis full resignation statement;

 

The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden. Haltemprice is derived from a Medieval proverb meaning "noble endeavour". Up until now I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons was a noble endeavour.

 

That is, what we did up until yesterday.

 

Tomorrow is the anniversary of Magna Carta, which guarantees the right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason.

 

Yesterday the House decided to lock up citizens for 42 days without charge.

 

The Counter-Terrorism Bill will in all probability be rejected by the House of Lords. But as the Bill and the impetus behind it is political, the Government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to overrule the Lords.

 

Its legal basis is uncertain, to say the least, but purely for political reasons the Government is going to do this.

 

Next we will see 56 days, 72 days, then 90 days. But in truth, 42 days is just one example of the insidious and relentless undermining of fundamental British freedoms.

 

We will soon have the most extensive Identity Card system in the world. We have seen the extension of CCTV cameras, and of DNA databases holding the details of millions of innocent citizens. We have seen an assault on jury trial, shortcuts introduced into our justice system to make it neither firmer nor fairer, and a database set up that exposes our personal data to careless civil servants and computer hackers. We have seen the state clamp down on public demonstrations, while those who incite violence get off scot free.

 

This cannot go on, it must be stopped. And therefore today I have decided it is incumbent on me to take a stand. I am resigning from this house, and intend to force a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden.

 

I am just a piece in this great chess game. But I will fight this, I will argue this, by standing against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this Government.

 

That may mean that I have made my last speech to this great House, and of course that would be a cause of deep regret to me. But at least my electorate and the nation as a whole will have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of the day: the intrusion of the state into our lives, loss of liberties and the state's undermining of law.

 

If they do send me back, it will be with a single, simple message: that the monstrosity of a law passed just yesterday will not stand

[EnderWiggin]

That thing on the end is called a question mark. It denotes that a question is being asked

 

 

I do appreciate your attempt to clarify, but you're still not telling me where you stand.

 

I agree with you. I see what the government is trying to do, and I disagree with the logic behind it.

 

Clearer?

Then support it. It isn't doing a terribly good job of supporting itself.

 

 

"You're coming with me."

"Why? What did I do wrong?"

"I have 28 days to decide that."

 

Please help me understand why the police need 28 days to charge (not try) someone.

 

I agree with you. I can't argue against that viewpoint because I also hold it.

 

Your quote, because it deals with guilt and innocence, is only applicable to the trial. Within it's applicable context, I would argue that the reasoning is horribly flawed but that's another argument for another thread.

 

I applied it to the rationale that the lawmakers are using. You may disagree as to how I used it. It wasn't really a good argument.

 

My pleasure. Take care, sir

 

To you as well, my friend.

 

_EW_