Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I suggest you ask the opinions of the people currently locked up in Belmarsh and those who would be targetted by the Government's House Arrest policy based on nothing more than the say-so of the Home Secretary. (Although even *he* seems to be backing away from that slightly now because he's realised it's a big mistake).
|
You just answered your own point there. And people are held "under suspicion", and that is clearly made to them. Held "under suspicion" has long, long been the accepted way here, long before Blunkett came along.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And neither would I.
But if it was "a white man" would you consider it acceptable (or sensible) to stop *all* white men and question them?
|
Come on, be sensible. You know that isn't true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Whoops! Nice try, but, no, actually I *don't* agree with that!
|
But you said (and I was going by...)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
One of my receptionists is muslim and she says that there is still a feeling among muslims here that fellow muslims shouldn't be 'grassed'.....it appears to be a religious thing, you shouldn't betray a brother to the infidels.
|
And some members of the Black community will say the same about their "brothers". And some of the Irish community... and some of the Criminal community...
And whilst we're at it, at school you didn't grass your mates up to teacher either... |
Sounds to me you was re-affirming what Ramrod had already said?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I don't know. Which intelligence are you talking about?
|
Last time we debated it, all intelligence. If you remove informants from the intelligence category, that only leaves intelligence that was found whilst right to privacy was not observed.