Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
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. |
Oh, so we've been abusing these rights *already*!
So let's ignore the fact it's a breach of the Common Law and the EU convention on Human Rights (which this country is signatory to).
We've already set a precedent, so it's all right, then...
Quote:
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.
|
So it's ok to repress and harass a minority but *not* a majority?
At what point does it become unacceptable?
Quote:
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
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?
|
But then you went on to say "So if we agree that inside informants (Like Ramrod said) is extremely unlikely,"
Except that, as I said in the next paragraph:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
What I do agree, however, is that we are likely to get *less* informants if we treat them *all* as suspects!
|
Quote:
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.
|
Please quote me something where I said "all intelligence" because I'm certain that I did not, nor would, say anything like that!
I agree, for instance, as I said in a debate not long ago with the concept of using Phone Tap evidence in a court of law *provided* that the tap was done based on reasonable suspicion rather than just as a "fishing trip".
Frankly I'm utterly astonished that Charles Clarke *doesn't* want this to happen and I can't for the life of me understand *why* unless there's some ulterior motive or reason that hasn't been revealed to us.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pierre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And I refer you to Bifta's responsel
|
I take your point |
Thank you.
Quote:
but I'm not hearing any other options. During the IRA threat all people in N.I. were treated with suspicion. Even more so Catholics.
It wasn't nice but had to be done.
|
Did it? Or did it simply *contribute* to exacerbating The Troubles? I know which *my* money is on.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, some islamic/asian people may be inconvenienced, if in a given circumstance the police have good reason to speak to them.
|
And, just as with The Troubles in Ireland, I think the "solution" is just going to make the problem worse.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bifta
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
If nazi intentions had been nipped in the bud then Belsen wouldn't have happened.....you agree?
|
Quick, invade the USA too then, just in case. |
YEAH!!
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And it's all very well to talk about "inconveniencing a minority" when *YOU* are not *part* of that minority...
|
How do you know what my race or religion is? Bit of a pre-judgement there, don't you think? Presuming I am "guilty" because of my opinions... tut tut |
Fine, you're right, I don't know if you're part of that minority or not.
I apologise.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Sorry, were we talking about Belsen...???
|
No, try New York, Bali, etc etc
|
Whooosh! Sorry, but that point clearly went over your head.
Belsen et al happened because *ordinary* people were content to stand back and *DO NOTHING* whilst others had their rights taken away and were shipped off.
Now the proposal is, once again, to treat an entire group as the problem and take away their rights, but, once again, ordinary people seem to be going to do nothing because the loss of rights won't affect *them*, however they think it will make things better for them.