Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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...  |
No, and it is nothing of the sort. Since God knows when, the government has been allowed to hold people under suspicion. That is what remand is for. |
Yes, but for someone to be held on remand they must have been *charged* with a crime.
Quote:
|
That is why they have cells in police stations, so suspects can be held during questioning.
|
That is not the same as remanding someone in custody pending trial and there are strict laws regarding how long someone can be held before they must be either charged or released.
What Charles Clarke wants, however, is to lock someone up *without* charge and possibly without ever *being* charged, let alone having the evidence tested in a court of law, not to mention ignoring the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights for someone to be made aware of the charges against them and for a speedy trial.
Quote:
Quote:
So it's ok to repress and harass a minority but *not* a majority?
At what point does it become unacceptable?
|
Police need more than ethnicity to suspect someone of a crime.
|
I suggest you look at the history of the Special Patrol Group back in the 1980s and the reports of institutionalised racism following the Stephen Lawerence murder etc.
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
So... Ramrod says informants are few and far between, and then you go on to say that they'll be less? Then how can you rely on them as our sole method of intelligence gathering?
|
Sorry, *where* did *I* say we should "rely on them as our sole method of intelligence gathering"?
Quote:
Quote:
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.
|
But how do you know who to wiretap without intelligence telling you who could be suspects? It is the chicken-and-egg story. And how come you have changed your mind about their right to privacy all of a sudden?
|
Again you seem to be assuming I have said something I haven't. Intelligence is available from the community, from informants and many other sources. All of this can be obtained without trampling on the rights of a complete section of society.
And I have not changed my mind about the right of privacy either. As I said I agree with phone tapping "*provided* that the tap was done based on reasonable suspicion rather than just as a "fishing trip"."
If the government was to tap the phone lines of every Muslim or every Black or everyone called Punky I would, naturally object, because they would have no justification for such an action.
If there was legitimately obtained evidence to suspect people of planning a crime, *then* their phones could be tapped (subject to proper scrutiny and review) and, if evidence was obtained, for that to be used in a court of law.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I suggest you look at the history of the Appeasement of the Nazis before you make any more comments like this.
Appeasement resulted in Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier of France and Mussolini signing the Munich Agreement carving up Czechoslovakia and giving Germany the Sudetenland.............
|
So the nazis were appeased and they went on to commit greater and greater atrocities.......point proven, thank you.  |
Point proven? Hardly, unless you can actually *demonstrate* a causal link between the two which I very much doubt.
Oh, BTW, this is the fallacy known as "Post hoc, ergo proper hoc" or "after this, therefore *because* of this..." implying that there is a logical connection between the two, rather than just two events happening one after another.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
It's an extrapolation. At what point does something *cease* to be "worth a try"? Shooting them? Violating their Civil Rights? Where do you draw the line?
|
Bit of a dodgy argument there.......I'm fairly certain that you know the name of the fallacy that you are basing your argument on .....and I'm sure that you quoted it to me once 
|
Yes, Ramrod, it's *meant* to be fallacious!
I'm trying to point out that your "it's worth a try" argument is *also* fallacious!
And the fallacy is the "Burden of Proof" ie that your claim "it's worth a try" is attempting to put the onus on me to *disprove* that claim, when, in fact, the requirement is that *you* prove your case.
See
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.htm for more information.