Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Sorry, *where* did *I* say we should "rely on them as our sole method of intelligence gathering"?
|
Without informants, how would you find out anything, without invading privacy? |
I have already answered this. You even quoted my words!
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
We already said that informants can't be relied upon for the sole source of intelligence.
|
Of course informants can't be relied on for the *sole* source of intelligence, but I have never suggested that they *could*!
Quote:
|
So what are these "many other sources"? If you know a better way of gathering intelligence that is both informative, but doesn't break people's right to privacy, why not share it with MI5? Or if not them, then share it with me.
|
Punky, exactly *what* point are you trying to make here? Are you actually discussing the topic or just banging on about this in the hope of finding some contradiction in what I have said so you can denounce me as a hypocrite?
Quote:
|
Aside from informants, which we discussed was not substiantial enough to be solely relied upon,
|
Again you're talking about something being "solely" relied on, but again I have never said that anything *should* be solely relied on!
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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.
|
I really don't think we should be quoting the European Human Rights legislation here. Week in and week out, one hears and reads of examples of this pathetic legislature allowing the so called "human rights" of particular groups or individuals to trample on the lives of others, who presumably have less "human rights". And please don't blame sensationalist journalism here. |
Would you care to back that up with some cites? Or is it just that because *you* don't agree with their verdicts that they're "pathetic"?
Quote:
|
As with the SUS law in the 70s, quoting an area of policing from the 80s is equally defunct. Why not quote the police efforts to recruit more officers from ethnic minorities during the 90s and 2000s? After all it's more recent and hence more relevant... but then it doesn't really fit your argument, does it?
|
If you really think that human attitudes have changed so massively in the last twenty or thirty years then I wish I lived in the same world that you did.
I agree that recruiting officers from minorities is a good start, but even that isn't sufficient, not to mention that racism is still evident amongst recruits:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3207899.stm
But that's from 2003, is that not recent enough to fit *your* arguments?
Quote:
|
But it's the last point that interests me most: you talk about "reasonable suspicion", yet that is what this is all about. It has not been declared that EVERY Muslim will be stopped, questioned and searched whenever they leave home. It seems clear to me that what is being said is that people may be detained and questioned more often, and that there is a strong chance that there will be a larger proportion of Muslims among this element. But I think you will find that for someone to be detained and questioned, there will need to be suspicion in the first place.
|
Yes, but the point is that, as has been suggested already in this this thread, that "suspicion" can start with four Muslim looking men in a van near an airport.
Would that "suspicion" still exist if they were white? Hell, even if they were black they would probably not be considered potential terrorists!
Quote:
|
So, you are happy for a "suspect" to have their phone tapped (currently illegal under normal circumstances I believe), but not for them to be questioned (currently legal I believe)?
|
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
1) Phone tapping is entirely legal under strict guidelines and approval from the Home Secretary.
2) I would be happy for people's phones to be tapped provided adequate grounds for the tap were provided and it was not simply done as a "fishing expedition" and
3) I would be happy for people to be questioned *provided* it was for something more than looking "suspiciously Muslim".