Crouchie's Lawyer

I wouldnt be too happy about it no, however, I would understand it, and if by encarserating (sp) a member of my family, it meant that someone who had actually commit a terror related crime was detained for long enough to gain enough evidence against them and stopped them commiting the crime then I would have tolerate it. I may hav mis-worded my original point, however as Hatch has said, what I should have possibly said is: Should people who have no regard for Human Life still be protected by these Human Rights laws? And why is it people rally for them getting these rights? I can see its probably more for the rights itself, rather than the person the particular case relates to. However, even if I were so hell bent on defending human rights, I would turn a blind eye to it on cases such as Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden. This is my own personal opinion of course. I think a lot of people have not understood my original point, which is probably half my fault as I didnt word it right, however, I am not going on about your basic human rights in general. I would challenge any person who says they would prefer hundreds of people to be innocently killed in preference to themselves of one of their loved ones being detained for a few weeks innocently.

Why? For having an opinion that differs from yours?

Yes, cheers Hatch. This was meant to be my point but got caught up in my ramblings.

Oh, I agree with this completely. But there are rights and there are rights. The rights, you and I have as a law abiding citizen which seperate us from the likes of Iran and Syria should be and thankfully are, in place. But its the rights of the criminals which I do not agree with. Why should someone who has raped and murdered an innocent child, be given the same rights as an innocent person? And yes I am fully aware that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if it took a few extra days to clear my name, I for one would have no qualms about it.

Completely agree

And to say the growth in CCTV camera's is directly linked to the growth in crime levels is absurd. How about the smacking ban? Kids being able to get away with more things without fear of reprival? Surely this breeds less respect and therefore, could be deemed to be a link to crime increasing? Drugs being more easily available and cheaper too, that not one of the reasons as well? Police being targetted on areas like paperwork FFS, meaning less time on 'the beat'. These all have a hell of a lot more relevance to crime rate increases since the 70's than CCTV does Baj.

Cheers JFP, this is my point exactly.

Hardly the same though. No I do not agree with speed camera's as a money grabbing scheme (which they are) but its not as if these can be classed as being part of a 'big brother state'. Equally, I dont think CCTV camera's (which you find on the high street for example) can be classed as revenue generating.

Feel free to point out where I said indefinatley. I did not say Indefinatley, I just said a little longer. If you are going to have a go at me, then please at least get what Im saying right. I wouldnt want CCTV in my home no, and would disagree with the 'big brother' state if they were to use it against you for every little thing possible, however. In the case of terrorism, where they plan to end the lives of innocent people, if a few extra CCTV camera's here or there, emails being monitored, ID cards or even having to spend a few extra days or a week or so in prison means that it would cut down the chances of something like this happening again then I am for it. You may want to take the 'Look at me, im neutral and have no opinions' view on it and will probably call me a Daily Mail reader for having such a view, however, you ask what the HR people, or even the innocent person locked up for a week longer would prefer, being locked up an extra week or their family being blown up by a terrorist.

how?

I have not read the Act no, neither do I entend to. Im sure there are parts of it which are fair and just, however, do not agree to the interfering when it comes to something as big as a terrorism charge. Do you think they should just be let go then? I would be all for charging people straight away, but Im sure as you will no doubt point out, this cannot be done. Which leaves them in a limbo position. Hence why the rule to extend the time they can be detained is so.

That statement is out of this world

Am I the only one who gets completely peeved off when these Human Rights groups pan on about things. For example, if Osama Bin Laden were to ever be caught, you could bet your boots on some HR gimp coming out saying he shouldnt be treated badly, should have a TV in prison, should have a choice of meals in prison etc etc. Like the amount of time you can detain someone suspected of terror charges. IMO if your innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Yet HR gimps come out saying its against their rights to detain them for x amount of days. One question... Would you be happier not detaining them, for them to then go and blow up hundreds or thousands of innocent people?! A few innocent people being detained for a few extra days is IMO a hell of a lot better than letting the guilty go a few days earlier! Discuss

Not exactly a story about someone seeing a UFO with a picture they happened to catch though is it? More a story about the people who say they see them (well as it seems, I didnt read the whole thing TBF). I agree, its not a particularly entertaining paper, but factually its normally fairly reliable. I love reading the Sun and papers alike, but cant help feeling a little dumb when I do, as if its wrong for someone with half a brain to read it!

Im all for things like this. ID cards, passports for buying phones etc. Providing the minor things go un-noticed then it can only be good. I mean, if I have a conversation with a mate about a program I recorded on TV which he can have, or if he fancies coming over for a few smokes and then got a knock on the door with a warrant for my arrest with this as evidence, I dont agree with it. But if its put to good use, to stop these c*nts bombing everything and terrorism in general, then I dont see a problem. I am not guilty and would be happy to carry a card proving this.

I agree with most of what you say StM, however, the above point maybe slightly different as the credit crunch may have forced Barclays to re-think the proposed plan Crouch et al had had accepted. This maybe why Lowe had to go to the bank and change things? :confused:

He will be currently sat in a spa, with man mud on his face

I love it how the sun has all these stories, yet none in the Guardian?

Just smack him round the head each time he does it. That'll learn him

Could you borrow me a tenner today, Im going to learn them kids at school how to solve algebra! 'That'll learn 'em' is probably one of the most annoying phrases ever

:smt042

Happy bday mate

In acid

Ditto, although my call was yesterday. Sadastic thing is I knew we would lose, yet still accepted it!

We need more experience. It is so blatent to see. Rudi and John need to be in the team with Perry and Wooton with youth around them. Why can all these people see it, yet the person (or people ) who picks the team not see this. DMcG is a waste of space. He has far too many shares in himself and consequently doesnt bother. He is has Rasiaks movement, with Ormerods finishing!