Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Oh please don't.Bob Jones said:
You're going to anyway aren't you?
So much for terrorists then?
- Thread starter jiggajagga
- Start date
You're going to anyway aren't you?
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
It mirrors what happend to the irish community in this country throughout the troubles. Friends, associates and relatives of people imprisoned for IRA activity would be arrested and held for extensive periods and then released - or fitted up with bogus charges in some cases.
The purpose was and is to gather information, Im sure that after several days of solitary confinement and high pressure interviews some people may well become far more willing to come up with information they think the cops might be interested in. It also serves to imtimidate communities who might be sympathetic to the organisaitons being targeted - the IRA then, radical islamists now.
Back in the 70s, Special Branch and co would use various forms of psychological and phyisical coercion to help the interview along - otherwise known as torture. Im not sure what methods they use now but Im pretty sure its whatever they think they can get away with.
Its utterly disingenuous for DB to pretend that this is just routine policing practice.
Now I am most definitely not a fan of the jihadi groups, especially ones who believe the mass-murder of bus and train passengers is justified. But the actions of the police (from the de menzies shooting to forest gate and so on) are in danger of further alienating a whole seciton of muslim youth and driving them straight into the arms of the radical islamists.
Much of the behaviour of the anti-terror cops is driven by frustration, political pressure, paranoir and a desire for revenge - rather then by reasoned repsonses to 'new evidence' (which is par-for the course throughout the history of counter insurgency actions around the world)
The purpose was and is to gather information, Im sure that after several days of solitary confinement and high pressure interviews some people may well become far more willing to come up with information they think the cops might be interested in. It also serves to imtimidate communities who might be sympathetic to the organisaitons being targeted - the IRA then, radical islamists now.
Back in the 70s, Special Branch and co would use various forms of psychological and phyisical coercion to help the interview along - otherwise known as torture. Im not sure what methods they use now but Im pretty sure its whatever they think they can get away with.
Its utterly disingenuous for DB to pretend that this is just routine policing practice.
Now I am most definitely not a fan of the jihadi groups, especially ones who believe the mass-murder of bus and train passengers is justified. But the actions of the police (from the de menzies shooting to forest gate and so on) are in danger of further alienating a whole seciton of muslim youth and driving them straight into the arms of the radical islamists.
Much of the behaviour of the anti-terror cops is driven by frustration, political pressure, paranoir and a desire for revenge - rather then by reasoned repsonses to 'new evidence' (which is par-for the course throughout the history of counter insurgency actions around the world)
No. It isn't. In almost all respects (and certainly in the aspects raised here) it exactly the same, using exactly the same basic law.Kaka Tim said:
It is utterly disingenuous for you to pretend that there is torture going on. You are talking complete and utter bollocks. Go speak to the people concerned. Go speak to their solicitors.
jiggajagga
Judge_Mental
Jografer said:
And of course you are perfect eh?
If ever I need help in a crisis I hope it 'ain't you who's next to me.
That's one of the aspects which is different. The maximum detention without charge for non-terrorism offences is 4 days.TAE said:
But the length of the detention was not one of the highlighted issues ... and what seemed to be the principle one - that you could be detained without sufficient evidence to charge - was exactly the same, which was my point.
The people that say thet the hole in the Pentagon was not big enough to have been caused by a Boing 757 are millitary personel that are mostly retiered.
They are experts in their feilds and I think they should be taken seriosly as it changes everything if Bush did 9/11. Then there was the plot to blow up old Trafford that was shown up to be a tale made up by Downing street press office by the Independent news paper.
They are experts in their feilds and I think they should be taken seriosly as it changes everything if Bush did 9/11. Then there was the plot to blow up old Trafford that was shown up to be a tale made up by Downing street press office by the Independent news paper.
Maidmarian
Stubborn Socialist
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh dear !
Oh dear !
Andy the Don
Wise men say only fools..
Bob Jones said:
You expect us to take someone seriously who makes seven spelling mistakes in four lines. Who is trying to "off" you the grammar police your old English teacher..??
jiggajagga
Judge_Mental
Andy the Don said:
Are you saying that because someone may be dyslexic they may not be taken seriously? Thats fucked Einstein, Churchill and Da Vinci then to name but a few!!
Are you saying that because someone may be dyslexic they are automatically to be taken seriously and can't be a conspiraloon?jiggajagga said:
I just don't believe what is being said about Osama bin Laden. My spelling is not to good but I am not stupid. Are we really to believe that he is still evading the US military intelligence after all these years?
I just think there is something else going on to what we are told. Ther war on terror seems ulterior to me.
I just think there is something else going on to what we are told. Ther war on terror seems ulterior to me.
jiggajagga
Judge_Mental
No, but I am saying he deserves common courtesy as a new member regardless of his viewpoint! Some on here on behaving like ASBO louts!detective-boy said:Are you saying that because someone may be dyslexic they are automatically to be taken seriously and can't be a conspiraloon?
Andy the Don
Wise men say only fools..
jiggajagga said:
Opens & drinks alcopop.. throws bottle & sets pitbull on jigga..
Pulls down peak of Burberry baseball cap & mouches off..
jiggajagga
Judge_Mental
Jografer said:
Thank fuck!
Pentagon
I have never understood this 'hole too small argument'. If a passenger aircraft, which despite its size, is still largely a hollow aluminium structure, hits a rather substantial reinforced concrete wall, it is not going to leave a perfectly realised outline of itself in said wall, is it? That sort of thing only ever happens in Tom and Jerry and Road Runner, not real life. The impact will of course cause some damage to the wall, but the fact that the hole does not correspond to the width of the original, pre-smashed to fuck, aircraft, does not strike me as being remotely 'suspicious'. Who are these so called 'experts' who consider the hole to be too small, and what about the hundreds of eyewitnesses that clearly say they saw a passenger aircraft fly over and hit the pentagon?
Bob Jones said:
I have never understood this 'hole too small argument'. If a passenger aircraft, which despite its size, is still largely a hollow aluminium structure, hits a rather substantial reinforced concrete wall, it is not going to leave a perfectly realised outline of itself in said wall, is it? That sort of thing only ever happens in Tom and Jerry and Road Runner, not real life. The impact will of course cause some damage to the wall, but the fact that the hole does not correspond to the width of the original, pre-smashed to fuck, aircraft, does not strike me as being remotely 'suspicious'. Who are these so called 'experts' who consider the hole to be too small, and what about the hundreds of eyewitnesses that clearly say they saw a passenger aircraft fly over and hit the pentagon?
I'm afraid many of the conspiraloons base their "stands to reason, don't it" approach on precisely that level of life experience ...davec67 said:
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
detective-boy said:
Wind your neck in plodboy - I said that their interviewers will be doing 'whatever they think they can get away with'. They couldn't get away with direct toruture or the old 'stress and duress' techniques beloved of special branch and co in the 70s.
However they will be using various forms of psychological tactics to try and extract information from them. Tactics like holding someone in solitary for weeks without charges.
"Solitary"? "Weeks"?Kaka Tim said:
More disingenuous bollocks.
There are valid arguments to be had. Why do you feel the need to undermine them by this constant hyperbole and exaggeration?
If ther were hundreds of witnesses that saw a plane it would diprove the hole too small arguement. But there were witnesses that say that the was no wreakage of a plane seen. In the photo you can not see any plane wreakage either and you can see plane wreakage if you see any other photo of a plane crash. The wreakage that was seen is thuogh not to have been plane wreakage by some witnesses. I still smell a rat over 9/11davec67 said:
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
detective-boy said:"Solitary"? "Weeks"?
More disingenuous bollocks.
There are valid arguments to be had. Why do you feel the need to undermine them by this constant hyperbole and exaggeration?
They can hold people for up to 28 days under terror legislation.
And that could very well be in a single, unshared cell.
24 hours with regular review by an Inspector; 36 hours on authorisation by a Superintendent and then maximum of 96 hours on authorisation by a Magistrate.TAE said:
At every review stage, and on each application, it needs to be demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence with a power of arrest has been committed AND that the continued detention of the person is necessary to investigate that offence AND that the investigation is being progressed expeditiously.
The extensions beyond 24 hours can only be made in relation to the more serious offences ... but if you think 96 hours is too much to investigate some serious offences you are wrong - it is frequently nowhere near enough - many scientific tests, examinations of computers/phones, etc. will have hardly begun, let alone been completed!
Similar threads
- Poll
