Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
My point is, lighten up, if you're a white anglo-saxon then the chances are it ain't gonna happen to you.
See, with every cloud there's a silver lining!
It is precisely this kind of niaive trust in governments and institutions of state power that lets them get away with carp like this.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "
From what I understand the authorities can and have detained people for that long and longer using the current legislative framework
The difference AFAIK is that if this new legislation came in they wouldnt have to present a legal argument for detaining a person for 42 days.
Basically they way I see it, if they pick someone up that has been under surveilence for terrorist offences and they cannot find substantial proof of that individuals involvment in terrorist activities in a few days, then either they are cr@p or the person is innocent.
Its long enough to fly the suspect to an Uzbeki jail and extract a confession under extreme duress.
I disagree with it, I fear the government more than I fear any mullah
There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "
It may not be a done deal just yet even if Labour win the vote, because the House of Lords is bound to vote it down and who knows what might happen before it returns for a second Commons vote.
I reckon GB threatened the Labour rebels with the doomsday option if the govt lost the vote, i.e. that he'd resign and call an election (not that he'd probably have the bottle to go ahead and do that).
Comment