Blair Defeated In 90 Day Vote

[Head Honcho]

If Blair truly wanted to protect the Subjects of the UK he would not have gone to Iraq. He was warned that attacks like those in London would be more likely if he went into Iraq and yet he did.

It is Blair that should have his freedoms taken away and not the ordinary person who did/does not support his Iraq policy.

Attacks like these were happening well before we went into Iraq

so using that as an excuse is rubbish.

9/11 was well before we invaded Iraq it was only a matter of

time before the UK would have been targeted.

[Guest]

As for scrapping cars, some people cannot afford nice new or up-to-date cars (or they don't wish to lumber themselves with years of debt) but the idea of simply clamping non-complying cars (without ascertaining why they are have no tax or MOT) just smacks of the authoritarianism I was speaking of.

Of course it's deserved. If you can't afford to tax, insure or MOT your car, you can't afford to run one properly anyway, or you've spent your money on the wrong things showing that you haven't prioritised things properly. If you've 'forgotten' or 'cannot be bothered', tough. It's not like they're going to be taking cars that have run out of tax within the last week or so, is it.

Why should those of us who budget properly, or make sacrifices to run a car, have to pay for the ever-growing proportion of society that thinks it's entitled to what the hell it wants without any thought or consideration towards anyone else?

[Head Honcho]

Of course it's deserved. If you can't afford to tax, insure or MOT your car, you can't afford to run one properly anyway, or you've spent your money on the wrong things showing that you haven't prioritised things properly. If you've 'forgotten' or 'cannot be bothered', tough. It's not like they're going to be taking cars that have run out of tax within the last week or so, is it.

Why should those of us who budget properly, or make sacrifices to run a car, have to pay for the ever-growing proportion of society that thinks it's entitled to what the hell it wants without any thought or consideration towards anyone else?

You could go into any Pub car park and a minimum 10% of the cars will be without Tax!

God knows how many won't have insurance

[Guest]

Holding suspects for 90 days is senseless. Aside from the fact it contravenes the Human Rights Act 1998, it has no logic. If someone is suspected of being such a serious threat to society, then there must be a bloody good reason for it. If so, why not charge them and have them incarcerated properly?

If there isn't enough evidence, surely the fact that you have already been questioned, and are likely to be under surveillance must be enough of a deterrent?

If the police, and associated authorities can collect evidence quickly enough for other serious offenders, why not terrorists?

[Rincewind]

If you do not tax mot or insure your car then you are breaking the law. Why should somebody failing to do this get away with it? No Mot could lead to an accident and if you have no insurance then your passengers or yourself arenot covered. No tax and there is no way to trace the owner of a vehcle used in more serious crimes. These points may not be 100% accurate but it's a general outline of why avoiding to pay the above is taken seriously. There is no excuse for not paying. Your insurance company will send you reminders. Your tax disc is on display each time you get in the car and imo a car should be regualy serviced

[Steven]

Attacks like these were happening well before we went into Iraq

so using that as an excuse is rubbish.

9/11 was well before we invaded Iraq it was only a matter of

time before the UK would have been targeted.

You are a Blair spin doctor. We were not attacked before 11/9/2001 and we were attacked after our participation in Iraq. Logically it is easy to see the connection between Blair's decision to conduct an illegal war and subsequent attacks in the UK. Funny how Blair does not have face the consequences of his actions but ordinary people are expected to.

[Rincewind]

You could go into any Pub car park and a minimum 10% of the cars will be without Tax!

God knows how many won't have insurance

No tax No insurance and drink driving. a lot of paperwork for some poor PC.

[Head Honcho]

Holding suspects for 90 days is senseless. Aside from the fact it contravenes the Human Rights Act 1998, it has no logic. If someone is suspected of being such a serious threat to society, then there must be a bloody good reason for it. If so, why not charge them and have them incarcerated properly?

If there isn't enough evidence, surely the fact that you have already been questioned, and are likely to be under surveillance must be enough of a deterrent?

If the police, and associated authorities can collect evidence quickly enough for other serious offenders, why not terrorists?

Most of the evidence is in Arabic and coded and very difficult to translate.

If the evidence is disclosed in court it could hamper the efforts to close down other terrorist cells worldwide.

Not having the 90 day rule doesn't mean that any terrorist arrested will be released early.

It just means that they will be charged after 28 days and remanded in custody for trail anyway,

but some of the evidence gathered will be disclosed and therefore give other terrorist an

insight on how the intelligence was gathered.

[breadandcheese]

You are a Blair spin doctor. We were not attacked before 11/9/2001 and we were attacked after our participation in Iraq. Logically it is easy to see the connection between Blair's decision to conduct an illegal war and subsequent attacks in the UK. Funny how Blair does not have face the consequences of his actions but ordinary people are expected to.

To be fair, you are applying simplistic logic to what is a highly charged and complicated global situation.

[IDEA OR IKEA]

To be fair, you are applying simplistic logic to what is a highly charged and complicated global situation.

Well said - its not as simple as

Action A + Action B = Action C

in world poltics. Its great with the power of Heinsite (spelling?) but who is to say if we did not go to war we would not have been attacked anyway for simply beeing western and pals with the yanks?

[Rincewind]

There were terrorists attack before 9/11. Blair and co were going on information received at the time right or wrong. Would the Tories had reacted any differently? After all one of Maggies 'greatest moments' was when she sent ships out to the Falklands. It was lucky the pilots on those ships knew where the Falklands were (unlike a lot of the British public) or they'd been firing missiles on the Scottish Isles. The Americans were telling the Iraqis to change their way for years because how it was got in the way of them making money on the oil they were after.

[Steven]

To be fair, you are applying simplistic logic to what is a highly charged and complicated global situation.

Blair was warned before his illegal war in Iraq that terrorist activity of the type seen would be more likely to occur. Ergo as it has happened and those pronostications have come sadly true, my comments about Blair are still valid.

[Head Honcho]

Blair was warned before his illegal war in Iraq that terrorist activity of the type seen would be more likely to occur. Ergo as it has happened and those pronostications have come sadly true, my comments about Blair are still valid.

So you supported Blair before he went into Iraq i take it ?

Or are you just another Tory jumping on the Anti-Blair bandwagon

[Steven]

So you supported Blair before he went into Iraq i take it ?

Or are you just another Tory jumping on the Anti-Blair bandwagon

I am no Tory. I have voted Labour in the past, including 1997 , I was anti-war and anti-Blair by the time the Iraq war kicked off and I will never vote Labour again.

[Jon the Hat]

Journalists used to be able to ask questions of any policeman. Now they have to go through channels to appointed professional communicators. Certain things are particularly sensitive, yes, but why should that be (generally) if an organisation has nothing to hide, isn't averse to covering their own misdemeanors, or isn't simply intent on manipulating the media for its own ends (rather like the Government).

Presumable you are referring to a time when Journalists in general had the respect of the police and didn't misquote, mislead and generally unfairly criticise everything to just to over dramatise the situation.

You can't blame the Police for having professional media people if they are going to misrepresented by the media.

If the police say they need 90 days, I don't have the knowledge to say they are wrong. Nor do the Politicians. It does sound like a lot of time though.

[Head Honcho]

I am no Tory. I have voted Labour in the past, including 1997 , I was anti-war and anti-Blair by the time the Iraq war kicked off and I will never vote Labour again.

But do you agree that if the Tories had been in power

they would have done nothing different?

It's the same old story blame the man at the top, he's there to make tough decisions

and you can either support them decisions or vote him out at the next election.

It just so happens that enough people supported him enough to re-elect him.

[Hullfox]

But do you agree that if the Tories had been in power

they would have done nothing different?

It's the same old story blame the man at the top, he's there to make tough decisions

and you can either support them decisions or vote him out at the next election.

It just so happens that enough people supported him enough to re-elect him.

Medal Boy, you can't say what the Tories would or would not have done, his line is probably more right wing than most.

It's not blaming the man at the top for blames sake. He has acted like a dictator on this and his own party (49 of them) disagreed.

Enough people supported him to re-elect him, true. Unfortunately however he has at the moment lost the support of too many of his own party to be effective.

Taxi for Blair.

[Head Honcho]

Medal Boy, you can't say what the Tories would or would not have done, his line is probably more right wing than most.

It's not blaming the man at the top for blames sake. He has acted like a dictator on this and his own party (49 of them) disagreed.

Enough people supported him to re-elect him, true. Unfortunately however he has at the moment lost the support of too many of his own party to be effective.

Taxi for Blair.

49 Sitting Ducks

I predict a vote of no confidence within the month and them 49 had better watch out!

[Hullfox]

49 Sitting Ducks

I predict a vote of no confidence within the month and them 49 had better watch out!

The no confidence vote won't happen. What would be better is a stalking horse to set off a leadership contest.

[Head Honcho]

The no confidence vote won't happen. What would be better is a stalking horse to set off a leadership contest.

Just imagine! A Labour John Redwood

[breadandcheese]

Blair was warned before his illegal war in Iraq that terrorist activity of the type seen would be more likely to occur. Ergo as it has happened and those pronostications have come sadly true, my comments about Blair are still valid.

By the same token, we were warned that terrorism would occur here in the UK before we invaded Iraq.

Tunisia didn't invade Iraq, nor did Turkey, nor did Jordan. Neither did Saudi Arabia. They have all suffered terrorist attacks far worse than 7/7.

As far as I can tell, as a result of this hardline policy in the middle east, Libya have opened up, declared and ceased nuclear weapons development. Syria are starting to come to heel (aware of increasing international pressure over its assassinations in Lebanon, backed up with US troops on their border). Iraq, despite the troubles, is starting a long process towards independence and democracy, which can only be a good thing.

The only problems that are still there are ones that would have been there war on Iraq or not, i.e. Iran's nuclear weapon development and Al-Qaeda (whose stated aims have little to do with George Bush, Tony Blair or Iraq).

I'm sorry, I still don't think it is as cut and dry as you suggest Steven and don't think we will know the true ramifications of the war on Iraq for another decade.

[Rincewind]

I have been put of the Tories by the statement their leader (who is it I forgot) made. He says Blair should resign now because he lost the vote. Who helped him lose the vote? Did the Tories vote because they believed 90 days was wrong or to forces TB to lose the vote? And If I remember all parties agreed that Britain should join the USA to go into Iraq. Now Tories are saying Blair was wrong. I cannot see the right wing members of the Tory party opting for the softer options against suspected terrorists I suspect Blair was prepared for the comprimise. If he had gone for 28 then it may have been voted down to about 20.

It just annoys me when politicians are two-faced. The first thing the Tories could do if the regain power is to increase the days to 90. Their reason being that 28 days was not being used right and the Labour Government did not implement it right and if they had been doing it the increase would not be needed.

Remember these words cos they could spout from the next Tory PM.

[Hullfox]

I have been put of the Tories by the statement their leader (who is it I forgot) made. He says Blair should resign now because he lost the vote. Who helped him lose the vote?

Actually, it was the 49 Labour members as stated previously, 10 of whom were ex cabinet ministers

Did the Tories vote because they believed 90 days was wrong or to forces TB to lose the vote? And If I remember all parties agreed that Britain should join the USA to go into Iraq.

The Lib Dems voted against the war

Now Tories are saying Blair was wrong. I cannot see the right wing members of the Tory party opting for the softer options against suspected terrorists I suspect Blair was prepared for the comprimise. If he had gone for 28 then it may have been voted down to about 20.

The tories on the whole still support the war but are cheesed off at being misled by the WMD claims. Blair and compromise was never going to happen on this issue

It just annoys me when politicians are two-faced. The first thing the Tories could do if the regain power is to increase the days to 90. Their reason being that 28 days was not being used right and the Labour Government did not implement it right and if they had been doing it the increase would not be needed.

Remember these words cos they could spout from the next Tory PM.

Of course they could but they are all as bad as each other. Labour are no strangers to misleading people either.

[Guest]

Most of the evidence is in Arabic and coded and very difficult to translate.

If the evidence is disclosed in court it could hamper the efforts to close down other terrorist cells worldwide.

Not having the 90 day rule doesn't mean that any terrorist arrested will be released early.

It just means that they will be charged after 28 days and remanded in custody for trail anyway,

but some of the evidence gathered will be disclosed and therefore give other terrorist an

insight on how the intelligence was gathered.

Rubbish.

By now our intelligence services ought to have the staff in place to deal with this. We managed during WWII to decode foreign language codes in less time.

Besides, I think most terrorist groups will be aware of how intelligence is gathered, this is why they find new ways of trying to get around it. The argument you use there is flawed anyway, as it is the argument used to justify keeping previous suspected terrorists locked up. When is the best time to 'reveal' how you found them out? You could end up never charging anyone because you don't want to give your methods away.

[Head Honcho]

Rubbish.

By now our intelligence services ought to have the staff in place to deal with this. We managed during WWII to decode foreign language codes in less time.

Besides, I think most terrorist groups will be aware of how intelligence is gathered, this is why they find new ways of trying to get around it. The argument you use there is flawed anyway, as it is the argument used to justify keeping previous suspected terrorists locked up. When is the best time to 'reveal' how you found them out? You could end up never charging anyone because you don't want to give your methods away.

Whatever!