90 days?

[the>one]

whats 90 days compared to killing hundreds of innocent people.........not all muslims would be locked up only suspects......or don't hold anybody on suspicion because it infringes their liberties....arrest them after the event......

[qapmoc]

The problem is ''what is a terrorist'' if you are a taxi driver taking some people around (as you might) and they are pulled by the police while in your taxi how do you think the police will decide who to hold for 90 days?? I think it could be everybody involved and this can apply to ANY situation because funnily enough the terrorist's don't carry a board saying "terrorist please arrest me''

If your worried about innocent victims I think you better do something about the numbers of deaths on the UK roads first!

[Gevs1966]

Just a couple of points to think about.

The day to day terrorist threat to this country is blown out of all proportion by the media and government alike just look at the recent front page of the sun (Britains biggest selling newspaper) who says brainwashing doesn't happen!!

The statistic of 80% of gmtv viewers supporting the 90 days is fundamentally flawed. Maybe 80% of the people who phoned in supported it but you would have to do all sorts of demographic studies on thoe who voted and those who didn't (inpossible) to find a reasonable statistic to use in ANY argument.

[Supernick]

Some people seem to be under the illusion that when the suspects are released from custody, that we never check up on them again, and that we would have no idea what they were doing. If someone is released after 28 days through lack of evidence and the police and intelligence services still believe they pose a genuine risk, I hardly think that they're going to just let them go. They'll be under constant surveillance etc, and unlikely to be able to continue their 'plotting'. The intelligence service aren't a bunch of bumbling morons.

[the>one]

ok then 80% of people who bothered to take part in gmtv's poll voted to support the 90days......its still a large proportion......

[blinkyblinky]

Yes, it's a large proportion. And it proves...?

[stevie21]

In my mind, one huge thing that's missing from the entire debate is the justification for the timescale being 90 days. If we all had a better idea of what was so time consuming for the cops then we'd all be better placed to make an educated and informed decision on it. As it is, as soon as I hear 90 days I just think "THREE MONTHS!?? You WHAT?????"

You can't hold an innocent person without charge for three months. Why not approach it from the other side of the table : give the police more resources so that their investigations don't need to take 3 months.

[blinkyblinky]

But that would cost money.

[jake-the-peg]

certain irony in this don't you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4427096.stm

He was held for 13 days without charge and it's a major incident

[WoWo]

I thinl stevie21's point is a very valid one. If these people are such an immediate danger why is it going to take 90 days to come up with something.

And thats the other part of it, were not talking about people being held for 90 days for having bomb making equipment or 90 days for attempting to detonate a bomb. Those people will be arrested straight away.

It's a case of holding people for 90's with no evidence at all.

[stevie21]

Does all of this hinge on decrypting computer data? If the police have a certain amount of evidence (enough to be incredibly suspicious but not quite enough to convict) are they asking for 90 days specifically to sieze computer equipment and decrypt info on it?

Or are there other reasons? What is it that's going to take 90 days?

[El D]

Millions and millions fought and died to secure the very rights we have now. But as 50 have been killed we are signing them away . . . because people are too scared and too stupid to think for themselves. I should think that given todays relevance a lot of people should be very ashamed in their support of these anti-democratic and uncivilised meaures.