• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

U.K. 42 day detention plan

Sybarite

New Member
It would be difficult for you to see ANY OTHER REASON because you are encapsulated in your own left wing propaganda, you are blinkered to other views. The word prejudice is part of your every day vocabulary; you are part of the cause of the disease that has been eating away at British society the last 10 years. Fortunately the majority of the voting public have seen through this and your views along with the Labour party politics will soon be a thing of the past.

The majority of Britain want suspected terrorist's held until it's safe to let then go, but only terrorist's.

"The majority", eh? Have you got the statistical evidence for that, Chris?

And if it's good enough for those "suspected" of any offence – or of planning or thinking about an offence – why not those suspected of any other?

Incidentally, you haven't yet explained why you chose to ignore facts about white Muslim terrorists. The rant above is mere smoke and mirrors. Have you got an actual explanation, Chris? :lol:
 

ylris611203

New Member
"The majority", eh? Have you got the statistical evidence for that, Chris?
Most Newspapers and the TV News had polls before the vote last week; to that effect.

And if it's good enough for those "suspected" of any offence – or of planning or thinking about an offence – why not those suspected of any other?
Because this a very different type of crime, a different type of terrorist than the IRA. Once the bomb has exploded there is no one to arrest. With other suspected crimes the police can wait until they have more evidence before an arrest; with suicide bombers, if the police make an arrest to early they then may not have enough time to gather enough evidence to prosecute OR wait until there is enough evidence and that could be to late.

I
ncidentally, you haven't yet explained why you chose to ignore facts about white Muslim terrorists. The rant above is mere smoke and mirrors. Have you got an actual explanation, Chris? :lol:

I answered the question a while back and I went into detail and even if I go along with your point about white Muslims; that was not the issue. The issue is why police have to waste a lot of time because of political correctness.
Example; Why did every person have to be searched before boarding an airplane during the summer of 2006 when it was Muslim terrorists that were the perpetrators. An 86 year old disabled lady being searched WAS because of political correctness, not because she could be carrying a bomb in her knitting.
 

Sybarite

New Member
... Because this a very different type of crime, a different type of terrorist than the IRA. Once the bomb has exploded there is no one to arrest. With other suspected crimes the police can wait until they have more evidence before an arrest; with suicide bombers, if the police make an arrest to early they then may not have enough time to gather enough evidence to prosecute OR wait until there is enough evidence and that could be to late...

I'm sure that the lack of anyone to arrest for the actual bombing will be of great comfort to those killed in any bombing. Indeed, there seems to be something of an irony in the fact that, if an IRA member blew themselves up while about to or carrying out a bombing, it was treated with great pleasure by those who didn't support the IRA's aims.

One could have used exactly the same argument about the IRA – incarcerate them all and thus avoid any bombings.

Of course, attempts to do something along those lines didn't really work very well, did they? And then there was always the help that they got from the Catholic church ...

chris302116 said:
... I answered the question a while back and I went into detail and even if I go along with your point about white Muslims; that was not the issue. The issue is why police have to waste a lot of time because of political correctness...

The question of the use of police time is a different one – it could be asked why the police send out two vans of a dozen or more officers to a minor incident where there is no indication of any threat; and what all these officers are doing while they're waiting to be sent on such minor missions (I've actually seen two such minivans travel 100 metres from the police station opposite Liverpool Street Station in the City of London to a Tesco Metro, where a shoplifter had been apprehended by security staff and was awaiting arrest. A similar use of resources was employed when my parents' elderly neighbour didn't answer the door one morning in their nice suburb, although there was no indication of any trouble – as it happens, two vans of police found him dead in his armchair; what a lot of reports that will have meant, and it has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness). The police pick easy options – I suspect partly because some of them aren't really very bright. The 'gay' police horse case springs to mind. You have to be pretty dumb to really take the action that they did over that – and it was thrown out later, for fairly obvious reasons.

Otherwise, since there are white Muslims (and Islam is not a race), then it is sensible to search everyone. You can't claim that something that is required by dint of factual knowledge is political correctness.

chris302116 said:
Example; Why did every person have to be searched before boarding an airplane during the summer of 2006 when it was Muslim terrorists that were the perpetrators. An 86 year old disabled lady being searched WAS because of political correctness, not because she could be carrying a bomb in her knitting.

For some strange reason I have no problem being searched at an airport. Indeed, I think objecting is just trying to score pathetic points. I don't find it all impossible to believe that some form of explosive could be slipped unwittingingly into someone else's baggage. Or that someone could have been persuaded to carry some object, without knowing what it really is. And we know that terrorist organisers are attempting to recuit from a wide variety of people. If they attempt to bomb a plane again, it won't be someone dressed 'as a Muslim'. And if you're going to have people searched at airports, then you search them all – it would be asking for far more trouble (and would take far more time) to expect staff to exercise some set of criteria for who should and who should not be searched. And I would also suggest that the elderly lady that you mentioned was searched because staff were under orders to search everyone. Now you may not agree with that, but it's not the same as "political correctness". Indeed, it would be a form of "political correctness" to not search certain people. It would be a decision made for a 'political' reason.

Personally, I'm far happier to see – and be – searched when I'm traveling by air. Now the extent of security at Gard de Nord annoys me – if only we'd stop twatting around and sign Schengen.
 

ylris611203

New Member
The question of the use of police time is a different one – it could be asked why the police send out two vans of a dozen or more officers to a minor incident where there is no indication of any threat;
We can all cite illustrations that go against the grain but that does not alter the fact that the Police have limited resources. Your example may be a good one in that it does illustrate how police DO waste time, manpower and money.

But political correctness is something that there is far to much of in this country.............it does eat into police resources.

Otherwise, since there are white Muslims (and Islam is not a race), then it is sensible to search everyone. You can't claim that something that is required by dint of factual knowledge is political correctness.
Ok then; using that logic, since the person the police suspect of being terrorist could be a terrorist then it is sensible to hold them for up to 42 days if needs be.

For some strange reason I have no problem being searched at an airport.
............and neither do I up to a point.
Indeed, I think objecting is just trying to score pathetic points. I don't find it all impossible to believe that some form of explosive could be slipped unwittingingly into someone else's baggage. Or that someone could have been persuaded to carry some object, without knowing what it really is.
...........I agree, but most of the baggage is not searched. Last time I travelled I was asked 'did anyone pack or have access to my baggage'. I answer NO and my cases were loaded on to the plane.

I was searched for anything sharp, I was not allowed to take a bottle of water on board that I bought in a duty free shop to take on board. I had to eat with a plastic knife and fork.

But, once passengers were on board they were handed the duty free bottles they had purchased.

If I wanted to drink a bottle of Scotch on board I could but not a bottle of water. I had to eat with a plastic knife so that I was not tempted to stab another passenger, but I was able to smash my a whisky bottle and use that as a weapon.

If I paid for a first class ticket I could have a real dinner knife, so I guess terrorists don't travel first class.
 

beer good

Well-Known Member
You may have missed the irony in my illustration. Political Correctness is having that effect on the world. :sad:

You said there was no way an old woman could be carrying a bomb aboard a plane. I posted a famous example in which exactly that happened. Now you say you were being ironic. So... are you saying that you did think she could be carrying a bomb in her knitting? :confused:

Also, just out of curiosity, is there anything you don't blame on political correctness?

- It's raining again.
- Yes. It's political correctness gone mad!
 

ylris611203

New Member
You said there was no way an old woman could be carrying a bomb aboard a plane. I posted a famous example in which exactly that happened. Now you say you were being ironic. So... are you saying that you did think she could be carrying a bomb in her knitting? :confused:

Also, just out of curiosity, is there anything you don't blame on political correctness?

- It's raining again.
- Yes. It's political correctness gone mad!

The old lady would not have been allowed to take her knitting on board incase she WAS the terrorist and stuck a needle into the pilot and co pilot and flew the plane into a building.

I am sure that what ever example I used, someone could google something to show the opposite
 

Sybarite

New Member
So let me get this right: it's "political correctness" to search everyone getting on a plane, but it wouldn't be "political correctness" to not search certain groups because one decrees that, simply because they are who they are, they couldn't possibly be a danger.

And Chris, you had to eat with a plastic knife and fork? That must have been a damaging experience – no wonder you feel so strongly about it. You must be new to this flying lark, Chris – I don't remember ever having eaten with anything other than plastic cutlery on a plane, and that's going back well before 9/11. :lol:

Beer Good – yelling 'it's political correctness gorn mad, I tell thee' at everything avoids actually having to contemplate actual issues. The funny thing, as I have just pointed out, is that what Chris thinks of as a form of "political correctness" he wants to replace with another form of "political correctness". Earlier, he wanted white men exempted from police searches because they don't commit terrorist offences; now he wants the elderly exempted from airport security because they would never cause a danger to a flight. Those are political statements, not based on available facts (as has been shown).
 

Sybarite

New Member
I think that the politically correct thing to do about airplane cutlery would be to demand a 'proper' knife and fork – most airlines will use plastic because it's disposable and they don't have to waste time and man hours – sorry, people hours – washing it and drying it after use. That would be so much more environmental – although it would be less environmentally damaging if they used vegetable plastics.
 

ylris611203

New Member
So let me get this right: it's "political correctness" to search everyone getting on a plane, but it wouldn't be "political correctness" to not search certain groups because one decrees that, simply because they are who they are, they couldn't possibly be a danger.
You all know full what I am referring to, but as is typical of many lefties you are trying to score points here.
If a seven foot tall man is wanted for a crime and the police have limited resources then it would seem sensible not to stop a five foot man.

And Chris, you had to eat with a plastic knife and fork? That must have been a damaging experience – no wonder you feel so strongly about it. You must be new to this flying lark, Chris – I don't remember ever having eaten with anything other than plastic cutlery on a plane, and that's going back well before 9/11. :lol:
There you go again ridiculing what I say to score cheap points. I have always had metal cutlery given to me on a flight and the airline apologised because we were given plastic last time I travelled, apparently it was for our own safety. I can't see their logic; because I could have used my knife and fork to defend my self from any would be terrorist that happened to be on board. Maybe I was given plastic because they thought I and every one else NOT in first class were terrorists. Or maybe it WAS some sort of inverted political correctness. :flowers:

Those are political statements, not based on available facts (as has been shown).
If you are sure about that you will be able show facts (what ever they are) to the contrary. :lol:
 

Sybarite

New Member

As has been said elsewhere, the Telegraph headline is sensationalist and misleading.

I don't see a problem with identifying children and young people who appear to have violent, aggressive tendencies/interests, but lumping them in with terrorists is crackers and to imply, as this does, that until this scheme to spot those being targeted by extremists was launched, a child with such problems would have been missed. Is that really the case? Or would/could problem behaviour have been dealt with without the involvement of the police and, for goodness sake, anti-terrorist schemes? Or is it a question of using public paranoia about terrorism, anti-social behaviour and goodness knows what else to justify a more heavy-handed and authoritarian approach to an issue that would previously have been handled differently? Are we now being primed to accept police interference in an increasing number of areas of life, under the umberella excuse of security?
 

Shade

New Member
This thread is the best laugh I've had in ages. I love the way the chap pretending to be a right wing nutter has resisted the temptation to come out of character. The clues that he was a satirical construct (perhaps by Chris Morris; a clue in the name?) were there from the beginning though:

1. Pretends to consider the Daily Mail a valuable source of balanced news. Examples of why the Mail is not balanced are available in it every day of the week, but here's one example, and here's the full story. I love the way they invite their readers: "Has political correctness gone mad? Tell us in the comments below." Or how about the old 'Winterval' chestnut? As the Mail didn't report:

"We get this every year," a press officer sighs, eventually. "It just depends how many rogue journalists you get in any given year. We tell them it's bollocks, but it doesn't seem to make much difference."

2. Secondary source of information on vital domestic security issues is, er, Matthew Wright. Nice minor celeb touch there. When creating a fictional caricature, it's always good to put some slightly obscure real names in their posts so as to add mock verisimilitude.

3. Uses phrase "political correctness" straight-faced (but we can see the wink you're tipping us, my friend!), well aware that opposition to political correctness - a sometimes clumsy but well-intentioned attempt to accelerate the evolution of society away from prejudice such as calling black people 'niggers' or the disabled 'spastics' - lumps one in with the likes of these people, which is a consummation devoutly not to be wished.

4. Has no self-awareness whatsoever; whoever invented the character possibly inspired in part by David Brent from The Office.

5. Overuse of passive-aggressive 'nice' smilies to punctuate offensive comments (or what would be offensive comments if they were from a real person :flowers:)

6. Doesn't engage with arguments. A real person would change his mind when the facts were brought to his attention. It's only a fictional character who would stick assiduously to viewpoints after they are proved ill-informed or misguided. I mean, for a real person, that would be so undignified.

7. The zinger! Has a signature which purports to suggest he believes in imaginary beings.

As the kids apparently no longer say: Hel-lo? How many clues do you need, folks!

Watch out in future for references to "the global warming myth" and complaints about speed cameras.
 

ylris611203

New Member
This thread is the best laugh I've had in ages. I love the way the chap pretending to be a right wing nutter has resisted the temptation to come out of character. The clues that he was a satirical construct (perhaps by Chris Morris; a clue in the name?) were there from the beginning though:

1. Pretends to consider the Daily Mail a valuable source of balanced news. Examples of why the Mail is not balanced are available in it every day of the week, but here's one example, and here's the full story. I love the way they invite their readers: "Has political correctness gone mad? Tell us in the comments below." Or how about the old 'Winterval' chestnut? As the Mail didn't report:



2. Secondary source of information on vital domestic security issues is, er, Matthew Wright. Nice minor celeb touch there. When creating a fictional caricature, it's always good to put some slightly obscure real names in their posts so as to add mock verisimilitude.

3. Uses phrase "political correctness" straight-faced (but we can see the wink you're tipping us, my friend!), well aware that opposition to political correctness - a sometimes clumsy but well-intentioned attempt to accelerate the evolution of society away from prejudice such as calling black people 'niggers' or the disabled 'spastics' - lumps one in with the likes of these people, which is a consummation devoutly not to be wished.

4. Has no self-awareness whatsoever; whoever invented the character possibly inspired in part by David Brent from The Office.

5. Overuse of passive-aggressive 'nice' smilies to punctuate offensive comments (or what would be offensive comments if they were from a real person :flowers:)

6. Doesn't engage with arguments. A real person would change his mind when the facts were brought to his attention. It's only a fictional character who would stick assiduously to viewpoints after they are proved ill-informed or misguided. I mean, for a real person, that would be so undignified.

7. The zinger! Has a signature which purports to suggest he believes in imaginary beings.

As the kids apparently no longer say: Hel-lo? How many clues do you need, folks!

Watch out in future for references to "the global warming myth" and complaints about speed cameras.

...................all this from a person who showers in political correctness every morning, yet wants to refute it exists, while at the same time, I would guess has a photo of Harriet Harman above his bed.:lol:
 

Shade

New Member
................that's right, I do, it helps keep the mice away!! :) Keep up the good work mate, I love the way you're still doing the killer thing of pretending not to read people's posts properly so you can misrepresent them in your responses!! :rofl: .......................that kills me that does, you're a satirist of the highest order! :lol::innocent::lol:

.........................By the way you forgot to put any punctuation or spelling mistakes in that post - mum's the word eh!
 
Top