42-day detention

The objective of terrorism is, they say, to destroy us, our way of life, and the freedom our society represents. It does seem to some that by eroding our freedoms to protect us from terrorism, we are in fact allowing the terrorists to achieve their goal of taking these freedoms away from us. However, I don't necessarily think that what the government are proposing is entirely ridiculous.

Thomas has suggested we are "letting the government erode age-old liberties for an unspecified, largely fictional threat". However with some massively public attacks such as those on 11th September 2001, and 7th July 2005, its fairly safe to say that there are strictly non-fictional factions out there that are rather intent on blowing themselves up if they can take alot of other people with them.

Remember whenever you used to be able to bring drinks through airport security, and onto a plane? Perhaps more relevantly, know why we can't do this anymore?

Another instance perhaps more relevant to MM - In the summer of last year 8 people were arrested for numerous attempted car-bombings across Glasgow and London, on the heels of an attempted firebombing using a Jeep Cherokee as a rolling bomb at Glasgow Airport. The suspects were linked with the NHS, being either Doctors or med-students - nice and relevant for some!

And as I'm sure the more tuned-in MM readers will know that this is only the tip of the iceberg, with smaller instances of attempted violence being thwarted by domestic security forces on a thankfully irregular basis. However, it still happens.

And lets not pretend that this power is available to be unloaded unto simply anyone. First there must be a Judge who has reason to believe that detaining a certain chap for a period of over the current limit would be beneficial. He takes the case to the Home Secretary, who then has to have a word with the Director of Public Prosecutions, who must also agree. Last, and arguably least important of the 3 people, comes your average independent lawyer. Not part of "the system", he has to acknowledge that the reasons for justifying such measures are fair. Thats 3 fairly difficult hurdles - as has been said by police officials, getting anyone to the stage where it is legally permitted to hold them for 42 days is such a bureaucratic process that it is "almost unworkable". There are checks, there are balances, however in a situation where not a shred of doubt presents itself over the justification of holding someone, the option is still there.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's a bit of sensationalism in the original argument. We need to protect people from "the government", they're eroding freedom! Its almost as if there's a massive conspiracy: they're out to "get you". And their police officers, the lot of them incompetent, not forgetting their Special forces, each and every single one of them wanting to kill things, are going to help them "get you". It builds up a slightly Orwellian image of our country which is simply a piece of sensationalist exaggeration. The kind of sensationalism you find coming from the Opposition to the government over in Westminster.

It's true that the prospect of being held for 42 days without charge, when innocent, is quite terrifying. However, with the amount of bureaucracy surrounding the implementation of such an order, I see this measure as an increase in the capability of police IF they so need it - I also feel they have gained this power without a loss to our personal freedoms.

N.B. While I would consider myself to be a Tory, I do indeed think they talk some shit for the sake of talking shit. A downside of party politics - yes or no?

As for the DUP, I'm not really surprised that they voted with the government. GB offered them the sort of financial package that would make Bill Gates salivate. Expect some big announcements of redevelopment in UUP-DUP marginals (all three of them), and a central government retreat on water rates.

I won't criticise the DUP too much. The UUP also supported the legislation, with only the nationalists opposing. Politics is a dirty game, and principle tends to be sacrificed first. We should hardly be surprised that the DUP did the same.

PS one Tory member voted for the legislation: Ann Widdecombe. Which might suggest her mental state

Congratulations on your graduation! However, your use of italics leaves much to be desired, especially 'the steps' and 'Dairylea Dunkers' usage. I've tried reading that sentence out loud a couple of times and keep coming off like Chandler from Friends (who, by the way, I've decided I am the Irish equivalent of. Just without the wit).

As for Bill Sugar/Alan Gates, all I can say is: http://alt1040.com/uploads/bill-gates-1983.jpg

This friday will be the two-week anniversary of me leaving The Steps, and other surrounding architectural features... Forever.

Except now the wee bastards have taken to throwing coins, Dairy lea Dunkers don't have the same headsplitting potential.

Place is going down the shitter anyway.