Rebecca Leighton charges dropped

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hey, I am not amused that again you have made this personal against me as being a member 'of the left' and assuming what I am and what I think. Who the heck do you think you are Dan telling me what I am and what I think?:@:@:@ You have no clue about me as an individual as I have none about you. As it happens this has nothing to do with my political views but that I have gained a deeper insight into this sort of situation having worked in a Barristers Chambers for many weeks this summer. My view is that they should only be kept for as long as it warrants it but as I said before 24 hours is nowhere near long enough to gather evidence that is all.

But you are a member of the left as you've clearly shown, and socialism is all against the principles of liberty. If you don't like me pointing this out then at least make an effort to stand by why we should lose our personal freedoms because I really would like to hear an argument from you telling me why I should have my liberties taken from me by government when the same government makes no real effort to punish criminals.

In times during the past you have defended the previous Labour government which was possibly the most authoritarian government we have ever had; destroying precious liberties under the guise of the next-to-none threat of terrorism, destroying liberties in an attempt to look hard on crime when infact the criminals were treated more softly than ever before and that is how I know what you think.

My view is that they should only be kept for as long as it warrants it

What, like a third world despotism? How can you blast third world regimes and call for them to be toppled by the west in then name of freedom when you wish to install the same judical system right here, in our own country?

I really think you should have a look at the passage I posted earlier and think whether you wish to hand government that power.

[Catzsy]

But you are a member of the left as you've clearly shown, and socialism is all against the principles of liberty. If you don't like me pointing this out then at least make an effort to stand by why we should lose our personal freedoms because I really would like to hear an argument from you telling me why I should have my liberties taken from me by government when the same government makes no real effort to punish criminals.

In times during the past you have defended the previous Labour government which was possibly the most authoritarian government we have ever had; destroying precious liberties under the guise of the next-to-none threat of terrorism, destroying liberties in an attempt to look hard on crime when infact the criminals were treated more softly than ever before and that is how I know what you think.



What, like a third world despotism? How can you blast third world regimes and call for them to be toppled by the west in then name of freedom when you wish to install the same judical system right here, in our own country?

I really think you should have a look at the passage I posted earlier and think whether you wish to hand government that power.

Yes I lean to the left as you well know and I am proud of it. Things in this world are not all black and white though you know. As I have explained before there are many forms of socialism as there are many forms of capitalism. What I feel though is that whilst you have very different opinion to me I respect your right to hold them and I do not personally attack you in a very exagerated way by stereotyping me as someone who is a sheep and just follows all forms of socialism. I have my own mind and opinions. It's posts like your previous one that put me off even posting in this forum and I have the right not to post a reply. For someone who believes in liberty and personal freedom you seem to negate this by actually sending visitor messages to people asking them to reply. That's a bit of a dichotomy don't you think?

I love current affairs as much as you do but it would be nice to have a more objective, less personally negative reply. I am not in agreement with having a 24 hour limit because of the harm it could do by releasing potentially dangerous people back on the streets. It is not common sense to believe that the police and CPS could come up with a bullet proof case in that time with these type of cases. In any event most people are out within 24 hours whether they are charged or not. If they want to detain them for more than 24 hours then they have to put a case before the court to do so. In this country the legal system is completely independent of the government.

As far as terrorism is concerned the Geneva Convention does not apply and this country would be in a much worse state if suspects had not been detained. It includes plots that were foiled at an early stage before any materials were actually assembled. Terrorism is alive and well in this country and the authorities need the power to be able to stop these atrocities happening. What is not acceptable is the amount of totally innocent suspects detained. Hopefully they will learn from the past here. This country is nothing like a third world depotism and has a long way to go before we even think it is.

Soft on criminals? I don't agree with being soft on them and I never have although I don't believe in capital punishment but do believe in abortion in some circumstances which probably is a bit hypocrital of me but thats what I believe. Having said that you don't believe in abortion but you believe in capital punishment so you could say the same applies. Exactly what freedoms are you losing?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes I lean to the left as you well know and I am proud of it. Things in this world are not all black and white though you know. As I have explained before there are many forms of socialism as there are many forms of capitalism. What I feel though is that whilst you have very different opinion to me I respect your right to hold them and I do not personally attack you in a very exagerated way by stereotyping me as someone who is a sheep and just follows all forms of socialism. I have my own mind and opinions. It's posts like your previous one that put me off even posting in this forum and I have the right not to post a reply.

I simply find it strange how you quickly become on the defensive of yourself rather than attack my views of socialism whenever I rightly label you as left wing. I made the charge that you supported the last government which was one of the most authoritian in our entire history - this has not been met with an intellifgent defence of the last government (which you should provide if you support them) but the usual 'well you have your opinion and I have mine' - indeed we do, but I want to argue against that opinion (which I do).

For someone who believes in liberty and personal freedom you seem to negate this by actually sending visitor messages to people asking them to reply. That's a bit of a dichotomy don't you think?

Actually thats me exercising my personal liberty, should you choose not to reply I think that reflects badly upon you.

I am not in agreement with having a 24 hour limit because of the harm it could do by releasing potentially dangerous people back on the streets. It is not common sense to believe that the police and CPS could come up with a bullet proof case in that time with these type of cases. In any event most people are out within 24 hours whether they are charged or not. If they want to detain them for more than 24 hours then they have to put a case before the court to do so. In this country the legal system is completely independent of the government.

What limit then? why not a limitless limit like you suggest? have you no idea how this can be abused? its all very well saying "well we'll learn from mistakes" but that is not good enough. Government never ever learns. A period of 24 hours is more than sufficent to charge anybody with a crime, should the Police not have enough evidence by this time period then the person should be free to walk - to withold somebody for more than 24 hours whilst lacking evidence is a gross attack on civil liberties and should be resisted by thse who value civil liberties.

But then i'm arguing here with someone who does not, as shown by the bold if not scary statement I quote below.

As far as terrorism is concerned the Geneva Convention does not apply and this country would be in a much worse state if suspects had not been detained. It includes plots that were foiled at an early stage before any materials were actually assembled. Terrorism is alive and well in this country and the authorities need the power to be able to stop these atrocities happening. What is not acceptable is the amount of totally innocent suspects detained. Hopefully they will learn from the past here. This country is nothing like a third world depotism and has a long way to go before we even think it is.

The Geneva Convention does not concern me, what concerns me is the attack on old English liberty. The very notion of 'terrorism' (which is purposely vague, as shown by your point on the convention) is a fallacy - terrorism can be classed as intention to cause murder which should it be carried out the people responsible should be charged with murder. The excuse of terror (however much we disagree on the threat it poses, personally I see it as very little as more people die from car crashes every month than they do terrorism every year) is not an excuse to destroy our civil liberties under. If we are to destroy our civil liberties in the name of this threat however, then what is the point in these wars which you say are to bring about freedom?

Democracy after all does not gurantee freedom, liberty does.

As for 'this country is nothing like a third world despotism' I quote you here and ask you to re-examine whether you actually wish for this country to become a third world depositism in your desire to end innocent until proven guilty;

My view is that they should only be kept for as long as it warrants it but as I said before 24 hours is nowhere near long enough to gather evidence that is all.

..also see the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).

Soft on criminals? I don't agree with being soft on them and I never have although I don't believe in capital punishment but do believe in abortion in some circumstances which probably is a bit hypocrital of me but thats what I believe. Having said that you don't believe in abortion but you believe in capital punishment so you could say the same applies. Exactly what freedoms are you losing?

There's nothing hypocritical on my stance at all concerning death penalty vs abortion. I believe that death should be used as the ultimate punishment. I believe in a justice system which uses punishment against those found guilty of terrible crimes. As the unborn are not guilty of any crime and have not be tried by any court of law in which a jury is present, there is no reason for their death or murder.

Whats interesting though, is that you are against the execution of convicted criminals who have a right of appeal before a court of jury - yet you are fine, as you say, with the deaths of the innocent unborn and the countless untried innocent in wars/drone bombings. I do not see the logic and would ask you to re-examine it with a logical viewpoint as I did.