New LibDem Repeal Idea Watch

bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
Exactly - those tenates should be the status quo of a democratic justice system... The thing is - all those suggestions could be deemed proper, if ofcourse we had a completely fair and just system, which is clearly not the case.
0
reply
Wez
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
Sounds like a good idea to me. Pity it won't make it through.
(Original post by JonathanH)
Yeah, let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world hasn't changed in the slightest since 1997 and that numerous methods used to combat a highly increased terrorism threat are unnecessary. I mean, yeah, let's let every serious foreign-terror suspect do what the hell they want, make it easier for criminals to avoid conviction and harder for whistle-blowers to expose problems. They really have no grip on reality.
Rhetoric.
0
reply
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#23
Report 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by Lib North)
That's the thing though, it's not extreme. It's moderate politics and simply a restatement of the values which I thought this country held.

It's a sad day when not being sent to foreign countries with virtually no evidence to stand trial in an inferior judicial system, not fingerprinting the entire population like criminals and not detaining people for long periods of time without any charge is considered extreme.
I'm not saying any of what they want to do is extreme; just the idea of a mass repeal is.
0
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#24
(Original post by Juwel)
I'm not saying any of what they want to do is extreme; just the idea of a mass repeal is.
I'd agree with you if these weren't just repeals. But the fact remains, it doesn't take much legislative effort to take away what's been added compared to adding a bunch of new stuff.
0
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
(Original post by Wez)
Rhetoric.
Not rhetoric, reality.
0
reply
Wez
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by JonathanH)
Not rhetoric, reality.
Clearly this is rhetoric:
(Original post by JonathonH)
Yeah, let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world hasn't changed in the slightest since 1997
No-one has said or suggested this. Rhetoric.
(Original post by JonathanH)
, let's let every serious foreign-terror suspect do what the hell they want
The Bill doesn't let them 'do what the hell they want'. They're not allowed to commit terrorist attacks for example. Twisting facts. Rhetoric.

The article says:
The Liberal Democrats have called for a mass repeal of 10 parliamentary acts passed by Labour since 1997.
A "freedom bill" sets out plans to abolish ID cards, control orders for terror suspects and to end extradition to the US "without proper evidence".

The Lib Dems also pledge to end the storage of DNA details of people never charged or convicted of crimes
0
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 12 years ago
#27
(Original post by Wez)
No-one has said or suggested this. Rhetoric.
Sorry, you don't think that proposing the mass repeal of a whole host of post-1997 legislation is trying to claim that the situation has changed little?

(Original post by Wez)
The Bill doesn't let them 'do what the hell they want'. They're not allowed to commit terrorist attacks for example. Twisting facts. Rhetoric.
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. It is not twisting facts to say that the removal of control orders will let those subject to them "do what they want", because any normal person can interpret that rationally without the need for me to explicitly make clear the law still prohibits terrorism. If your idea of "twisting facts" is people not pointing out the stupefyingly obvious then you really shouldn't attempt reasoned debate.
0
reply
Johnny 5
Badges: 11
#28
Report 12 years ago
#28
(Original post by JonathanH)
Ah, so you're privy to insider MI5 information then? You know the details of all the terror operations stopped in the last 5 years and how it was done in each case? You know for a fact that legislative provisions haven't helped at all, do you? Sorry, I didn't realise I was addressing you, Dame Eliza. :rolleyes:
Your statements cannot possibly be based on anything other than your own ludicrous assumptions and guesses. You have NO idea what the effect of such provisions has been on terrorism, because you don't know the vast majority of the stuff that happens in relation to terrorism.
Let's break this down to something approaching logic. Jonathan, guides to this concept are available from all good bookshops.

Your argument appears to run:
- "You can't see what's going on in MI5!"
- [mindless sarcasm, mindless sarcasm]
- "You don't know that legislation hasn't helped!"
- "Therefore, legislation has helped, and MI5 need that help!"

Quite a leap of faith. Much like the religious advocates among us that will argue unwaveringly that God probably exists, because no-one's yet been able to prove, either by infallible logic or megatelescope, that he doesn't. I'm going to guess - unless I actually am talking to a teenage, conservative, Zionist James Bond - that you, too, are less than perfectly acquainted with the intricacies of our secret services.

But then, I really doubt that any argument can be well made built on the assumption that any outsider knows more about the workings of MI5 than anyone else (as you quite clearly seem to do). If they did, I'd really have to question the point of the secret services. Oh, and ask them what the deal was with that whole Wilson thing, seeing as open season is apparently in full swing.
reply
Wez
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by JonathanH)
Sorry, you don't think that proposing the mass repeal of a whole host of post-1997 legislation is trying to claim that the situation has changed little?
What you said was:
(Original post by JonathanH)
Yeah, let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world hasn't changed in the slightest since 1997
Spot the difference!

(Original post by JonathanH)
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. It is not twisting facts to say that the removal of control orders will let those subject to them "do what they want", because any normal person can interpret that rationally without the need for me to explicitly make clear the law still prohibits terrorism. If your idea of "twisting facts" is people not pointing out the stupefyingly obvious then you really shouldn't attempt reasoned debate.
You exaggerated the Lib Dem’s position. Not "every" foreign terror suspect will be free from deportation. So they won't all be free to do Nor "what the hell they want". My terrorism example was facetious. My point wasn’t.

You also misquoted yourself, coincidentally missing out the evocative word "hell".
0
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
(Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
- "Therefore, legislation has helped, and MI5 need that help!"
Actually, my points sticks to the first two ("You can't see what's going on in MI5!"/"You don't know that legislation hasn't helped!") and point out that others here cannot possibly know whether they are true or not. My belief is that such measures are needed, but I do not include that above, my aim was clearly to point out how silly it is to claim the legislation hasn't helped when they have no idea if it has or not.

(Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
But then, I really doubt that any argument can be well made built on the assumption that any outsider knows more about the workings of MI5 than anyone else (as you quite clearly seem to do).
Except I don't claim to. What you've done is taken my point regarding the lack of other people's knowledge and extrapolated it into my claiming to know more, which I clearly do not if you read my post.

Basically what you've done is tried to start an argument with me by taking one of my posts and drawing your own palpably false conclusions about what I meant, without the slightest bit of evidence. It's very transparent and enormously deceitful. Not to mention being a gigantic straw-man.
0
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 12 years ago
#31
(Original post by Wez)
What you said was:

Spot the difference!
Once again, you seem to claim that I am "twisting the facts" simply because I'm debating as normal people do. You have got to learn, it's not "twisting the facts" when someone doesn't point out the blindingly obvious, or changes their sentence slightly from what they said before.

(Original post by Wez)
You exaggerated the Lib Dem’s position. Not "every" foreign terror suspect will be free from deportation. So they won't all be free to do Nor "what the hell they want". My terrorism example was facetious. My point wasn’t.
Who's talking about deportation? I was talking about control orders... And if the control orders legislation is repealed, then it will affect every person currently subject to one.

(Original post by Wez)
You also misquoted yourself, coincidentally missing out the evocative word "hell".
Once again, it's not a "misquote" to remove a meaningless word from what was said before. You seem to have appointed yourself PedantMaster-General, but the things you point out are never to do with substance, they are simply you pretending that minor word changes from one post to the next are something big and important.
0
reply
Wez
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 12 years ago
#32
Once again, you seem to claim that I am "twisting the facts" simply because I'm debating as normal people do. You have got to learn, it's not "twisting the facts" when someone doesn't point out the blindingly obvious, or changes their sentence slightly from what they said before.
What is twisting facts then?

(actually my claim that you were twisting facts wasn't in relation to the bit you replied to in the above quote, but oh well)
Who's talking about deportation?
I am: the article doesn't rule out deportation so terrorist suspects can't do whatever the hell they want.
Once again, it's not a "misquote" to remove a meaningless word from what was said before. You seem to have appointed yourself PedantMaster-General, but the things you point out are never to do with substance, they are simply you pretending that minor word changes from one post to the next are something big and important.
I objected to your blatant rhetoric, rather than your opinion on the subject. As such, yes, the words you use are important.

If I wrote 'People who oppose the legislation are just authoritarian Nazis etc.' you would object as my post would include virtually no arguments and be mainly rhetoric. Similarly, your first post didn't include much of an argument, it was just rhetoric.

But I don't mind dropping this if you lay out why you oppose the legislation...
0
reply
Johnny 5
Badges: 11
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
(Original post by JonathanH)
Except I don't claim to. What you've done is taken my point regarding the lack of other people's knowledge and extrapolated it into my claiming to know more, which I clearly do not if you read my post.
(Original post by JonathanH)
MI5 is already having difficulty tracking no less than 1,600 terror suspects in Britain, with 30 major plots being investigated
(Original post by JonathanH)
MI5 are saying their caseload has almost doubled since January.
(Original post by JonathanH)
Of course not - because the threat has massively increased since 1997.
Do I assume therefore that "points" 2-4 are dropped by you, seeing as you make absolutely no claims to know what MI5's been up to before and after 2001, and any such claim would be oh-so deceitful and unsubstantiated?

(You could of course argue that the Telegraph is an infallible source with no distinct agenda. But I doubt you'd get far.)
reply
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
"Those who sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither" (paraphrased).

I've forgotten who said it; a wise man nevertheless.
0
reply
Jamie
Badges: 18
#35
Report 12 years ago
#35
(Original post by JonathanH)
Yeah, let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world hasn't changed in the slightest since 1997 and that numerous methods used to combat a highly increased terrorism threat are unnecessary. I mean, yeah, let's let every serious foreign-terror suspect do what the hell they want, make it easier for criminals to avoid conviction and harder for whistle-blowers to expose problems. They really have no grip on reality.
And how do dozens of flim flam laws and bills which often are so confusing that they aren't used effectively help the fight against terror?
All it manages to do is mudy the waters of our own legal system, blurring the edges of what is and isn't permissible and our liberties.

I don't mind having some of my liberties curtailed. I do mind not being able to figure out which ones they are until i step over the line.
reply
Jamie
Badges: 18
#36
Report 12 years ago
#36
one of th key repeals i think should happen is this US extradition thing.
They have abused it totally, and i think it shoudl be scrapped unless they reciprocate. Why does our governemnt care so little for its citizens? Aren't they the least bit curious why the only people the americans are seemingly interested in are white collar workers who (if they did) committed crimes on british soil.

What are we going to get next? Bank Robbers who target american listed banks getting extradited?
reply
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#37
Report 12 years ago
#37
(Original post by Socrates)
"Those who sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither" (paraphrased).

I've forgotten who said it; a wise man nevertheless.
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither" by Benjamin Franklin.
0
reply
George_Insull
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 12 years ago
#38
(Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
Do I assume therefore that "points" 2-4 are dropped by you, seeing as you make absolutely no claims to know what MI5's been up to before and after 2001, and any such claim would be oh-so deceitful and unsubstantiated?

(You could of course argue that the Telegraph is an infallible source with no distinct agenda. But I doubt you'd get far.)
High five!
0
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 12 years ago
#39
(Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
Do I assume therefore that "points" 2-4 are dropped by you, seeing as you make absolutely no claims to know what MI5's been up to before and after 2001, and any such claim would be oh-so deceitful and unsubstantiated?
Those aren't insider knowledge, those are things drawn from the recent speech by the head of MI5, which is now public domain. I do not have to claim any special knowledge to state them. I have no specialist or inside knowledge of their activities, obviously, so I go on what is said. When I challenge other people whose points would require special inside knowledge, I am not asserting that I have special knowledge, I am simply challenging what they say. Now, is your bizarre quest to construct as many straw-men and pursue as many ridiculous tangents as possible at an end yet, it's rather dull and boring.

Let's make this simple:
Eru Ilavatar: "Current terrorism laws simply don't work, they damage personal freedoms, while having little to no effect on terrorism."
JonH: You cannot possibly support that last statement as you do not know the vast majority of MI5 operations and to what extent legislation has helped.

See, I don't claim specialist knowledge or need inside information to say such things. So stop making such straw-men.
0
reply
Johnny 5
Badges: 11
#40
Report 12 years ago
#40
(Original post by JonathanH)
Those aren't insider knowledge, those are things drawn from the recent speech by the head of MI5, which is now public domain. I do not have to claim any special knowledge to state them. I have no specialist or inside knowledge of their activities, obviously, so I go on what is said. When I challenge other people whose points would require special inside knowledge, I am not asserting that I have special knowledge, I am simply challenging what they say. Now, is your bizarre quest to construct as many straw-men and pursue as many ridiculous tangents as possible at an end yet, it's rather dull and boring.

Let's make this simple:
Eru Ilavatar: "Current terrorism laws simply don't work, they damage personal freedoms, while having little to no effect on terrorism."
JonH: You cannot possibly support that last statement as you do not know the vast majority of MI5 operations and to what extent legislation has helped.

See, I don't claim specialist knowledge or need inside information to say such things. So stop making such straw-men.
Oh, Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan. Darling. I love it when you criticise my debate skills, and I hate to see you so wound up. But your endless bitter diatribes read less like someone informed, reasoned and intelligent, and more like someone who was unwisely sent a bag of "rolleyes" smileys and the Wikipedia Guide to Debating Logic for Hanukkah, and started thinking that exhaustive use of each makes him an equal with God as far as argument is concerned. And this isn't an unrelated tangent.

I say this, because there is no straw man, as far as your overall argument is concerned. Simply stating the words "straw man" looks good (kudos), but wins you few arguments. Let's go back to your original argument:

(Original post by li'l Jon)
let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world hasn't changed in the slightest since 1997 and that numerous methods used to combat a highly increased terrorism threat are unnecessary
I believe you make skillful use here of the concept of "sarcasm". I believe it's therefore possible to infer from your post that you think that all of the "numerous methods" used, that the Lib Dems may want to repeal, are anything but "unnecessary"*. That is to say, that they're necessary.

Now, who is to judge just how necessary these powers are? Well, the people who use them, I presume. MI5. Can we see inside MI5? Nup. They tend to be quite insistent on that. You can take Eliza's speech at face value, but remember that she has an agenda too. Cutting the powers and funding of the security services is hardly going to be her highest priority.

You can argue that Eru's not entirely well-versed in the content of MI5's internal mailings, but your own point fails on exactly the same logic. We don't know just how necessary or unnecessary terror legislation is. By all means tackle his point in exactly the mature and sensible manner that we're both failing miserably at even attempting. But look at your own points first. Realise that you have, in fact, relied on exactly the same assumptions. Realise that unverifiable and largely out-of-context statistics are no way to build an argument**. Realise that you might have been just a little harsh to Mr. Iluvatar in this precise situation. Then apologise like a nice old chap, and let's finish this with cuddles.



*If another poster could confirm this for me, that'd be great, as I'm relatively unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm.
**Wikipedia Guide to Debating Logic, page 19.
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (100)
39.68%
No - but I will (12)
4.76%
No - I don't want to (16)
6.35%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (124)
49.21%

Watched Threads

View All