Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Their aim was to terrorise, it's just that it was to terrorise people you didn't like. There is no such thing as a "freedom bomb".



    Are you claiming you were interviewed without legal representation? You're lying.

    And if you claim terrorists are charged and convicted without ever having had legal representation, you're lying again
    Don't be a d**k, do you know how long it took to convince the guards at Guantanamo that he needed a laptop to go on TSR?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Why did the police detain you? What did they think you had done?
    Conspired to commit an act of terror.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AyGe)
    How do you know who I "like" or dislike, you're jumping to conclusions.
    You are now falling into non-sequiter confusion. You said their aim was freedom. I pointed out the only reason someone would say that terrorism leads to freedom is if they have a strong aversion to the victim and see them as being an obstacle to freedom.

    And yes I was interviewed without legal representation
    I'm sorry but I don't believe you. People are entitled to representation when they are interviewed, and unless you consented to do otherwise, the police would not have risked a judicial review and their own career.

    you do not no me nor the circumstances surrounding this,
    I can make reasonable deductions, and I can point out what the law is.

    The police are only allowed to detain you without giving you an opportunity to inform your family etc if they have a reasonable belief that it will lead to destruction of evidence, warning of other suspects, or harm to witnesses. Given the police believed you were part of a terrorist conspiracy, that's not unreasonable

    That is perfectly justifiable as a law. In this case, it would appear they had a reasonable belief that you would use that opportunity to contact other suspects, have evidence destroyed or tampered with or witnesses harmed.

    so who exactly are you to pass a judgement that I am lying.
    I don't know you, but I know what's credible and what's not. I suspect you are changing elements of what happened (hell, I don't even know if it did happen).

    Or alternatively, provide us with the case reference for the High Court judicial review that occurred afterwards.

    Also I did not say people who are charged with terrorism offences, I merely said those who are accused.
    There is no such thing as a non-charge accused. "The accused" is legal terminology for a criminal defendant. The way the state makes an accusation is by way of a charge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AyGe)
    Conspired to commit an act of terror.
    And of course it was really a police conspiracy to harass someone they knew was innocent but hated because of his religion/political views?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    And of course it was really a police conspiracy to harass someone they knew was innocent but hated because of his religion/political views?
    No, they were unaware of my political or religious views at the time, there was no fault on their part they were merely doing their jobs. What would be the need of judicial review? They were acting well within the law, that is the whole point, there was no failing on their part. Accusations are made, which lead to an arrest, I'm talking to you in plain English not legal terminology, taking my words out of context is not going to win you some magic prize so I really don't know what you're hoping to gain. Finally, I have no aversion to the victim haha, I don't know the victim or the perpetrator on a personal level to pass any judgement on either, you're making an argument out of nothing for the sake of it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AyGe)
    Accusations are made, which lead to an arrest, I'm talking to you in plain English not legal terminology, taking my words out of context is not going to win you some magic prize so I really don't know what you're hoping to gain.
    You are confusing accusations made by someone providing information to the police with the accusation made by the state in the form of a criminal charge.

    This has nothing to do with a "magic prize" or gain, we are discussing what the law should be. These distinctions are important because as far as the law is concerned, all it has to rely on is what the actual words are in the legislation

    Anyway, I think this discussion has run its course.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    wow i like these policies, guess i know who i'm voting for this year.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    You are confusing accusations made by someone providing information to the police with the accusation made by the state in the form of a criminal charge.

    This has nothing to do with a "magic prize" or gain, we are discussing what the law should be. These distinctions are important because as far as the law is concerned, all it has to rely on is what the actual words are in the legislation

    Anyway, I think this discussion has run its course.
    It is you who made that confusion, I made no reference to criminal charge, you assumed that is what I was referring to, I was referring to an accusation made by somebody that leads to an arrest, but yes I agree no point in fleshing this out, it's a pretty stupid argument.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Not so much in terms of hospital beds, in which yes there is usually high demand but more in cases of A&E where people come in with headaches and pretty minor ailments.
    Do you work in healthcare? Because that is not my experience. Any time you hear about stories of ambulances queuing outside A&E, or a hospital closing to new patients, its because all beds in the hopsital, in A&E and in the corridors are full and they physically cannot get anyone else in the door. The big majority of cases of exceeding the 4 hour wait are the same thing (because as it has been for ages - if you patient gets close to 4 hours you just move them to another part of the hospital!).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Bonkers how? I dont agree with them...but i think we need alternative ideologies to make things interesting..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The Green party have promised that when they have finished solving global climate change,
    they will solve the problem of volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves and hurricanes
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    The Green party have promised that when they have finished solving global climate change,
    they will solve the problem of volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves and hurricanes
    Sadly, they haven't even solved the problem of emptying the bins in Brighton. The rest may have to wait a while.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.