UK still target, warns Met chief

[Pooeypants]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4443638.stm

Britain's top policeman has warned the UK remains a top target for terrorists as he spoke of the challenges police face in tackling the threat. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said every community was at risk from "indiscriminate" terrorism. He also called for a debate on policing, saying forces were seen as a bulwark against anti-social behaviour. Police were praised following 7 July; but were "savaged" after the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, he said. Making his first public comments since the government's failed bid to extend the time terror suspects could be held without charge to 90 days, Sir Ian voiced "frustration" at the public "silence" on what it wanted the police to do.

BBC news

So it has begun, or rather continued; hammering fear into the people inorder that they submit their every whim.

[Nono]

Well it worked like a dream in the States.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Nono Well it worked like a dream in the States.

Thankfully, our MPs are more resilient so that the ludicrous 90 day detention without charge legisation did not get passed.
Just out of interest, have you seen the BBC's The Power of Nightmares?

[Apeman81]

Yeah! Forget 911! It's all about promoting fear. The Muslem extremists pose no real threat. After all, 911 was what 3000 deaths? Out of 300,000,000 citizens? What are the chances that they might actually kill you?

[Nono]

Quote by: Pooey Have you seen the BBC's The Power of Nightmares?

No, but I've read about it. Certainly it's true that people were literally terrorized by the media, though I understand that Curtis is a trifle more categorical than I'd be willing to be -- people like Osama do exist, and they're crazy and they're dangerous.

Anyway, Blair is slumping in the polls -- as George Wanker Bush was in 2001 -- and so may be expected to milk anything he can get his hands on for all its worth.

Speaking of the BBC, a few weeks ago they were giving us breathlessly panicky hour-by-hour reports on the health of ducks across Europe -- plague just around the corner. Where has that story gone? Have migratory birds stopped passing above our heads? I doubt it. Have they stopped finding sick birds in Romania and Greece? On the contrary, I bet they're finding them a lot closer to home. But the media has moved on to greener pastures.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Yeah! Forget 911! It's all about promoting fear. The Muslem extremists pose no real threat. After all, 911 was what 3000 deaths? Out of 300,000,000 citizens? What are the chances that they might actually kill you?

I lived through 9/11 up close and personal in NY and I've got to say that those like yourself who use 9/11 to justify any sort of tyranny make me ill. And I am not too pleased about that son of a bitch in the White House who abandoned going after those who launched the attack of 9/11 so he could invade a country that never attacked us and was no imminent threat.

So yes, Muslim extemists are a real threat. So are the bastards who try to shred the Bill of Rights and get tens of thousands of fine Americans killed or maimed in wars of empire.

[Nono]

In terms of sheer honest-to-goodness terror, I think that the anthrax business scared Americans, at least on the Eastern Seaboard, more than 911 itself. With a little effort you can really get people going.

And the effect is long-lasting. I wasted a lot of time recently trying to find a mailbox on the street in Manhattan and later at the airport till it finally dawned on me -- oh yeah, they must be too scared to have those things any more.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Nono No, but I've read about it. Certainly it's true that people were literally terrorized by the media, though I understand that Curtis is a trifle more categorical than I'd be willing to be -- people like Osama do exist, and they're crazy and they're dangerous.

Certainly, but the programme wasn't there to say that terrorism isn't a problem. Merely that it is not the way that it has been marketed to us by our politicians. You can read the unofficial transcript of part 3 from here if you're interested.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Apeman81 Yeah! Forget 911! It's all about promoting fear. The Muslem extremists pose no real threat. After all, 911 was what 3000 deaths? Out of 300,000,000 citizens? What are the chances that they might actually kill you?

So to protect our freedoms we must give up our liberty?
Terrorism has been around for a long time and we've dealt with it as appropriately without these silly legislations. Prolonging the detention of suspects without charge would not have stopped the London bombings.

[jose]

Quote by: RickSp I So yes, Muslim extemists are a real threat. So are the bastards who try to shred the Bill of Rights and get tens of thousands of fine Americans killed or maimed in wars of empire.

will we ever be allowed to name those who benefit by these crimes

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Apeman81 Yeah! Forget 911! It's all about promoting fear. The Muslem extremists pose no real threat. After all, 911 was what 3000 deaths? Out of 300,000,000 citizens? What are the chances that they might actually kill you?

According to the UK governments website, www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk, 3 508 people were killed by cars in the UK, 33 707 were seriously injured and 253 392 suffered minor injuries. More people died in the UK than were killed in the 9/11 atrocity. The car is a greater threat to your life and health than terrorism is. So why don't we have a war on cars, eh?

This is ridiculous, why does anyone fear a terrorist attack at all? Your a mindless sheep, being whipped into a frenzy of terror by governments who want to strip you of your liberty. You don't deserve liberty in the first place if your ready to throw it away at the slightest provocation.

[Nono]

Well, 90 days isn't indefinite internment (as once practised in Northern Ireland). Is 90 days what Pooey means by "giving up our liberty"?

Might it not be acceptable to hold someone without charge for up to 90 days with enough bells and whistles in the form of onerous review obligations on the authorities to discourage them from abusing it?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Nono Well, 90 days isn't indefinite internment (as once practised in Northern Ireland). Is 90 days what Pooey means by "giving up our liberty"? Might it not be acceptable to hold someone without charge for up to 90 days with enough bells and whistles in the form of onerous review obligations on the authorities to discourage them from abusing it?

I don't see how keeping these people locked up will help acquire more information to charge them with. If they are out on the street they can be followed, tracked and generally spied on to ridiculous degrees. If they are a terrorist doing some actually illegal, such as preparing a terrorist attack, they can then be picked up and charged. But if they are doing nothing illegal, that too can be discovered and they can be left alone, without losing 3 months of their life. If we simply lock them up while police look for info it will probably mean the internment of an innocent man, or if they are not, make it harder to find evidence against them.

This law makes no sense unless seen as another attempt to take away liberty. This is not what millions of Britons have died for since 1215.