---

@*.*..lola..*.* wrote:

The international security services claim to have 'overwhelmingly strong' intelligence linking this character to terrorist activities - you say I don't know that he has done anything wrong, well equally you don't know that he hasn't.

 

I stated in my post That I didn't know if he had done anything wrong and it's good to see that you don't know if he has done anything wrong - this 'overwhelmingly strong' evidence you mention, was it perchance provided by the very same international security services that declared there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ???

 

Are you suggesting that the police are just picking on some poor innocent person at random without a shred of evidence?

 

But he wasn't 'picked up' by the police at random - the police were instructed to do so by a politician

 

Yes I am glad that the government are adopting a 'better safe than sorry approach' to our national security and I wish they had even more powers TBH as clearly the powers they currently have are not good enough.

 

The powers they do have are the strongest and least regulated anywhere in the Western world - you might wish politicians had more powers to restrict the movements and activities without any of the evidence they claim to have being tested in court - I don't

 

He made his own choices about the company he keeps and the way he chooses to live his life

 

And your point is? - if he were a member of a proscribed group , such as Al Qaeda, then he could be prosecuted, why hasn't he? - are you really in favour of people being punished for the company they keep without a trial?

  

I'm sorry if you think I'm being harsh but frankly I couldn't give a rat's rear-end about the human rights of terrorists...suspected or otherwise!

 

I suspect you are a terrorist - no don't argue you have no right to - I have the evidence to prove it - no, I can't tell you what that evidence is and anyway I'm a politician - you are bang to rights.

---