Holy Ghost

ah well. they've dragged another big brick of the police state through the door. the spooks were neutral on the idea and that says it all. but plod and politician want it. why? just because.

a pyhrric victory for gordon. every cloud has a silver lining and despite this damnable bite out of our fundamental liberty, it's perversely gratifying to see that brown couldn't do it with the support of his own party. and that, very satisfyingly, means that he'll continue to twist in the political wind without the benefit of a quick political bullet from the Labour NKVD that would likely have been prompted by a clear defeat.

the lords will kick it out and gordon will have to use the parliament act to pass it (if he's still in office by then). and once again, he'll just look like the paralysed streak of pi55 he quite plainly is.

hang on. can you hear that? sshhhhh. listen carefully. it's the creaking the noose is making as it marks gordon's promethean demise.

and why 42? i know it's supposed to be the answer to life, the universe and everything but what's that got to do with the price of goose fat? 50 is a much better number; it has a nice roundness to it, reminds me of a good day on the cricket square and buying a jug in the evening - and is also halfway to 100. which is also a good number if you play cricket (but more expensive). then again, I like 66 because if you add 600 you randomly get the number of the beast by iron maiden. then there's 69 days ... but we won't go there.

hell's teeth. what utter cretins and chancers serve us in westminster.

PeteBrant

The bill was effectively saved by the DUP, which got brought off by promises of extra policing and finance packages for the province.

There are also rumours of one Labour MP being offered a safe seat if he voted with the government. He also promised to review sanctions against Cuba as well as promising a favourable hearing for compensation for miners with lung cancer (the last two he should have promised to do regardless of any vote).

The Government has bought this vote, and the people that have allowed themselves to be swayed by personal favours and concessions should feel thotoughly ashamed of themselves.

Keith Vaz, head of the commons select commitee of home affairs (er...HOW?) went from being unconvinced by the argument just a few weeks ago, to actively encouraging people to vote for it

When you vote on an issue, you are supposed to vote on what you believe to be true, not what you can get out of it.

As Dave says, a sad day.

David Lock

Sorry Dave - I don't understand what you are saying. It's not an Act until it has gone through both houses is it? Ideally for the Lords to agree but if there is an impasse then the Commons can overule them and the Act comes into force. This is a rare event though.

Brown would have no choice but to use it if some copper with lots of badges say they need another week to avoid a big incident. They'll have him over a barrel.

I guess we'll find out soon enough

Anyway the Blues will be in soon so it will be repealed......... possibly........

d

Holy Ghost

**

Vazeline? no change there then. i'll echo your comments pete. a sad, sad day. pathetic dutch auction.

PetesDad

The majority in the country have been served by the vote, just as it should be.

Whether the decision is right or wrong - the majority have it.

PeteBrant

The Parliment act is used very very rarely - 7 times since it was introduced in 1911.

The last time it was used was on the vote for the hunting ban.

It has to be sent back by the lords 3 times before it can be invoked, and it is incredibly unlikely it would be invoked on a vote that has had a three line whip.

99% of the time, the legislation is changed so that the Lords accpet it.

unclebuck

Shame once again falls on this grubby and most corrupt of governments.

Holy Ghost

**

until such time as the legislation is (inevitably) abused - or found to be of neither use nor protection whatsover because it's a fudge.

97TURBO

This can ONLY be considered as a positive outcome, we are talking about Terrorists here for **** sake! Human rights, equal opportunity blah blah blah all go out the window. It should have been 90 days instead of faffing about with 42.
Good to see Brown getting the result he wanted He gets my vote

PeteBrant

See, that's just the thing. We aren't.

97TURBO

If they are carrying out anything remotely connected to terrorism then i want them locked up until they can prove themselves not guilty.

rob878

I think that you are completely missing the bigger picture, and if an eminent member of the house such as Tony Benn states that "I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed". Then I would be more inclined to take note of him than the red top readers (not saying that you are a red top reader), claiming that this is just is what is needed to keep the terrorists in check.

Just a quick question to those who are hailing this magnificent peace of law, what on earth were we doing for all those years with the IRA??

As I mentioned before for preventative prosecution, collect the evidence, then arrest, then prosecute. Not arrest, hope to find something to fit the case, then prosecute.

Or perhaps people would like to also implement Sir Ian Blairs idea of having to prove that you are innocent along with this law.

Met Police Chief 'Misunderstands The Law' - Top Prosecutor » Communities » 24dash.com

cster

I'm not sure what majority you refer to.
Can you elucidate please.

PeteBrant

Hmm, we work on the basis of the presumption of innocence. That is, it is up to the Crown to prove you guilty, not the other way round.

What this law is allowing the police to do, is arrest you before they have any evidence of you doing anything wrong (since if they did have evidence, they would charge you).

So you can't say that "If they are carrying out anything remotely connected to terrorism " because the fact is, by the very use of this law, the police will not know whether you have anything to do with terrorism, they will merely suspect it.

Bit like De Menezes, the police suspected he was a terrorist, and shot him in the head for it, about 12 times - Bit of a bugger when he was found not to be anything of the sort.

Course, this way you don't get shot in the head (if you're lucky) you only have your life being potentially ruined by being effectively taken of the face of the earth for 6 weeks, without any explanation to anyone (like work, family, kids etc).

PetesDad

Pleasure:-

"A YouGov survey for the Daily Telegraph revealed 69 per cent of respondents backed raising the detention limit for terror suspects from 28 to 42 days"

From:-

http://www.adfero.co.uk/news/politics/42-day-extension-the-right-thing-do--$1226807.htm

97TURBO

When dealing with terrorism you are dealing with the potential of mass murder so surely it has got to be handled differently from your run of the mill thief.
If you look at it from the view of victims of terrorism then it makes sense.

cster

A YouGov survey for the Daily Telegraph revealed 69 per cent of respondents backed raising the detention limit for terror suspects from 28 to 42 days in "exceptional circumstances".

Don't wish to appear pedantic - but as it stands - the are no "exceptional circumstances"
There may be in the future.
The question is simply too vague in meaning to infer any sensible conclusion from the result.
IMO of course.

rob878

Using your logic and using it in a completely fictitious scenario, both you and I drive cars, I drive to work and you probably do too. Cars can kill numerous people in the wrong hands.

Now one day the police knock on your door, you are arrested and taken into custody. You are told that you are being detained because they suspect that in the future you may kill a bus stop of children and that it is in the public interest to remove you from the streets. You say what evidence do you have that I may do this. To which the reply is nothing concrete yet but we have 42 days to find something. The circumstantial evidence that has led to your arrest was,

1) you drive to work along the same route as a school bus
2) you also drive to work at about the same time children wait for this bus
3) someone read a post on a website that you occasionally broke the speed limit, and occasionally in a 30 zone.

Now for those 42 days you sit and wait, no one knows where you are, and you have no recourse to this internment.

At the end you are released no charges brought, but also no job, wife traumatised and your name mud amongst your friends as a possible reckless car driving child killer.

Now obviously this scenario is preposterous, but is it to far removed from being arrested because, although we have no evidence apart from circumstantial that you may be a terrorist, we have 42 days to pin something more concrete on you or maybe hand you to the the Americans for a bit of rendition and a few water boarding sessions.

David Lock

My money is on the Lords taking the Magna Carta view.

So, as I said, it's either 42 days or not. Crunch time. Too serious to fudge.

Could be very interesting and even the point that brings about the Govt's downfall. dl

unclebuck

Utter crap I'm affraid.

When I look at it from the POV of the victims of the routine abuse of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act by the Police and other government agencies I fear what will happen to this country if a simple train spotter, or the pensioner who protests against the government, can be detained without charge for 42 days. This is where we are now heading...

The police must end their abuse of anti-terror legislation - Telegraph

Steve vRS

Wow, UB and PB in agreement shocker!

Agree though, sad day for democracy in the UK.

Steve

unclebuck

LOL - Pete's wrong about a lot of things IMO ...but he's not stupid. And this is a 'no-brainer'

PeteBrant

Remember the day.

I think it is an indication of just how wrong the Government have got it when two people coming from pretty much opposite ends of the political spectrum stand shoulder to shoulder on an issue.

It's not just what they have done, it's the way they have done it. It's an absolute disgrace.

With regards to the YouGov poll, well my feelings on polls are well documented. It depends on who you ask and what you ask them, as to what your result will be.

No alternative was offered. Example - "Do you think that a case should be built using covert surveillance or do you think we should just lock people up for 42 days without charge" - I'm willing to bet would get a pretty different result.

I wouldn't be overly happy with wiretapping and all the rest of it, but I'd take it over what we have ended up with any day of the week.

PeteBrant

The thing that gets me, is that some Labour MPs were actually swayed by a promise of compensation.

I mean they have clearly accepted, that the value of someones freedom, is £3,000 per day (over 28 days, of course).

Martin2005

Well as someone who comes from the moderate centre-ground in politics I support this bill. I'm not thrilled about it, but it maybe necessary in some rare cases (I don't know for sure, I'm not a policeman or in the intel services and neither are most or all of the contributers to this thread).

I was within a broken escalator (had to use stairs and I missed the Aldgate train by seconds) of boarding one of the trains blown up on 7/7, so this issue feels very real to me, rather than a remote idealistic debate.

It's easy to start waving your arms around and going on about thin end of wedges, but the governments number 1 duty is to protect the public FULL STOP.

It would be complete and utter political suicide for any government to ignore the advice of the police on this issue, because if anything bad happens due someone not being held for long enough there would be absolute hell to pay.
The Tories come out of this with little credit, if they were in power they would be forcing this through as well (despite what davis has said)

It is my understanding that the police cannot simply decide they are going to hold someone for 42 days, they have to keep going back to a judge to get the detention period extended to a maximum of 42 days.

To those that hope the Lords prevent this happening, there could in my view be no more clear a reason as to why they should be abolished

warrenm2

Well he supports Labour and that aint the brightest of decisions....

David Lock

Quite the contrary. As determined above the Commons have the final say (Parliament Act) but the Lords can stand back and inject some common sense and decency into the argument. Specifically they can question the ethics of the Govt "bribing" MPs to vote for the Bill.

Thank goodness for the Lords. dl

PeteBrant

Do I?

How do you work that out? Just because I have a liberal attitutde doesn't make me a Labour supporter.

I mean , I could easily say you support UKIP, which makes supporting Labour worthy of a Nobel Prize for intelligence.