42 Day Detention without charge vote....
10 June 2008, 05:13 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
42 Day Detention without charge vote....
.."very Tight" according to McNulty.
We hads a vote to raise the limit to 28 days just 2 years ago. Since then there has not been one occasion where that has been used.
We don't need 42 days. The concessions that the Government have offered are worthless - What is the point in allowing parliment to debate cases every 7 days, which by definition, they are allowed to know nothing about , due to security issue and prejudicing the case.
MI5 want nothing to do with it. Lord Goldsmith and Lord Falconer don't want it. The DPP can see no reason for it. The governemnts own security minister said he didn't see any reason for it, until he was hauled off to number 10, and then wheeled out in the afternoon with a different story. Trevor Philips has threatened to challenge it in court if it gets through.
And why has it got this far? Because Brown does not want to be seen doing another U-turn.
If he gets defeated in the commons tomorrow (which I hope he does, for no other reason than I do not agree with the 42 limit), it *could* be fatal to his leadership. It will be a massive blow regardless.
My gut feeling is that the Government are going to sneak it, thanks to MPs bottling it over losing thier seats.
We hads a vote to raise the limit to 28 days just 2 years ago. Since then there has not been one occasion where that has been used.
We don't need 42 days. The concessions that the Government have offered are worthless - What is the point in allowing parliment to debate cases every 7 days, which by definition, they are allowed to know nothing about , due to security issue and prejudicing the case.
MI5 want nothing to do with it. Lord Goldsmith and Lord Falconer don't want it. The DPP can see no reason for it. The governemnts own security minister said he didn't see any reason for it, until he was hauled off to number 10, and then wheeled out in the afternoon with a different story. Trevor Philips has threatened to challenge it in court if it gets through.
And why has it got this far? Because Brown does not want to be seen doing another U-turn.
If he gets defeated in the commons tomorrow (which I hope he does, for no other reason than I do not agree with the 42 limit), it *could* be fatal to his leadership. It will be a massive blow regardless.
My gut feeling is that the Government are going to sneak it, thanks to MPs bottling it over losing thier seats.
10 June 2008, 05:50 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the face of it sems like a good idea, the reality is somewhat different, do we need it, i do not think so. It will be a rallying call for the scumbag terroists for one and more personal freedoms erroded for all.
If after 28 days being held with out charge nothing has come up or been found then surely another 14 days will not make any difference.
None of the usual suspects like M!5 seem to back it either.
Gogs Brown clutching at straws to win favour with the votoers imho.
If after 28 days being held with out charge nothing has come up or been found then surely another 14 days will not make any difference.
None of the usual suspects like M!5 seem to back it either.
Gogs Brown clutching at straws to win favour with the votoers imho.
10 June 2008, 05:50 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the spin. I don't believe a word the government says - on any issue.
How do they know it's 'very tight'.??
I see that mongo Trevor Phillips is at it again -
"Human rights are essentially just that - you can't just get rid of them if you think they are inconvenient," he said.
Or unless somebody's politics happen to differ from yours - in which case they should be treated as sub-human, eh Trev?
How do they know it's 'very tight'.??
I see that mongo Trevor Phillips is at it again -
"Human rights are essentially just that - you can't just get rid of them if you think they are inconvenient," he said.
Or unless somebody's politics happen to differ from yours - in which case they should be treated as sub-human, eh Trev?
10 June 2008, 05:53 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the spin. I don't believe a word the government says - on any issue.
How do they know it's 'very tight'.??
I see that mongo Trevor Phillips is at it again -
"Human rights are essentially just that - you can't just get rid of them if you think they are inconvenient," he said.
Or unless somebody's politics happen to differ from yours - in which case they should be treated as sub-human, eh Trev?
How do they know it's 'very tight'.??
I see that mongo Trevor Phillips is at it again -
"Human rights are essentially just that - you can't just get rid of them if you think they are inconvenient," he said.
Or unless somebody's politics happen to differ from yours - in which case they should be treated as sub-human, eh Trev?
Human rights have cause us/the UK enough problems...
10 June 2008, 05:57 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
10 June 2008, 06:00 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No easy answer, i hate the fact that there are people who live in this country and would do harm to innoocents because they feel their religion/belief require it and that is more important than the lives of innocents. People who come here - live by the rules and laws of the land, they should intergate and fit in and conform and live by the values and laws, if not then they go somewhere they can feel at home and not try to change this country or become terrorists.
Plain and simple.
Off me soapbox and off home...
10 June 2008, 06:13 PM
#9
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple one really.....
If there has been no need to detain anyone for 42 days then clearly we have no need to implement it. This is the Police farce saying that with the POTENTIAL complexity of some cases it COULD take 42 days to gather the evidence needed to secure a conviction!
This smacks of a "just in case" we need it and "we're rubbish and need longer" which is otherwise known as a "wish list".... and in that case keep wishing
If there has been no need to detain anyone for 42 days then clearly we have no need to implement it. This is the Police farce saying that with the POTENTIAL complexity of some cases it COULD take 42 days to gather the evidence needed to secure a conviction!
This smacks of a "just in case" we need it and "we're rubbish and need longer" which is otherwise known as a "wish list".... and in that case keep wishing
10 June 2008, 07:42 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean this law will allow authorites to hold you for 42 days, without charge, and without telling you why you are even being held.
So its not really a matter of whether you are thinking of becomming a terrorist - It's whether the authorities think, that you might be thinking of becomming a terrorist.
10 June 2008, 08:34 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.."very Tight" according to McNulty.
We hads a vote to raise the limit to 28 days just 2 years ago. Since then there has not been one occasion where that has been used.
We don't need 42 days. The concessions that the Government have offered are worthless - What is the point in allowing parliment to debate cases every 7 days, which by definition, they are allowed to know nothing about , due to security issue and prejudicing the case.
MI5 want nothing to do with it. Lord Goldsmith and Lord Falconer don't want it. The DPP can see no reason for it. The governemnts own security minister said he didn't see any reason for it, until he was hauled off to number 10, and then wheeled out in the afternoon with a different story. Trevor Philips has threatened to challenge it in court if it gets through.
And why has it got this far? Because Brown does not want to be seen doing another U-turn.
If he gets defeated in the commons tomorrow (which I hope he does, for no other reason than I do not agree with the 42 limit), it *could* be fatal to his leadership. It will be a massive blow regardless.
My gut feeling is that the Government are going to sneak it, thanks to MPs bottling it over losing thier seats.
We hads a vote to raise the limit to 28 days just 2 years ago. Since then there has not been one occasion where that has been used.
We don't need 42 days. The concessions that the Government have offered are worthless - What is the point in allowing parliment to debate cases every 7 days, which by definition, they are allowed to know nothing about , due to security issue and prejudicing the case.
MI5 want nothing to do with it. Lord Goldsmith and Lord Falconer don't want it. The DPP can see no reason for it. The governemnts own security minister said he didn't see any reason for it, until he was hauled off to number 10, and then wheeled out in the afternoon with a different story. Trevor Philips has threatened to challenge it in court if it gets through.
And why has it got this far? Because Brown does not want to be seen doing another U-turn.
If he gets defeated in the commons tomorrow (which I hope he does, for no other reason than I do not agree with the 42 limit), it *could* be fatal to his leadership. It will be a massive blow regardless.
My gut feeling is that the Government are going to sneak it, thanks to MPs bottling it over losing thier seats.
We live in fairly dangerous times and there are elements out there that wish to do us great harm.
I have no problem with 42 days, as long as it is safeguarded by proper judicial oversight.
I will add that if the Tory's were in power they would be trying to push this through and Labour would be opposing it, but hey that's politics I suppose
Last edited by Martin2005; 10 June 2008 at 08:37 PM.
10 June 2008, 09:13 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really.
I mean this law will allow authorites to hold you for 42 days, without charge, and without telling you why you are even being held.
So its not really a matter of whether you are thinking of becomming a terrorist - It's whether the authorities think, that you might be thinking of becomming a terrorist.
I mean this law will allow authorites to hold you for 42 days, without charge, and without telling you why you are even being held.
So its not really a matter of whether you are thinking of becomming a terrorist - It's whether the authorities think, that you might be thinking of becomming a terrorist.
10 June 2008, 10:38 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete, for once we disagree
We live in fairly dangerous times and there are elements out there that wish to do us great harm.
I have no problem with 42 days, as long as it is safeguarded by proper judicial oversight.
I will add that if the Tory's were in power they would be trying to push this through and Labour would be opposing it, but hey that's politics I suppose
We live in fairly dangerous times and there are elements out there that wish to do us great harm.
I have no problem with 42 days, as long as it is safeguarded by proper judicial oversight.
I will add that if the Tory's were in power they would be trying to push this through and Labour would be opposing it, but hey that's politics I suppose
Are the times we live in now any more dangerous than those of recent history? I can't remember a time that we weren't being told that we were in grave danger. Whether that be from the IRA through to the peace accord, to the current threat from Muslim extremism.
As much as I would like to think that it would be safe guarded as you mentioned, I think I will agree with GC8. Like most laws it will be open for abuse, and with enough pressure from what ever agency involved, you can guarantee it will be. Case in point a rather vocal Labour party member who happened to disagree with the speaker at the time.
Call me old fashioned but I would prefer a person detained on the strength of the evidence gathered, rather than on the evidence they might possibly be able to conjure up in 42 days.
Hell in that time i'm sure that I could probably be able to come up with a case against myself just from the sites I visit and the comments I make
10 June 2008, 10:55 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are the times we live in now any more dangerous than those of recent history? I can't remember a time that we weren't being told that we were in grave danger. Whether that be from the IRA through to the peace accord, to the current threat from Muslim extremism.
As much as I would like to think that it would be safe guarded as you mentioned, I think I will agree with GC8. Like most laws it will be open for abuse, and with enough pressure from what ever agency involved, you can guarantee it will be. Case in point a rather vocal Labour party member who happened to disagree with the speaker at the time.
Call me old fashioned but I would prefer a person detained on the strength of the evidence gathered, rather than on the evidence they might possibly be able to conjure up in 42 days.
Hell in that time i'm sure that I could probably be able to come up with a case against myself just from the sites I visit and the comments I make
As much as I would like to think that it would be safe guarded as you mentioned, I think I will agree with GC8. Like most laws it will be open for abuse, and with enough pressure from what ever agency involved, you can guarantee it will be. Case in point a rather vocal Labour party member who happened to disagree with the speaker at the time.
Call me old fashioned but I would prefer a person detained on the strength of the evidence gathered, rather than on the evidence they might possibly be able to conjure up in 42 days.
Hell in that time i'm sure that I could probably be able to come up with a case against myself just from the sites I visit and the comments I make
Dave
10 June 2008, 11:51 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" philosophy. Whilst strictly true, there have been plenty of historical examples of turning a blind eye to increasingly draconian laws. 1930's Germany comes to mind. Started of great, get the country back on it's feet, reduce crime, unemployment, inflation. Oh Herr Hitler, you've saved us from the those evil schemers that destroyed our country after 1918. Zionist plot, Aryan rights, stricter laws, and so on. I know it's a bit of an extreme example, but, it's a compelling one.
And if you want a more modern one, there's a nice US facility in Cuba, lovely orange jumpsuits.
If the authorities can't find enough evidence to at least charge you with something, anything, to keep you on remand, after nearly a month, is it going to make a big difference to have another 2 weeks?
If the people that actually use the powers aren't all that fussed about having them, then what's the point? Look what internment achieved in Northern Ireland, or the original concentration camps the Brits invented during the Boer war. Nothing but martyrs for the cause, and propaganda for the other side.
In a free and democratic, society, there needs to be a limit on detention without charge, as with all rights exercised by the authorities. If not, in 20 years time, where will we be? Not discussing subjects like this on the Internet, that's for sure, as we'd all be scared of being branded a subversive, or undesirable. The rights of the innocent mustn't be suborned in a quest to protect those very same innocents from harm.
More examples, J Edgar Hoover, Joseph McCarthy, Stalin, Mao, all for the good of the people, to protect them and root out evil doers.
And you complain about speed cameras!
And if you want a more modern one, there's a nice US facility in Cuba, lovely orange jumpsuits.
If the authorities can't find enough evidence to at least charge you with something, anything, to keep you on remand, after nearly a month, is it going to make a big difference to have another 2 weeks?
If the people that actually use the powers aren't all that fussed about having them, then what's the point? Look what internment achieved in Northern Ireland, or the original concentration camps the Brits invented during the Boer war. Nothing but martyrs for the cause, and propaganda for the other side.
In a free and democratic, society, there needs to be a limit on detention without charge, as with all rights exercised by the authorities. If not, in 20 years time, where will we be? Not discussing subjects like this on the Internet, that's for sure, as we'd all be scared of being branded a subversive, or undesirable. The rights of the innocent mustn't be suborned in a quest to protect those very same innocents from harm.
More examples, J Edgar Hoover, Joseph McCarthy, Stalin, Mao, all for the good of the people, to protect them and root out evil doers.
And you complain about speed cameras!
11 June 2008, 07:08 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the Councils are already using laws intended for terrorist activities to access homes across the country, it could be used by any Police Force across the country ...............
11 June 2008, 08:29 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Davis was on Radio 4 this morning. He has said that the Tories will repeal the law almost as soon as they get into power (assuming there is not a case for keeping it at that point in time)
11 June 2008, 08:52 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight digression. Pity Davis made such a pig's ear of his leadership challenge IMHO.
Davis also said he thought Bill would get through but would be hammered in the Lords. He also said that if someone was found guilty then 42 centuries would be fine which I thought was quite good! dl
Davis also said he thought Bill would get through but would be hammered in the Lords. He also said that if someone was found guilty then 42 centuries would be fine which I thought was quite good! dl
Last edited by David Lock; 11 June 2008 at 08:55 AM.
11 June 2008, 09:17 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you say "Do you think that police should use wire taps and other survelllance measures, or do you think they should detain people without charge for 42 days, the answer is ususally the former"
If you say "do you think we should lock up "MURDERING TERRORISTS" for 42 days people say "yes".
Polls, are extremely open to interpretation, depending on who you ask and how you ask it, hence they are generally, useless.
11 June 2008, 09:29 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
The fact that police forces and councils are already abusing existing anti-terrorism legislation should make anybody with any sense wonder whether we really need any more
And it's been mentioned this morning that anybody wrongly detained over the existing 28 days could be compensated to the tune of £3k per day
Of whose money 
And it's been mentioned this morning that anybody wrongly detained over the existing 28 days could be compensated to the tune of £3k per day
Of whose money
11 June 2008, 09:37 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 June 2008, 09:39 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an example of how laws are abused look at the German kidnapped by the US govenrment. Flown out of Europe tortured then sent home when they realised he was innocent and he just had the wrong name.
Laws can and will get abused and 42 days gives leverage for the Police to use against people. It is not unkown for Police to threaten to have wives arrested to force confessions from people and imagine what happens when they can use a threat to someone 'confess or your family will get locked up for 42 days without charge'
Laws can and will get abused and 42 days gives leverage for the Police to use against people. It is not unkown for Police to threaten to have wives arrested to force confessions from people and imagine what happens when they can use a threat to someone 'confess or your family will get locked up for 42 days without charge'
11 June 2008, 09:43 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 June 2008, 09:57 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is, it has tunred into a matter of principle for the Government. The actual 42 legislation is so watered down, so compromised, that it is almost irrelevant. The numbe rof concessions made make it completely pointless.
However, due to the way politics works in this country and due to the media frenzy for controversy, a Government cannot be seen to make a U-turn, nor can it be seen to lose a vote. It is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and thereofre must go forward with the vote, purely as a face saving exercise.
We ar eall human, we all make mistakes, I just wish that politicians would be honest about it and ocvcasionally say "You know what? We got that one wrong" or "I was of the opinion of 'x', but have now been convinced that the opposite is true"
I would have far more respect for someone that can see when he is wrong, and more importantly admit it and act on it, than blindy carry on out of principle and for fear of being seen to be "weak".
U-turns are not a bad thing, it is only the media that have conditioned everyone to think they are.
However, due to the way politics works in this country and due to the media frenzy for controversy, a Government cannot be seen to make a U-turn, nor can it be seen to lose a vote. It is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and thereofre must go forward with the vote, purely as a face saving exercise.
We ar eall human, we all make mistakes, I just wish that politicians would be honest about it and ocvcasionally say "You know what? We got that one wrong" or "I was of the opinion of 'x', but have now been convinced that the opposite is true"
I would have far more respect for someone that can see when he is wrong, and more importantly admit it and act on it, than blindy carry on out of principle and for fear of being seen to be "weak".
U-turns are not a bad thing, it is only the media that have conditioned everyone to think they are.
11 June 2008, 01:48 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What like the old bloke at the Labour conference who was arrested under the new terrorism bill for heckling Jack Straw? If it can be abused that publicly and that easily, it worries the hell out of me!
11 June 2008, 03:03 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not want to trust any government with that kind of power, and never this one in a thousand years. Do you think you could? Can't forget the continuous lies we have been told over the last eleven years!
I have not forgotten their proposal some time ago to take the power to section anyone without recourse to the medical fraternity. The Soviets found it so useful to be able to commit irritating people to the asylums!
I understand that they have offered financial inducements to the Irish contingent to support them over this bill. What is that if not pure bribery?
We need so much to be rid of these self seeking lying creeps.
Les
I have not forgotten their proposal some time ago to take the power to section anyone without recourse to the medical fraternity. The Soviets found it so useful to be able to commit irritating people to the asylums!
I understand that they have offered financial inducements to the Irish contingent to support them over this bill. What is that if not pure bribery?
We need so much to be rid of these self seeking lying creeps.
Les
11 June 2008, 07:10 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
From BBC NEWS | Politics | Brown wins crunch vote on 42 days
"It was passed by 315 MPs to 306 votes".
And some sense: "One of the Labour rebels, John McDonnell, said: "Any attempt to present this as some sort of victory for the government will ring absolutely hollow.
"There will be widespread consternation among our supporters in the country seeing a Labour government prepared to use every tactic available in its determination to crush essential civil liberties, which have been won by the labour movement over generations."
Veteran former Labour MP Tony Benn said: "I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed".
He said he hoped it would be overturned in the House of Lords".
A sad day ...
Dave
"It was passed by 315 MPs to 306 votes".
And some sense: "One of the Labour rebels, John McDonnell, said: "Any attempt to present this as some sort of victory for the government will ring absolutely hollow.
"There will be widespread consternation among our supporters in the country seeing a Labour government prepared to use every tactic available in its determination to crush essential civil liberties, which have been won by the labour movement over generations."
Veteran former Labour MP Tony Benn said: "I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed".
He said he hoped it would be overturned in the House of Lords".
A sad day ...
Dave
11 June 2008, 07:31 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the Lords can't actually overturn it can they?
They can have the mother of all arguments with the Commons and send it back to be reconsidered. But at the end of the day doesn't the Parliament Act come into force?
Someone put me right on this please.
And this is not about changing the fringes of the Act - it's either 42 days or it isn't. dl
They can have the mother of all arguments with the Commons and send it back to be reconsidered. But at the end of the day doesn't the Parliament Act come into force?
Someone put me right on this please.
And this is not about changing the fringes of the Act - it's either 42 days or it isn't. dl