I wouldn't want to be Ann Widdecombe if the government squeaks home by one vote on 42 days next week. Her announcement yesterday that she would support the measure came as little surprise, but for David Davis and the Tory whips it is galling to say the least. She parrots the line that if the Police want it, the Police must have it, which is always the last refuge of a desperate authoritarian. It is also completely untrue. One senior officer, former Asst Commissioner Peter Clark wrote in the Telegraph this morning to support the case, but if you talk to most officers privately they are either sceptical or downright hostile.
Ann Widdecombe has a track record of going against the grain, speaking her mind and having little regard for the personal or political consequences. She's often been courageous and proved to be right. On this, however, she intends to vote with the dark side. It might be said that her stance has something of the night about it.
77 comments:
Strangely, although I abhor everything related to the current Government of this increasingly wretched land, I have no problem with a 42-day detention for terrorist suspects provided proper checks and balances are in place. I know I have nothing to fear from it. Perhaps not many - or not enough - others can say the same?
She emphasised on World At One that she would only support '42 days' if a robust sunset clause was attached to it. Government have not offered this, so it follows that she will oppose it.
Iain: You have closer connections and will know better the mind of Ms. Widdecombe.
However, from where I stand her political career is in rapid decline and she appears to be nothing more than a publicity-seeking media tart.
Planning to vote with her conscience or just seeking more exposure ?
For the sake of the party, go !
Oh dear. Not good. This vote is going to be close and the opposition parties can't afford to lose support.
I really don't see why the Tories are so against extending to 42 days.
I strongly disagree with them on this issue.
Perhaps after a lot of people have been killed by someone who was released, they'll change their mind.
She's just voting how you Tories really think. It suits you politically to be civil libertarian, but you know that when push comes to shove, you'll weaken. It's similar to your green credentials.
Over the past few days, I have become overwhelmed by a sense of
foreboding.
A financial crisis is brewing again with dangers surrounding both the B and B and HBOS rights issues.
Meanwhile the guns of the political establishment are pointing in the wrong direction, worrying about how to control people who should never been allowed to live here anyway, and throwing away the ancient rights of the English in the process.
This government cannot function in a crisis.
A crisis is coming.
Widders has nothing to lose as she will be stepping down.
I feel that she is wrong, that 42 days is yet another desperate effort by NuLab to establish their credentials on law and order.
That they choose to adopt a fascistic mindset is shameful, given that so much of the problems has been of their causing.
The idea that The Police have An Opinion is as laughable as any other generalisation.
This issue is too serious for flippant remarks.
"Something of the Night and Fog", more like.
What a shame. I'd come to quite like Ann W over the last couple of years, but it appears her authoritarian streak is showing itself again. Our ancestors spent generations struggling against precisely this type of state usurpation of liberty, only for the very people who are meant to protect those hard earned freedoms to piss them away. I’d thought that it was only the Stalinist Labour party that wanted to cede victory to the terrorists by abolishing our freedoms – it seems I was wrong and that at least one Conservative MP (Ann W) has been seduced by the forces of suppression.
I am dismantling my Ann Widdecombe shrine forthwith.
Ann has a very strange grip on this. Given that police,(and local authorities) abuse anti-terror legislation, she is being highly selective about her logic for 42 days. Walter Wolfgang was detained under anti-terror laws for heckling Jack Straw. Recently, a PCSO detained two Christian Preachers in a Muslim area of Birmingham, threatening to arrest them for "Hate Crimes" West Midlands Police were unapologetic. Harry Renknapp has successfully sued the City of London Police, at a cost to the taxpayer of £50,000 for illegal trespass following a dawn raid on his home. His lawyer said, "If you are given these serious powers there is a corresponding obligation on the police to exercise them with due care. It is a restoration of the rights of the individual." It didn' happen in Rednapp's case, or Wolfgang's, or the Birmingham Christians and many others.
If you give police extraordinary powers they will abuse them. Ann Widdecombe knows this and is accordingly being an accomplice in this police state we currently inhabit. Not only that, she has failed to see the bigger picture which is that the last decade has seen a breathtaking erosion of individual freedom, by New Labour, and now Ann Widdecombe is propping this obscenity up. Shame!
When polling organisations ask members of the public if they approve of locking up "terrorist suspects" for 42 days, the majority is firmly in favour, and even seems to approve of indefinite detention, if that is what it takes. The reason for this is, in my view, simple.
The question always mentions "terrorist suspects" which conjures up in the minds of many an image of a young Asian man in eastern dress, beard, and perhaps an AK-47 and suicide belt around his waist.
What would be the result of a poll that asked the public, and even Miss Widdecombe, "If the police suspected you of being a terrorist, should they have the power to lock you up for 42 days without charging you?" Well, Miss Widdecombe, should they?
Miss Widdecombe's naivety is further compounded by the fact that she does not see that this whole fiasco is another exercise in cynicism by Gordon Brown. It has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Brown's control freakery and desire to show who is in charge.
I agree with Widders on a lot of things, but all in all I'm glad that her and her type are on the way down in the Tory party. Eleven years of the most anti-liberty government in history has taken its toll on the country, and we seriously need a more liberal (as in liberty) government.
Having said that, we also need people with Widdecombe's depth of conviction and courage (a result of her Catholicism?...) so I'm not quite sure what I think.
Good for her. I don't support 42 days or even powers to later introduce 42 days but at least AW is being true to herself and her beliefs. And incidentally those of 100s of 000s of Tory voters.
She will not be the only one by any means.
If I were a weak and ineffective Prime Minister trying to appear strong and assert some authority, I might:
1. Propose some legislation (42 days detention say?)
2. "Leak" a document from the whips office claiming that 50+ Labour MPs were opposed to it.
3. Robustly defend it as "a matter of principle"
4. Send out a visibly equally weak and ineffective cabinet minister to defend it.
5. Robustly defend that weak cabinet minister too
6. "Surprisingly" win the vote in the Commons.
Q.E.D. I'm a strong Prime Minister.
But it would be far too cynical to expect that to happen in reality, wouldn't it?
The curious thing about the 42-days proposal is that the Government have now made so many concessions as to procedures and safeguards that using the proposed powers would be extremely cumbersome. So it looks as though it would not in practice give the police a very useful counter-terrorism tool, but in any case it is still unacceptable in principle. A typical New Labour bosh-up, in other words, which achieves the worst of all worlds.
When you think that a 42-day detention is equivalent to something like a three-month jail sentence (allowing for a typical 50% early release), it is truly incredible that a democratic government could contemplate it. A three-month jail sentence without being told what the charge is? It's no wonder that people are confused as to what 'Britishness' means nowadays. I always thought that one of the absolutely key features of 'Britishness' was that we didn't do that kind of thing in this country.
And anyway, suppose the police did have very good reason to think that a given suspect was a danger. Given the surveillance powers and technology available to the state, it should be possible to release him and keep an extremely close watch on his movements and communications.
Ann Widdecombe is wrong.
Anonymous (FIRST POST) said...
"I know I have nothing to fear from it. Perhaps not many - or not enough - others can say the same?"
I suspect the people who had the 'anti-terrorist' Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act used to spy on what they put in their dustbins and how far away they lived from their kid's school felt they had nothing to fear as well.
42 days? Of this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2068366/Islamic-extremists-should-get-therapy,-Home-Office-tells-local-councils.html
I really don't see why the Tories are so against extending to 42 days.
Because they want to use it to bring down the Prime Minister, perhaps?
Chris Paul has a point.The Spectator has consistently supported the increased detention period .The Conservative Party is not the silly Liberal Party and if it were demonstated that we needed this measure there woud not be any knee jerk doctrinal reason to object.
I see absolutely nothing to justify such a measure however and I agree this was only a political stunt by Brown to embarrass the Conservative Party in the first place .
Widdy probably wants to defend good christian folk from the predations of the scurvy Muslim and I sympathise .The way to do this , however , is to control the border not create a Polce state whithin it !!
So you can't hunt a fox but you can lock up an innocent person for the equivalent of a 3 month prison sentence?
That makes perfect sense, Ann...
(Quote): June 03, 2008 9:58 AM Anonymous said...
“I know I have nothing to fear from it. Perhaps not many - or not enough - others can say the same?”
So by saying you have nothing to fear means you think you’re safe? Therefore by implication you are suggesting that the Police only ever arrest guilty people. Excellent, in that case lets abolish trial by jury because only guilty people ever get arrested and having no trials means it will save the taxpayer money.
Of course we’re forgetting that anti-terrorism legislation has been used against families to check whether they’re in the right school catchment area, to prevent people reading out the names of dead British soldiers in front of Parliament and led to the arrest under anti- terrorism laws of Walter Wolfgang in 2005 for the ‘heinous crime of shouting ‘nonsense’ at a labour party conference.
Wrinkled Weasel is the latest to make a basic factual error about Walter Wolfgang. He was not detained at all for heckling Jack Straw, neither under terrorism powers nor any other.
What actually happened was that, on being removed by stewards, his conference pass was cancelled. When he attempted to enter the secured area of the conference without a pass, he was detained for questioning using powers contained within the Terrorism Act which are specifically for questioning people who are in the wrong place but not suspected of criminal intention.
PS good for Ann Widdecombe. I wonder how many people realise that it is quite routine in other countries to hold people for lengthy periods before charges are brought? The three people suspected of involvement in the death of Meredith Kercher have been detained in Italy since November 2007 but no charges have yet been brought.
28 + 14 = 42
why 28 and not 42? why not 14?
'The three people suspected of involvement in the death of Meredith Kercher have been detained in Italy since November 2007 but no charges have yet been brought.'
Let's hope they actually did it.
Are you taking the p*ss David? Really?
paul linford - shame on you. this utterly pointless legislation is all about Labour trying to score points from the opposition. it has no practical purpose, no moral basis and is yet another tactical ploy by the great clunking twit.
Anonymous said...
"I know I have nothing to fear from it."
No you don't.
What is the Government's definition of a terrorist?
As their anti terror laws have been applied to an aged heckler at the Labour party conference, a business man carrying a leathernan in his briefcase, parents trying to get their children into state schools of their choosing, a young girl reading out aloud the names of soldiers killed in Iraq and incorrect wheely bin use. It will be interesting to see who they intend to lock up without charge for 42 days.
A legal definition of what a terrorist is, should be the starting point for any anti terror laws. It will probably turn out that that our present criminal laws would cover all types of terrorist anyway.
Widders won't be voting in favour, as there is no sunset clause being offered by Smith.
What worries me about the 42 days proposal is it's impact on those who would are detained and then subsequently released without charge. Those who were not at all radicalised before they went in, will certainly leave with a dangerous feeling of antipathy, at the very least. This is a ticking time bomb.
Mr Boothroyd...
"he was detained for questioning using powers contained within the Terrorism Act which are specifically for questioning people who are in the wrong place but not suspected of criminal intention."
Do you not see the horror of that statement? He was not suspected of any wrong intent but the police detained and questioned him anyway. Surely that cannot be right.
Night and Fog" is a bit of a stretch tho' it was tried in Jersey.
MI5 are neutral on 42 days. Few police support it. The electorate are struggling with tax, food and fuel increases. So Brown decides that 42 days is vital. There is a clue here to why we have so many problems.
The government are incapable of listening to the experts in almost any field you care to name.
Instead Brown and his team make the decisions in a vacuum, and then the management experts we are employing at a cost of £70 billion (David Craig, plundering the public sector) convert those decisions to targets and tick boxes.
Thanks heavens for the four brave police chiefs who have said enough is enough and announced they will no longer abide by government targets. There is hope.
Max
http://theerrorlog.blogspot.com
Oh grow up Linford they opposed this draconian measure when Blair was in power.
"I really don't see why the Tories are so against extending to 42 days." --- its called liberty. This measure is a massive intrusion in to our freedoms our rights and has no effect on catching terrorists. Remember this is just holding people once caught, before arrest. And this from the govt/party which professes to be opposed to Guantanamo Bay.
We need money and time spent on tracing and identifying terrorists - after that there is plenty of time to bring all manner of charges.
This is just political posing. Why not introduce wire tap evidence and other measures? Why not abolish the human rights act why not deport troublemakers?
Because for all its talk we have an appeasing posturing feeble government
mavis boothroyd. Up yours.
Why bring in a law 'in case we need it later' ?
He does keep saying that doesn't he?
"When the time comes to need this law we will be ready."
Perhaps a law about safeguarding peoples mooring rights in their gardens in case the flood comes.
Or allowing the police to have an extradition treaty with the moon to arrest all those fleeing criminals who escape there on the super Shuttle in 2050.
Maybe a law to limit petrol to 2.5 litres / week each .. you know, ready for when the oil finally does run out..
So make a priority of giving parliamentary time to a law we may never need, yet the lisbon treaty ? All done in half an hour.
Iain
I bet you the Tories wouldn't reverse 42 days if/when they return. Both Labour and Tory parties are more libertarian in opposition than in government. Some excuse will be given.
I hope their Lordships will tear it apart in the upper House.
Iain
Am I being a bit dense here....
... but isn't it pointless to have a statutory provision that requires parliamentary approval to use when the time comes?
Why not just have a draft bill on the shelf to dust off and present to Parliament if and when the "extraordinary" circumstances actually occur?
The reasons to have the vote now are twofold: (1) to position the opposition as weak on terror and (2) to prve that Gordo can get through an extension to 28 days when Bliar couldn't.
SP
"know I have nothing to fear from it. Perhaps not many - or not enough - others can say the same?" Anonymous 9:58 AM
It is a sad truth that 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' has been the mantra accompanying every ill advised, illiberal measure in the history of man. Its the same argument for keeping the DNA of every human being available on a database. Its the same argument increases SUSS laws. It will be the same argument for state CCTV in your home. After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear, right? I mean our brave Police 'service', composed like the NHS, of heroes to the last have never ever nicked the wrong man, much less fitted up the wrong men, even less on terrorism cases, have they? Does nobody remember why THATCHER of all people had to bring in PACE? I wonder sometimes...
"good for Ann Widdecombe. I wonder how many people realise that it is quite routine in other countries to hold people for lengthy periods before charges are brought?"
Translation: "Hey, lots of other countries are illiberal hellholes! Why should we be different?"
Ann Widdecombe is a malignant presence. Her stance on 42 days is as wrong - headed as her idea to empower vigilante 'animal rights camapigners' to arrest hunt followers. She is probably intent on getting for trotters in the trough with a lucrative media career once she retires as an MP (on an inflated gold - plated pension). We shall all be paying her way for a long time to come. Roll on Freedom from Ann Widdecombe day.
"Meanwhile the guns of the political establishment are pointing in the wrong direction, worrying about how to control people who should never been allowed to live here anyway, and throwing away the ancient rights of the English in the process".
Beautifully put tone.
42 Days, no problems with it if the right checks and balances are there and it isn't used inappropriately by the police for matters not related to terrorism.
david boothroyd 12:51:
"When he attempted to enter the secured area of the conference without a pass, he was detained for questioning using powers contained within the Terrorism Act which are specifically for questioning people who are in the wrong place but not suspected of criminal intention."
The extraordinary thing is that this sentence sounds, in 2008, not particularly extraordinary. It's as though half the country has read Kafka and somehow absorbed the idea that the state structures he described are normal. The 'Terrorism Act'? For a harmless elderly Labour Party member who heckled at the Labour conference? And why in heaven's name should he be detained and questioned? If they wanted to throw him out because he was a heckler, fine, but what exactly were they questioning him about? Did they think they'd be able to get him to name other dissidents who opposed the Iraq war?
And also:
"I wonder how many people realise that it is quite routine in other countries to hold people for lengthy periods before charges are brought? The three people suspected of involvement in the death of Meredith Kercher have been detained in Italy since November 2007 but no charges have yet been brought."
This is partly true. In European countries with the investigating-magistrate system, it is indeed the case that people can be held for long periods without trial. This is not something which historically would have been regarded as acceptable in Britain, and I don't think it's something we should emulate. But in any case it's not really comparable to what is being proposed for 42-day detention; the suspect at least knows what he is accused of, and some prima facie evidence has to be produced.
Iain - any chance of getting Ann Widdecombe to read your post and the comments, and give us her side of the question? She's not normally shy...
Anonymous at 1:37, I will reply on the assumption that you will give your name if you wish to continue any discussion.
The power in question is section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is there because there are areas where higher security is needed, such as the party conference of the governing party. It is reasonable in such circumstances for the police to have the power to search people who are acting suspiciously. As you will see, the power is a restricted one which has a number of protections built in. Specifically, the fact that authorisations can only happen in exceptional circumstances means these powers are not generally available.
Translation: "Hey, lots of other countries are illiberal hellholes! Why should we be different?"
Those well known illiberal hell holes........ like France and Italy.
Any dissent from the DD line must of course be exposed and crushed.
The three people suspected of involvement in the death of Meredith Kercher have been detained in Italy since November 2007 but no charges have yet been brought.
But this statement misses the inconvenient detail that all three (along with their lawyers) appeared before a panel of judges three weeks after their arrest.
A better example of a country allowed to snatch its citizens off the streets might be Malaysia and its impressively sounding Internal Security Act. Sadly, this powerful legislation is often used not against the real 'bad guys' but against the Government's critics.
The 42 Days measure proposed for the UK will not do anything to prevent a terrorist attack... It will clearly only be used after the fact. It will not make us (the people) any safer, it merely panders to the Government's desire to look tough.
Seriously, if you suspect someone of being a terrorist then there obviously must be a reason for that suspicion? Surely then its a simple matter for the Police to collect the evidence (assuming they don't already have it) to support their initial suspicion. They shouldn't need 42 days... or 28 for that matter.
According to a recent Private Eye (4 April) Thames Valley police officers were sent emails encouraging them to sign up for overtime on Operation Overt, the investigation into the trans-Atlantic airliner plot. The emails said they could spend their time reading books, studying for sergeants’ or inspectors’ exams, or “working out the compound interest” on the extra money they were earning. That doesn’t sound like a police force desperate for more time to gather evidence.
The vituperation here against Anne W would fit more properly on another site. My impression is that most hollingsworths who frequented this bourne were a trifle more open-minded.
Here's the dilemma: the Government (any Government, however "liberal" its postures) is approached by the securocrats looking for tougher controls. Reject the request: bang! -- who's held responsible? Is there, on all balances of probability likely to be a bang! in any foreseeable future? You betcher. Request upheld.
For all her faults Anne W has been there, and bore the stripes personfully. And, by the way, last year ComRes found 7% of Tory MPs in favour of 60 days, with fewer safeguards. what price consistency there?
Self important loudmouth who parades her 'virtue' on the TV studio sofa. Media tart if there ever was one.
What I want to know is - what is a 'terrorist?'. And who decides? The Solicto General? 'Parliament?'. Or could it be the Stasi? I want one of those voting for this repressive measure to give me a full definition of a so-called 'terrorist'.
Is it the likes of octogenarians who call out at Party Conferences? Or people who try to get their kids into the best local school? Or people who put their bins out on the wrong day?
tone-made-me-do-it....
Unfortunately, I have similar feelings of foreboding. The medis, the police, the civil service and judiciary are, in the main, now politically controlled.
From an economic standpoint, the UK is a basket case and living standards for the 'proles' are going to take a hiding. More banks are going under in due course. I fear for the reaction when it comes - and it eventually will!
Anon 09.58: You might not have anything to fear at the moment, but who knows when you might!
Authoritarian governments do things by degrees over a period of time, taking a little slice of our liberty at a time. First they apply their authoritarian responce to some small aspect of life - such as terrorism - but then claim that the precedent has been made, slowly rolling it out to other aspects of life.
Remember the anti-Jewish laws implemented by Hitler? They started with minor inconveniences for Jewish people, and ended up with the gas chambers!
Not that I have actually heard a policeman make the case for 42 yet, but how long before the Police start saying "we need for 42 days for complicated fraud cases"? Or just about anything else. It will be hard to resist once the precedent has been set!
The point here is the principle. Our society has been bedded in the concept of having the right to hear the case against you within a reasonable time since the medieval period. Break that principle, and things start to unravel.
If we go around bombing other people into democracy and legal justice, we should at least ensure we are practicing what we are preaching.
Finaly, how things have changed. Remember when Labour would routinely vote against the annual extension of anti-terror legislation aimed at the very active IRA? They were a genuine and proven threat. What we have now is a smokescrenn of so-called 'terror' used by the Government to keep us all scared and enthralled to them!
They need us that way, just like they need their client groups to keep voting them in.
Paul Linford
So it's the Tories fault!
Why has Brown and the Labour changed their minds from 90 days - that was the original proposal a couple of years ago. What has changed that the security services only now need 42 days? We're told that the security threat has never been greater - doesn't seem to make the case, does it?
"The three people suspected of involvement in the death of Meredith Kercher have been detained in Italy since November 2007 but no charges have yet been brought."
I suspect David Boothroyd of involvement with terrorist plots if not fly tipping or worse still failing to properly dispose of dog poo.Can we bang him up for a few years while we consider whether I am right?
How about somewhere in Lousiana , he`s a Public schoolboy , he might like it .
Could always claim they tried jumping a tube barrier whilst yer buddy was taking a wazz - nah, that'd never work would it. Step forward Superintendant Cressenda Dick.
"Ann Widdecombe is a malignant presence. Her stance on 42 days is as wrong - headed as her idea to empower vigilante 'animal rights camapigners' to arrest hunt followers." - Anon 2:45
The funny thing is I know legalise cannabis activists who will absolutely tell you that the war on cannabis would still be in full swing if she'd not gone all '£100 fine, down to the cashpoint with you'. It was so counterproductive that pols of all hues (inc Tories) fell over themselves to confess past misdeeds of that stripe, creating the atmosphere for the downgrade to class C a couple of years later.
We can all only hope that her intervention on this matter will yield a similar degree of success.
When banging people up for two months without even so much as charging them with anything was being proposed, the Police were all over the place calling for it and predicting the end of civilisation if it didn't happen.
But now, no bombs and not even one relevant case (where a terrorist suspect had to be released before the time ran out) later, where are they to call for six weeks instead?
They have thought about it. If you haven't been charged, then you can;t be remanded. So you can't be sent to a remand centre.
Instead, since you are still in that preliminary stage of mere interrogation, you have to be kept in a cell at a Police Station.
For six weeks?
No fear!
As Lord Goldsmith has said, why not allow questioning/investigation to continue after charging?
Why not give the Lord Chief Justice power to extend the holding period in specific cases? Bringing the cases to the House of Commons could jeopardise the validity of the putative trial.
This Govt is doing all it can to overturn ancient and hard-worn liberties, including this liberty of habeas corpus, and I don't care how many damn sunset clauses they might get around to putting in (only don't hold your breath), Widders is wrong to go with the Govt on this.
John Pickworth: What a pleasure to debate seriously with someone who knows what he's talking about, puts his points reasonably, takes the trouble to check the facts and doesn't indulge in silly name-calling.
It is of course routinely the case in countries with an investigating magistrate system that detainees do have to appear before a Judge before they are detained. However, in the case of questioning of British subjects suspected of terrorism, the Crown Prosecutor has to make application to the High Court to authorise detention beyond 7 days.
You're right about the fact that the police must have evidence for suspecting involvement in terrorism. The reason why lengthier periods of pre-charge questioning are desired by police is that it is taking increasingly long times to analyse some of this evidence until it becomes useful - eg examination of computers, decryption of files, finding evidence from telecommunications intercepts, as well as the difficulty and delay of obtaining evidence from other countries.
@boothroyd:
Dissembling again. The suspects in the Kercher have all been before amgistrate and have heard the evidence against them, and been held on remand. The fact that they don't kmnow the precise charges is a consequense of the difference between the adversarial and inquisitorial court systems, but they know well enough why they are being held.
Anonymous said...
"Those well known illiberal hell holes........ like France and Italy."
And Canada.
Re my earlier post about Thames Valley police - looking into this further I think I may owe them an apology. Seems like they needed police to to do the dull job of guarding an area of woods while evidence was sought. I can appreciate the need to sell such a tedious assignment. At the time there were even some coppers who thought this was a waste of resources but as it turns out it wasn't. I should've realised Private Eye might not have the full story.
It's always easy to give away other peoples rights.
No doubt all those who support this 42 day proposal consider that nothing they do could be construed to come under this terrorist heading. But then I suppose having a strike is an act of economic terrorism...
Look, some people can hold their breath under water for 41 days so 42 days is necessary.
"if you talk to most officers privately they are either sceptical or downright hostile"
Indeed, but you don't even have to talk to them privately. Geoffrey Dear is a former chief constable of West Midlands and former HM insp of constabulary and he wrote a piece a couple of months ago ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/31/uksecurity.terrorism ) strongly opposing this measure, not just on civil liberty grounds but on its own terms, i.e. if anything it is actually likely to encourage terrorism. I believe at least one former Met Commissioner has come out against it also.
It is lost, isn't it?
The "Government" will get its way because back bench MPS will put their principles aside in order to protect their positions as MPs.
Just what is the point of teaching and financing History education in our society, when it is ignored by most present day decision makers?
Sometimes I wonder, what is all the fuss over our bragging about being a democracy and having the mother of all Parliaments.
[1] So many of the correspondents above neglect to recall that -- quite frankly, my dear -- whatever the ordinary professional copper thinks or says, the Government (any Government, any complexion) will not give a damn. The voices in the ear of those that matter will be those of the spooks and securocrats. Always it is in the interest of the secret state to ramp up the level of intervention. All the way back to DORA (look it up!) and even to the Combination and Vagrancy Acts, it was ever thus.
[2] 42 days is yesterday's news. Note the US Homeland Security Secretary is tearing up the visa waiver. Now we'll all have to log on three days in advance. That's as well as the cattle-shed conditions, waiting in lines the odd hour or so at JFK and EWR.
I'm not sure whether I support the 42 days detention policy or not. I can see merits in both the for and against arguments.
At least Ann Widdecombe, whether you agree or disagree with her, is casting her vote based on her own principles and not out of pure party loyalty. I think we need more of this kind of independant attitude towards these important issues, not the 'party robot' approach.
Contrast Anne's intention with what appears to be happening within New Labour at the moment. After many months of constant hostility and a previous rebellion to the proposals, they seem to be coming round to the idea.
This has little to do with the concessions put forward and everything to do with the recent results in Crewe and the complete meltdown in support for Labour and it's leader.
They haven't suddenly been made aware of the error of their ways in opposing 42 days detention. They are more than aware of the prospect of another Labour rebellion in the Commons being seen as yet another, perhaps final, blow to Mr. Brown and his withering authority over his party and the country.
Another triumph of calculation over conviction.
Ghastly woman!
David Boothroyd said...
"You're right about the fact that the police must have evidence for suspecting involvement in terrorism. The reason why lengthier periods of pre-charge questioning are desired by police is that it is taking increasingly long times to analyse some of this evidence until it becomes useful - eg examination of computers, decryption of files, finding evidence from telecommunications intercepts, as well as the difficulty and delay of obtaining evidence from other countries."
Okay, now we're getting to the nuts & bolts of the matter.
The scenaro above would also perfectly fit investigations into child pornography, people trafficking, drugs or money laundering. How are these cases sucessfully managed and prosecuted? All of those investigations are also likely to involve computer files (often encrypted), communications with others and have an international dimension.
Why is it any different (or difficult) for terrorism? Any suggestions anyone?
The Police simply don't need 42 days (nor 28 days) to build a sufficiently robust case against an individual - who in most likelihood was probably caught in the act or was found to have a quantity of plastic explosive hidden under the bed.
Where the Police would find longer detentions useful is for 'rap sheet' inflation or fishing expeditions for potential bigger networks, assumed associates or imagined conspiracies. Things which frankly the Police could still investigate at their leisure without holding the initial detainee in legal limbo.
The Government says that the power to detain suspects for up to 42 days will be used only in conjunction with a 'grave and exceptional terrorist threat'. Confirmation I suspect that the Police intend to use 42 days to hold large numbers of people for whom they have little evidence against in a moment of crisis (real or imagined). State sponsored snatch squads in other words... I don't know about you, but that doesn't make me feel safer?
The law is a dud... the Government and Police should be forced to justify the continued need of 28 days nevermind extending it further!
We are to have this nulab fascism imposed upon us because the PLP is largely composed of women and old women who have no concern for justice or liberty but only for their own bank accounts.
Note the US Homeland Security Secretary is tearing up the visa waiver.
Should've done it years ago. No big deal. When I first visited the US I had to get a visa, in those days typically a multi entry visa was given; obviously it deters last minute trips but how many of those will there be given today's fares & surcharges?
Now if only the same effort would be made to control the Mexican border !
She is right to vote for the issue because we ned strong laws to stop the terro scum. What the tories do not relaise if if the laws are not strong enough then the government will simply yo what Thacther did and go round the law. She executed unarmed SAS amembers and the dirt war lead to innocent people being killed not just being locked up for 42 day. The chopice is simply strong laws or go beyond the law. This is an enemy that wast to destory the UK Why do the tories stand up for them. Why? The tories used to care about national security. This will be a propaganga coup for Bin Laden. Well done tories you do our enemies work.
It is not facism to lock people up for 42 days in a war. The tories executed unarmed ira soidiers in the 80's.
dirtyeuropeansocialist said...
Your comments hardly deserve a response but...
ira soidiers
Are you serious? Could you describe for the audience what military uniforms they were wearing and where their barracks were located? No?
Why do the tories stand up for them. Why? The tories used to care about national security. This will be a propaganga coup for Bin Laden.
The Tories (and a great many others from all parties) are not standing up for the terrorists... they are standing up for the majority of completely innocent British citizens that stand a very real risk of losing their liberty under laws like 42 days.
As for a propaganda coup... I hardly think Bin Laden will be cheering in his cave because we kept our freedom. However he might get somewhat excited if Labour do successfully deliver us the kind of laws found in Pakistan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
If you enjoy the idea of being thrown into a cold cell without reason, perhaps you could move to one of those places? I'm sure you wouldn't have to walk the streets for too long before being carted off!
Post a Comment