Harry's Place

The worst thing about this whole saga is that the media have focussed on it being a “test” of Brown’s leadership, rather than worrying about the issues of 42 vs 28 days or whatever.

The worst thing about this whole saga is that the media have focussed on it being a “test” of Brown’s leadership, rather than worrying about the issues of 42 vs 28 days or whatever.

That is certainly the case.

But do you think any MPs voted the way they did because of their feelings about Gordon Brown, rather than their actual opinion on the issue?

It’s the end of democracy!

Or as ITN just reported it, Britain can hold suspects without charge

“longer than any other country… ON EARTH!”

“It’s the end of democracy!”

Nah, the Lords will chuck it out. There’s a paradox.

It’s now been analysed on the 10pm news as a test of Brown’s premiership. Grrrr.

“longer than any other country… ON EARTH!”

Is that true?

Well if it was a test of Brown’s party leadership he failed.

The Times has suggested that the DUP have been bought off by, for example by a promise not to extend the abortion act to NI. If this is true (and it has been denied by all parties) then the argument wasn’t won, even if the vote was. The Times is also suggesting that some commitments have been made about compensation to people who are detained and not charged. If this is true it is very welcome.

Things would be so much better in, say, Germany, where you can charge someone for a relatively minor offence and then hold them *indefinitely* with judicial review every….*six months*!

Why would anybody who is concerned about civil liberties think this is a preferable arrangment to 42-day detention?

It’s not a preferable system, Brownie. Britain’s is based on the presumption of innocence, and severe limits on the right of the state to exercise arbitary power over its citizens without recourse to the court of law.

And to dick around with that principle – not because there is any overwhelmingly clear or obvious reason, or important principle at stake – but because it might give the PM a short-term political advantage and might, you know, be useful at some time is an utter disgrace. Abject and contemptible behaviour from a truly pathetic excuse for a left-wing government.

Yes, the matter had become something of a referendum on the government. A pity more Labour MPs didn’t take that rarest of political opportunities: doing the right thing, and helping their party, at the same time. Brown, as PM, is a thundering bollocks and a fucking disgrace (a small prize to anyone who gets that reference) and should be dispatched asap – for the benefit of Labour and that of Britain.

He joins Major and Callaghan as a weak PM who could only survive by buying off the Ulster unionists. But to win by the exact number of DUP MPs is the sort of humiliating victory only Brown could manage.

42 days without charge v 2 days with made-up charge (+6 months)

A bad day for liberty in our country. Just goes to show that principles don’t mean a damn when it comes to looking ‘ard’ in the eyes of certain sections of the British press. Does anyone give a toss about what we stand for, rather than what we’re against?

Brownie – it doesn’t matter about the Germans bacause they don’t have “common law”. We are the worst re detention in the world of “common law” apparently, at least that’s what some paranoid maniac was going on about on Today this am.

Obviously if you don’t have “common law” your system is a police state and God forbid we ever had anything to do with such countries.

The hysterical anti arguments on this issue are as absurd as anything I have ever heard.

MMN – how many countries have common law?

Oh, and “bought the vote” bleating from Tories and Lib Dems is beyond a joke. I have no idea whether the DUP were offered financial inducements to vote with the government, but unless you believe that all (bar one) Tories and Lib Dems think as one on this issue – and that there are no opposition MPs voting purely to defeat the government rather than on the issue itself – this is nothing more that the most sour of political grapes.

But you expect MPs to vote out of party loyalty to a large extent – they are after all elected on a party platform. The government, after all, is the government because their party has a majority of MPs and in general you expect the governing party’s MPs to support government legislation and opposition MPs to vote against it. It’s the nature of our political system.
OTOH if an MP feels so strongly on a particular issue that they feel they cannot support their own party’s position then I think you have to respect that.
However, if MPs are voting a particular way purely because they are offered inducements by the government then there surely has to be something wrong with that. I don’t neccessarily criticise the MPs themselves – if they are offered a concession on an issue they think important then it will be a difficult decision, but it makes the government look weak and unprincipled and they cannot then claim any kind of moral victory, even if they won the vote.

It’s not a preferable system, Brownie

Good, and it’s not just Germany, of course, that goes about things that way. I take it, then, we can do away with the hyperbolic nonsense about how out of step with the rest of the civilised world this proposal is? I mean, we’re not comparing apples with apples and as you’ve just agreed, their oranges are rather more bitter.

And to dick around with that principle…because it might give the PM a short-term political advantage

Leaving aside how absurd is the notion that Brown has gained political capital from this (he’s simply avoided his political execution), why can you not accept that supporters of this proposal might just believe in it?

He joins Major and Callaghan as a weak PM who could only survive by buying off the Ulster unionists. But to win by the exact number of DUP MPs is the sort of humiliating victory only Brown could manage.

Well, as I say in the post, this point only starts to have validity the day you convince me that all 306 MPs voting against were doing so purely on conscience after much handwringing.

Possible rebels:

Meacher
Corbyn
Dismore
Bob Marshall-Andrews
Mark Fisher
McDonnel
Paul Flynn
Glenda Jackson
Kate Hoey
Kilfoyle

Any you know what? I’m guessing. I haven’t actually heard a damn thing from any of them on this issue, but I bet I’m bloody right. They and those like them don’t have a nanogram of integrity between them, so spare me the “9 DUP votes” bollocks.

Herman – see wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

“Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in those nations which trace their legal heritage to Britain, including the United Kingdom, most of the United States and Canada, and other former colonies of the British Empire.”

I doubt very much its a majority of the countries in Europe, but perhaps a lawyer can enlighten.

They and those like them don’t have a nanogram of integrity between them

Sorry, but I think that’s an outrageous statement. I tend to disagree with Kate Hoey for example on virtually everything (except this issue of course) but I’ve never doubted that her convictions were honestly held.

OTOH if an MP feels so strongly on a particular issue that they feel they cannot support their own party’s position then I think you have to respect that.

What if the group of rebels includes the usual suspects who will reflexively vote against the government come what may? You can “respect” that if you want to, Andrew, personally I’m deducting their votes from the opposition total of 306 because they were not sincerely cast. Just like the DUP ones.

Hope you don’t mind.

The only correct thing Brian Paddock ever said is that Kate Hoey is she is completely bonkers.

I would question her intergrity too. She once said in an interview that she has always supported the right to fox hunting, which is blatantly not true. People are free to change their minds but why lie about it?

Since she discovered she was too incompetent to be a minister ever again, she decided to attach herself to as many causes, usually anti government causes, as she can. She’s basically a cause whore.

It’s certainly true that Brown has not gained any political capital from this. He can hardly claim he has demonstrated leadership of his party when he had to rely on an opposing party to bail him out and it is obviously the case that some MPs in his own party who voted for the legislation were still very unhappy, either because they disagreed with it, despite voting for the government out of loyalty, or because they were angry at Brown for needlessly putting the goverbment in this difficult position when it already had enough problems on its plate.

but I’ve never doubted that her convictions were honestly held.

Most of those convictions failed to materialize until she lost her job as Minister for Sport. A woman scorned if ever I’ve seen one.

But just to make it more palatable, I’ll happily add her score back onto the opposition total.

Want to have a go at convincing me of Corbyn’s integrity?

As for winning the argument, today’s poll in Telegraph shows 69% public support for 42 days, and countless other polls show big majorities in favour. You might want to ask why so many MPs divided in lobby showing a flagrant disregard for the views of the people who elected them?

Yes, I know all about parliamentary democracy, one element of which has always been about cutting deals with this party and that, so to bleat about its practice when the vote goes against you is just a little pathetic.

You either accept the primacy of parliamentary democracy warts and all, or you advocate government by plebiscite. Either way, you lose this one.

What if the group of rebels includes the usual suspects who will reflexively vote against the government come what may? You can “respect” that if you want to, Andrew, personally I’m deducting their votes from the opposition total of 306 because they were not sincerely cast. Just like the DUP ones.

They don’t always vote against the government come what may and you have no basis for the statement that their votes were not sincerely cast.

Good point AA. There seem to be few principles involved here. Particulary when it comes to inducements and pork barrel politics.. It seems liberty be damned! and hand me the subsidy, there’s a good chap! Doubtless we’ll find out what the DUP were offered in the fullness of time…

This legislation is shameful.

It’s wrong from so many points of view but one of the worst aspects is that it now involves the House of Commons in the judicial process. Is that what we really want?

Every terrorist and government critic out there tonight should be shaking in their boots.

Soon you can be arrested, without charge, and held for six weeks, and threre is nothing you can do about it.

Don’t fuck with New Labour.

The Labour rebels in full:

Diane Abbott
Richard Burden
Katy Clark
Harry Cohen
Frank Cook
Jeremy Corbyn
Jim Cousins
Andrew Dismore
Frank Dobson
David Drew
Paul Farrelly
Mark Fisher
Paul Flynn
Neil Gerrard
Ian Gibson
Roger Godsiff
John Grogan
Dai Havard
Kate Hoey
Kelvin Hopkins
Glenda Jackson
Lynne Jones
Peter Kilfoyle
Andrew MacKinlay
Bob Marshall-Andrews
John McDonnell
Michael Meacher
Julie Morgan
Chris Mullin
Douglas Naysmith
Gordon Prentice
Linda Riordan
Alan Simpson
Emily Thornberry
David Winnick
Mike Wood

So not bad at all, Brownie. It’s almost as if MPs take predictable stances regardless of the rights and wrongs of any issue. And of course, I don’t think the Tories and Lib Dem benches are full only of honourable people who only ever act on the highest of principles.

The issue is not one of being out of step with the rest of the civilised world, it’s about being out of step with our own principles and values. We have a rather good legal system – better in principle that that most European countries have, in fact – and the government is trashing it without giving any good reason.

Leaving aside how absurd is the notion that Brown has gained political capital from this (he’s simply avoided his political execution), why can you not accept that supporters of this proposal might just believe in it?

Okay, I accept that some of the supporters – let’s even say Brown himself for the sake of argument – believe in what they’re doing. For all that, I think, firstly, they’re tragically wrong on this. Secondly,it doesn’t exclude the possibility they’re not out for some short-term advantage in the way they go about it.

And damn me, the way they’re going about it doesn’t suggest this precise time limit is more important than the fact that the Prime Minister should not have to change his policy or lose a vote in the Commons. (Abortion in Northern Ireland, sanctions against Cuba, money for sick miners have all been treated as bargaining chips. I’d say all three are more important issues than the PM’s political survival. Labour clearly doesn’t doesn’t).

Until someone gives us a real reason why we need this particular law at this particular time, it’s hard to make the case for this law without politics trumping principles.

For instance, here’s the Guardian’s Jenni Russell on Jacqui Smith’s not very convincing case for 42 days.

I asked her whether she felt that 90-day detention – the measure the government was pushing for last year – would have been the right answer to the question of how to deal with terror suspects. Her response was not, “Yes, I would have preferred it”, or “No, circumstances have changed, and this is why 42 days is the perfect solution to the problems we face”. Instead, she said, “Clearly not, since we couldn’t get it through”.

So there we have it. A measure is right if it can get through parliament, and wrong if it can’t. There is no argument of principle being invoked here; just pure pragmatism.

Got it?

Oh, Russell link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/11/terrorism.civilliberties1

Want to have a go at convincing me of Corbyn’s integrity?

Well not really, as we would then logically have to go through all 300 odd labour MPs. There are MPs who are pure lobby fodder and would vote for the Government if it brought in legislation to kill the firstborn – don’t tell me thay have more integrity than the people you mentioned.

As for winning the argument, today’s poll in Telegraph shows 69% public support for 42 days, and countless other polls show big majorities in favour. You might want to ask why so many MPs divided in lobby showing a flagrant disregard for the views of the people who elected them?

You either accept the primacy of parliamentary democracy warts and all, or you advocate government by plebiscite. Either way, you lose this one.

I accept the result – the government won. I think the way they won was unprincipled and leaves them weaker but it doesn’t invalidate the result.

They don’t always vote against the government come what may and you have no basis for the statement that their votes were not sincerely cast.

It’s observable fact, Andrew. Have you checked my guess at the names of rebels against who actually voted with the Tories? I have and I’m 10 for 10. How could I have known that if I’ve never heard what any of them has to say on this specific issue? How do you know that the DUP MPs would have voted against were it not for inducements, assuming they were offered inducements at all? Could not the DUP MPs have simply been hanging out for what they could get? You know, that old parliamentary democracy thing?

You’re bleating, Andrew. If you want to tear up the way parliament opearates becuase tonight’s vote went against you, then just say so. Alternatively, wait for an unelected upper house to save our democracy for you.

Sorry, I was a bit liberal with the italics there. The following paragraph is of course mine -

Oh come on Brownie, I expect better than that from you. I have seen you argue a number of times that MPs should vote on the rights and wrongs of the issues and not be dictated to by public opinion.

Brownie, I’m not sure I understand your last comment. Surely in the same way that some Tory MPs probably voted against (irrespective of what they actually believe) because of instructions from their whips, isn’t it perfectly conceivable that some Labour MPs voted for the motion (irrespective of what they actually believe) to support their party?

That should read last part of your post, not last comment,

Good to see Jon Cruddas is not listed with the odious rogues above. Smart boy.

If Labour goes down at the next election, lets hope those rebels are the first seats to go.

God willing.

Those who opposed 42 days have been taught a bloody good lesson tonight.

Never forget how you currently feel; New Labour did this to you!

Well not really, as we would then logically have to go through all 300 odd labour MPs. There are MPs who are pure lobby fodder and would vote for the Government if it brought in legislation to kill the firstborn – don’t tell me thay have more integrity than the people you mentioned.

I tihnk you miss the point, Andrew. I’m not the one bleating about the way parliament works. You are, but only insofar as it helped the governemnt get 315 votes. You don’t seem too interested in the various machinations, underhandedness and multitude of motivations that convicned 306 MPs to vote agianst.

Oh come on Brownie, I expect better than that from you. I have seen you argue a number of times that MPs should vote on the rights and wrongs of the issues and not be dictated to by public opinion.

Indeed you have. I’m not arguing for government by opinion poll and never will; I’m just pointing out that on this particular occasion, parliament did in fact reflect the will of the population. It’s a worthwhile point in the face of arguments about how undemocratic the governmet’s parliamentary victory was.

As an advocate of proportional representation, you can’t expect too much criticism from me about inter-party deal-making, either.

It’s almost as if MPs take predictable stances regardless of the rights and wrongs of any issue.

I don’t think that’s neccessarily the case. It’s just that there are clearly some very large idealogical differences within the Labour party. So yes, the opposing stances may be predictable, but its not because they are not considering the rights and wrongs of the issue.

It’s observable fact, Andrew.

In fact, each one of the “usual suspects” voted with the government more times between 1997 and 2007 than Tony Blair did. Only a truly vacuous piece of shit would question the integrity of Corbyn and his ilk – and to prove that point, so far it’s you and Meg Hillier.

Gregg, Tony Blair rarely voted in the commons due to being PM and having a large majority. The point doesn’t hold.

I wouldn’t question Corbyn’s integrity, what we do know is he is a complete far left crank who shouldn’t be in the Labour party to begin with.

Have you checked my guess at the names of rebels against who actually voted with the Tories? I have and I’m 10 for 10. How could I have known that if I’ve never heard what any of them has to say on this specific issue?

But I could equally point to any number of MPs who voted for the government and predict their opinions on any particular issue. I could probably predict many of yours and vice versa. It’s because people tend to be consistent in their principles – it’s not neccessarily a bad thing.

Right: so Labour is being principled, it’s just that they can’t tell us what the principle at stake is. And the fact that 62% of the public supports the measure at present makes it more principled in contrast to the political opportunism of those who are going against it.

Or is there something obvious I’m missing?

If Labour goes down at the next election, lets hope those rebels are the first seats to go.

Not really likely. Thornberry is vulnerable (to the Lib Dems). Glenda Jackson will probably go too (Hampstead and Kilburn a three-way marginal now, I suspect the yellow peril will take that too). Jacqui Smith will probably go as well, however. Oh dear, how sad, what a pity, never mind.

Gregg, Tony Blair rarely voted in the commons due to being PM and having a large majority. The point doesn’t hold.

It obliterates the notion that there’s a group of rebels who will “reflexively vote against the government”.

I wouldn’t question Corbyn’s integrity, what we do know is he is a complete far left crank who shouldn’t be in the Labour party to begin with.

Yes, we’re well aware of the view of the dribbling Mail-appeasing freakshows who’ve infiltrated the party.

I tihnk you miss the point, Andrew. I’m not the one bleating about the way parliament works. You are, but only insofar as it helped the governemnt get 315 votes. You don’t seem too interested in the various machinations, underhandedness and multitude of motivations that convicned 306 MPs to vote agianst.

I don’t approve of the government effectively buying votes, no, and I don’t see why I should just accept that that is just the way that parliament works. What I will say is that I would think it wrong even if I had supported the government’s position. And I do accept that the government won and I don’t believe that the unelected HOL should have the power to overturn the decision.

It obliterates the notion that there’s a group of rebels who will “reflexively vote against the government”.

Come off it. Most of those listed are part of the campaign group that have a completely different ideology to the government and work to their own manifesto. They may vote with the government on uncontroversial things, but anything that smacks of progress and they’re straight into the opposition lobbies.

They are quite proud about this fact – it’s not a secret or anything.

PS. The Mail were against 42 days.

Corbyn has been an MP for much longer than New Labour has been in existence, as have some of the other “rebels”. Should they change their principles because the rest of their party has changed?

Brownie, I’m not sure I understand your last comment. Surely in the same way that some Tory MPs probably voted against (irrespective of what they actually believe) because of instructions from their whips, isn’t it perfectly conceivable that some Labour MPs voted for the motion (irrespective of what they actually believe) to support their party?

Absolutely. But to repeat, I’m not the one decrying the way parliamentary democracy works in Britain. There are things I’d like to change, but it doesn’t take a vote going against me to want me to change them.

It just strikes me that some people are seeking to delegitimise tonight’s vote because of what they percevie to be some MPs voting for 42 days for reasons other than those directly related to the issue. I’m saying that cuts both ways, and if you don’t like it, you don’t like parliamentary democracy.

They want to have their cake and eat it.

Corbyn is a relic of the far left surge of the early 1980s which were an aberation in Labour’s history.

He and his ilk have bitterly opposed the leadership of the Labour party for the last 20 years. They avoid being expelled from the party by being careful not to openly support other parties or call for the leadership to resign, but everybody knows what they are really about.

Should they change their principles because the rest of their party has changed

They should perhaps find another party. They could try standing as independents. I’d respect that more.

You make it sound like they have no choice but to be Labour MPs.

Although, they probably do, but only in the sense that, like all parasites, they are dependent on the host.

Yes, we’re well aware of the view of the dribbling Mail-appeasing freakshows who’ve infiltrated the party.

Oh look, everyone’s out of step except our Gregg.

“Infiltrated”? Tell me another.

Only a truly vacuous piece of shit would question the integrity of Corbyn

Oh, I see you have.

This is a great day. Just rejoice.

I’m getting a 42 days tatoo.

This is a great day. Just rejoice.

I’m getting a 42 days tatoo.

Look at it when Labour goes down to a humiliating, 1983 style defeat at the next election. It’ll remind you there was a chance to replace Brown before it was too late – and act in an honorable principled manner at the same time.

That’s a separate issue.

I will just point to my Blair tatoo on the arm when that happens.

Look at it when Labour goes down to a humiliating, 1983 style defeat at the next election.

If it does, it won’t be anything to do with 42 days detention given its popularity with the electorate.

Hung parliament is my prediction, with the Tories the single largest party.

They should perhaps find another party. They could try standing as independents. I’d respect that more.

And if they did that, Labour would lose power. If they’d done that in 1997, Blair would never have become PM.

This is why the “usual suspects” don’t have the Whip withdrawn – the leadership can’t afford to lose them. Blair couldn’t and Brown can’t afford to lose the millions of people who continue to vote Labour despite everything because there is at least a small group on the Labour benches that still represents tradtional Labour policies and goals and opposes Thatcherism; a group that votes for the progressive legislation the government half-heartedly puts forward but opposes the conservative and regressive legislation that it pursues with much more apparent vigour. Without these MPs and the traditional Labour votes they bring, Brown would be leading a party smaller than the Lib Dems. It’s New Labour who are the parasites here, and the rebels, by virtue of representing the Labour Party and movement outside of Parliament, who are the host.

No, it won’t be 42 days that does for Labour. I just think it is the wrong thing to do. Oh well, that’s just my opinion.

What will lose it for Labour will be having Brown at the helm and – though the public might be with him on this issue – pardoxically the whiff of opportunism, maladroitness, misjudgement and untrustworthiness that surrounds him on this, and many other issues, is what will do for him.

I’d have agreed with your prediction a couple of months back, Brownie. But I think it’s going to be a Tory majority now and the longer Brown stays in Number 10 the greater the chance of that. And the more ‘Come Back Tony’ tattoos that Harry’s Place readers will be getting.

And if they did that, Labour would lose power. If they’d done that in 1997, Blair would never have become PM.

How exactly do you work that out? Labour would field alternative candidates in these constituencies and, with one or two exceptions, would win them.

Blair couldn’t and Brown can’t afford to lose the millions of people who continue to vote Labour despite everything because there is at least a small group on the Labour benches that still represents tradtional Labour policies and goals and opposes Thatcherism;

That’s right. Labour has won an unprecedented 3 consecutive terms because these dinosaurs attracted millions of voters who were in fact always opposed to the Blairite vision for Labour but voted through gritted teeth for the party anyway….3 times….because they’re fans of Corbyn and his ilk.

Deluded doesn’t come close.

It’s New Labour who are the parasites here, and the rebels, by virtue of representing the Labour Party and movement outside of Parliament, who are the host.

You forgot ‘up is down’.

And if they did that, Labour would lose power. If they’d done that in 1997, Blair would never have become PM.

Hmmm, no. If they were expelled in 1997 they could easily have been replaced by candidates that reflect Labour’s values.

They should have found away to do it – Blair was too soft on them.

They can’t do it now, of course, because people are looking for away to protest vote against the government.

Look, I know that major parties tend to have a coalition element to them, but these guys need to start pulling their weight; decent Labour people everywhere will have been appalled at their decision to vote against the government last night. It’s really not on.

Wow, you guys really believe that Labour could win an election with just the four or five million votes it took off the Tories and Lib Dems in 1997. I know Blairites are obsessed with swing voters in a handful of marginals, but this is ridiculous. Without traditional Labour voters it couldn’t have even won those seats – you need a base.

If they were expelled in 1997 they could easily have been replaced by candidates that reflect Labour’s values.

What would be the point in expelling them only to replace them with candidates who have the same values and will vote the same way?

decent Labour people everywhere will have been appalled at their decision to vote against the government last night.

I’m afraid the word “appalled” does not come from “applauding”, but you’re right – decent Labour people will be applauding the rebels for the stand they took, and making the same calculation they’ve made countless times in the past 13 years, whether they can continue to support Labour (and every time the leadership forces them to make that calculation, we lose a few more supporters).

Why are people saying the DUP were ‘bought’ on the issue of 42 day detention of terror suspects?

This is Ian Paisley’s Ulster Democratic Unionist Party, folks. This is the party that regularly called for internment without trial and the death penalty for terrorists.

They would have voted for the government anyway, they simply played good parliamentary politics by getting a big pay off from Brown for doing what they would in all conscience have done anyway.

We can be certain, from their record under Thatcher and Major, that if the Tories were in power they would have brought this legislation forward and almost all of those Tory MPs who voted against it would have voted for it. We can be fairly sure, too, that Labour in Opposition would have opposed it, and all those Labour MPs who voted for it would have voted against. And we also know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these “usual suspects” would have voted against it – in government or out of it, and regardless of the Whip. With a few exceptions (yes, Hoey), these rebels’ voting records throughout their careers show they have an uncompromising belief in civil liberty, and won’t sacrifice that principle in the interest of loyalty to the leadership or even in return for various concessions and bribes. Now, you can disagree with that principle. But to say they don’t have integretity, to say they aren’t sincere – it’s as if you’ve completely given up on trying to even appear credible, Brownie.

This is Ian Paisley’s Ulster Democratic Unionist Party, folks. This is the party that regularly called for internment without trial and the death penalty for terrorists.

Believe it or not DUP was against internment – at least some of the time.

Gregory Campbell, told the Belfast Telegraph recently.

“We were initially opposed to internment in Northern Ireland and there are some who would argue this is a form of internment. At the same time we are very strongly and trenchantly anti-terrorist,” he said.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/article3758477.ece

So it could easily have explained a vote against the measure on those grounds – if its demands weren’t met.

Brownie’s no civil libertarian, but the basic question was asked by Harry Barnes MP: Why is 42 days necessary when there is at least two pieces of legislation that covers it? Brownie does not make a positive case for 42 days, just sneers at the other side: hey-ho.

Its knee-jerk for many Labour people to legislate. However, ultimately, such an attitude can threaten liberty. Its quite natural for some Labour people to simply hand over more powers to the state. However a healthier liberal attitude is only to do so if strictly necessary. 42 days certainly is not necessary – and hence must be treated with utmost suspicion.

I don’t feel particularly strongly about this issue
….. and yet has authored at least two posts supporting the govt line.

What he’s saying is he is not obsessed with it. I am not obsessed with it either – it just seems like a sensible thing to do – so why on earth are so many people hell bent on opposing it, fearmongering away about its dire consequences? It’s bollocks.

That goes especially for people inside the Labour party – why bring the government down on this, of all, issues?

Those individuals, and all who opposed it, were taught a blood good lesson that they will never forget.

You only have to read Gary Hindle’s excellent piece above to know which side of the debate won the argument.

That goes especially for people inside the Labour party – why bring the government down on this, of all, issues?

That’s a question for Ministers, surely. Why press ahead with this uneccessary, reckless legislation, at the risk of the government’s majority?

And if fundamental principles of liberty aren’t a good enough reason to oppose for you (who am I kidding, why would you care about principles?), then the history of legislation supposedly for use in emergencies early being rolled out in situations for which it was never intended, surely should. I was going to suggest that you think about the last Tory government and then think about what they might do with this if and when they get back into power, but I think I’ll point you at John McDonnell’s latest.

You only have to read Gary Hindle’s excellent piece above to know which side of the debate won the argument.

Have *you* read it? The safeguards and oversight Hindle refers to were, along with a guarantee of compensation, bitterly wrung out of the government by the threat of rebellion. So, which side won?

Of course there may have been fearmongering involved, but there is a very simple principle that you don’t hand over more powers to the govt when existing legislation covers the purpose adequately.

Whether or not 42 days will lead to much unhappiness and authoritarianism is one debate; however adhering to the principle above guards against creeping authoritarianism and an overbearing state. There has already been reams of anti-terror legislation and laws bolstering the powers of the police.

Of course civil libertarians and liberals in the Labour Party are treated with suspicion and hostility just like other critics.

You’re not making much sense tonight, Greg. You’re now claiming you won?

If you won, why are you so upset about winning?

This is certainly not like other laws that can be used willy nilly by the police on protesters – your analogy is weak.

John McDonnell is part of the campaign group, which we have discussed.

Just be pleased that the government is looking out for you.

I’m not claiming that opponents won, merely that the government didn’t. It was forced into concessions it didn’t want to make (and will no doubt try to wriggle out of later). You’re “rah, rah, rah – that showed you” is pure fantasy.

And the Civil Contingencies Act wasn’t supposed to be like other legislation, wasn’t supposed to be used willy-nilly. Such legislation is always absorbed into the routine powers of the state.

There has already been reams of anti-terror legislation and laws bolstering the powers of the police.

And? It’s helped stopped dozens of terror plots and saved thousands of lives. You were proven wrong on every single one of these points. If it were up to you we would have no time to hold terror suspects at all, and most of the major plots stopped in recent years would not have been stopped and those terrorists would be walking the streets today.

A little humility wouldn’t go amiss.

Greg and Benji oppose this because you have an anti-all-governments ideology that fearmongers about the state.

Well that’s fine for you, but the pragmatists have to sit down a take a good look at the matter. Now we have come to a decision I hope you will put your ideology to one side and accept it.

Throw in some sectarianism for Benji too.

Its kind of amusing that Brownie’s first argument in comments to justify this measure is to point to Germany to say at least their system is worse! What a weak and negative argument, not least because Germany has a very different legal system and constitutional setup, and also because using a negative argument to justify an extension of state powers (i.e. that other country is worse) is simply no argument at all.

In fact, in Hong Kong, similar arguments have been used to attack the English based legal system, although not with much success yet.

Just be pleased that the government is looking out for you.

But it isn’t – the government is passing legislation that will allow it to lock me up for six weeks. I think people who support the government on this genuinely believe such legislation would only ever be used against “The Terrorists”. And, gee, nobody who isn’t really a terrorist would ever be erroensouly suspected and subjected to such detention. And, gee again, legislation introduced for extraordinary situations never gets applied to other situations, so this legislation will never be used against, say, people planning civil disobedience. I wonder how you survive, spending your entire life wearing blindfolds and earplugs.

True to form, Brownie lists some of the Labour rebels to make the “usual suspects” argument and denigrate them. That’s classic Labour Party behaviour.

Germany is a far more liberal country than ours in many ways – just look how they let off the only person in their country to be arrested on 9/11 charges on appeal, having already only giving him a light sentence. What a sham.

The fact that even Germany has a tougher system than us is very telling. Well done to Brownie for bringing this us to our attention.

Gregg, a judge will review the case every week – and we all know what judges are like – and then they have to inform parliament to extend it, plus the said person will get compensation if they are let off.

It’s win, win all round.

True to form, Brownie lists some of the Labour rebels to make the “usual suspects” argument and denigrate them. That’s classic Labour Party behaviour.

No more than it is for your ilk to highlight MPs who supported the government. There’s nothing classic about it.

Well that’s fine for you, but the pragmatists have to sit down a take a good look at the matter.

Yes, and if you take good look at the matter you discover adequate powers already exists. Then, assuming you are a liberal, you reject the proposal on the grounds that you don’t hand hand over more coercive powers unless absolutely needed. Alternatively, if you actually agree with handing over more coercive powers to the state, or simply take a lazy “trust the govt” attitude, you may have another view.

The Benji strategy for everything is to say “mildly social democratic”….”old English law”…..”libertarian”… “classic Nulab”….garble, garble.

No more than it is for your ilk to highlight MPs who supported the government.

Well, I don’t.

if you actually agree with handing over more coercive powers to the state, or simply take a lazy “trust the govt” attitude, you may have another view.

Your termonology reveals you see in this highly ideological terms. You’re not looking at the issue and coming to a judgement, you just don’t want to “hand over more coercive powers to the state”, i.e the state is bad and can’t have more powers no matter what – because it’s bad.

You ideologues can go nuts about this, but us pragmatists must look at the issue on its merits.

Sorry about that.

As I said earlier, good to see Jon Cruddas did not join the rebels.

Gregg, a judge will review the case every week – and we all know what judges are like

Fascistic bastards, in my experience.

FWIW, I supported the extension to 14 days in 2003. Neither the government nor the police have ever explained why that extension was not enough and have continued to put forward the same case they made then as justification for greater extentions. Being detained for two weeks would not destroy someone’s life (whereas someone emerging from 28 or 42 days detention is likely to find they no longer have a job, possibly not a home either). Balancing the very real concerns about security (and that includes the ability to gather intelligence, which may be harmed by this extension) with both principles of liberty and concrete issues about the impact of detention on the innocent, 14 days is justifiable in exceptional circumstances. Longer than that is not.

The question now, of course, is what the next extension will be, and when. Will Brown try for the 90 days that Blair was defeated on, or another intermediate step (60, perhaps), or will he try to go further, perhaps a full year? Will he take the apparent popularity of this in the polls as a cue to do it in the run-up to the next general election, or will fear of a damaging loss in the Commons convince him to leave it until afterwards?

Let’s be clear: Brownie made the comparison with Germany to try to make the 42 days thing look better, using Germany as a poorer example. I would agree that Germany is in some ways a more liberal country than the UK, but Brownie’s comparison is problematic, not least because the English and German legal systems are very different.

Greg, there you go with the fearmongering again.

Much as we’d like to see it extended further, this is clearly the end of this. The government has got its way and that is that. You’ll remember it didn’t get its way before. This is the number that they finally came to – finish.

Benji, it’s Brownie’s point that it’s dishonest for people opposing 42 days to make direct comparisons with other countries because in reality they hold people for long periods of time as well under different laws. That’s precisely his point that they have a different legal system.

Fascistic bastards, in my experience.

You know this is baloney. Just think of all the cases where judges have ruled against the government in recent years.

Much as we’d like to see it extended further,

How far would be enough for you, Mikey?

this is clearly the end of this. The government has got its way and that is that. You’ll remember it didn’t get its way before. This is the number that they finally came to – finish.

That’s what was said after the extensions to 14 days in 2003 and 28 days in 2005.

And, of course, the government hasn’t completely got its way. It still hasn’t got the 90 days it wanted in 2005. It hasn’t even managed the 56 days that Brown wanted when he started this. There will be another push for another extension. It’s like boiling a frog.

Sorry, Mike. Is there a Mikey who posts here?

Actually, you spelt my name wrongly above, so bollocks.

We will not stop until you are behind bars, Greg.

The Liberty video with comparison to other countries, including comparable ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA-cUpLa-aE&

28 times Canada, and 4 times Turkey – and that’s at 28 days.

How did Galloway vote?

Benji, I thought we’d already established that other countries have different legal systems therefore there are no direct comparisons. You’re all over the place.

The person who was arrested in the youtube clip is precisely why we need 42 days. Next time he can be interrogated until he confesses and will not escape justice.

Nobody is above the law.

Wow, Lord Carlile completely demolished James Naughty on the Today programme.

Lord Goldsmith’s desperate attempts to salvage his reputation with the liberal lawyer crowd because of the Iraq legal advice thing was left looking pretty transparent.

Benji, I thought we’d already established that other countries have different legal systems therefore there are no direct comparisons. You’re all over the place.

You do know that some legal systems are more comparable to the UK’s and some are not? Germany actually uses a considerably different legal system to the UK’s, whereas Canada (with the exception of Quebec) is closer to the UK’s. Also, the US system is based on English common law (apart from in Louisiana).

The examples I gave were Canada (English common law) and Turkey (civil); both allow detention without charge periods at a fraction of the length of the UK’s. There are many other such examples – including that of the USA.

Assuming that people don’t actually want to lock folk up for longer periods without charge, then you have to ask the question as to why the UK government feels its so necessary to be so out of step with other democracies.

The 10p tax furore wasn’t about people paying a new starting rate for income tax; the 42-day pre-charge detention is not about the extension of government powers to hold terrorist suspects without charge. These are synthetic controveries spun from virtual issues. They represent the shadow cast by power in an age of consensus politics. An adversarial political system must have conflict; the heat generated by partisan political conflict has to find a site for its release. And so, like the United States and the Soviet Union in 1970’s and 1980’s, we get proxy wars – conflicts purporting to be about one thing (social justice; the liberty of the individual) which ultimately are about something else altogether.

Read my blog, just who the hell are we?, at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

Again this is dishonest. In the US I believe you can question people after they are charged. Nations like Germany, Italy and France hold people for longer under different laws. To make comparisons in this way goes against what you said earlier. It seems you want to have your cake and eat it.

Nevertheless, most terror analysts agree that Britain is of greatest risk from terrorism than any other western nation due to our links with Pakistan.

Remember that, outside of the training camps in Pakistan, Britain was the terror centre of the world until very recently. Plots have already been stopped that would have killed thousands here and around the globe.

Ultimately it shouldn’t matter what other countries do – we have our own legal system based on principles which go back centuries and we also have a long and proud tradition of people fighting to establish and preserve civil liberties. I’m against extended detention without charge because it violates these principles not because it makes us worse than other countries.

42 days may start to repair our reputation.

Andrew, it’s important that we send a signal not just to the terrorists but also to the world that we are interested in protecting people’s civil liberties on public transport and other public places.

As Lord Carlile said on the media this morning, people have gotten this civil liberties thing all backwards.

Mike,

We don’t have to send any kind of message to the world. The message I would like to send to the terrorists is that whatever you do you will not force us to abandon our basic freedoms. And its perfectly possible to be interested in protecting people against terrorism but still oppose this kind of measure.

We don’t have to send any kind of message to the world.

You sound like Bush. No I believe we need to show our international partners that we’ve changed our ways.

Changed our ways?

See post @8:53 am

8:50 sorry.

….. and yet has authored at least two posts supporting the govt line.

Nope. He’s authored at least 2 posts criticisng the paucity of the opposing arguments in some quarters. You can add “learn to read” to your list of things to do this weekend.

Its kind of amusing that Brownie’s first argument in comments to justify this measure is to point to Germany to say at least their system is worse!

Quelle suprise, you’re wrong again. I was responding specifically to the “Britian is more draconian than anyone else” line being peddled at the head of the thread and by some news broadcasters. I was making the point that we’re not comparing apples and apples. But I’m glad to see that people are now acknowledging that other countries deal with their threats in ways that have wider implications for civil liberties than anything this government is proposing.

True to form, Brownie lists some of the Labour rebels to make the “usual suspects” argument and denigrate them.

No. Brownie listed the usual suspect rebels to make the point that not every single vote against the government last night was a vote of conscience. There was opposition for opposition sake from both within the Labour party and on the opposition benches. Of course, the same can be said of at least some of the support the government enjoyed last night, but whilst the latter is seized on by all those opposing 42 days (vide supposed deals with the DUP) the same people seem to have a blind spot as regards the former. I was helpfully pointing out the hypocrisy.

Let’s be clear: Brownie made the comparison with Germany to try to make the 42 days thing look better, using Germany as a poorer example. I would agree that Germany is in some ways a more liberal country than the UK, but Brownie’s comparison is problematic, not least because the English and German legal systems are very different.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging. It is my point – not the point of my debating partners – that Germany and Britain have different systems and tackle their respective threats in different ways. Which is precisely why it is wholly disingenuous of anyone to compare Britain’s 42-day detention without charge with other European states, many of which go in for early charge but extended periods of detention that include extensive post-charge questioning, lower thresholds of evidence to keep suspects locked up and judicial reviews as far apart as six months!

My suggestion that people look at Germany and France is not an argument for 42 days, but it is an argument against those who are trying to paint Brown’s Britain as an authoritarian state sans pareil.

Why do you insist on trying to lock horns with me, Benji? Mice stay away from cats, rabbits keep out of the way of foxes, but you appear to have some masochistic urge to have me demolish your arguments every other day. Truly, it mystifies me.

Mike,

You seem to be suggesting that there have been a uniquely large number of terrorist plots in this country over the last few years and that this is because our laws are “weak” and therefore we somehow have some kind of moral culpability for these plots. Therefore we need to have “tough” legislation to prove that we are not kind of soft touch.

Is that really your argument?

OT
Scary.

I’ve just read a piece by Seumas Milne with which I am in broad agreement

(the first commenter on the thread there makes the same observation: so I’m not alone)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/ireland.eu

Ultimately it shouldn’t matter what other countries do

Which papers do you read? Which programs do you watch? Do you accept that supposedly unfavourable comparisons with other developed countries have been a cornerstone of opposition argument throughout?

Mice stay away from cats, rabbits keep out of the way of foxes, but you appear to have some masochistic urge to have me demolish your arguments every other day.

Not always. Cerebral infection by toxoplasmosis is known to induce behavioural changes. Mice, in particular, have been known to seek out cats.

You think I’m joking?

The Liberty video with comparison to other countries, including comparable ones.

It could only be Benji.

Cerebral infection by toxoplasmosis is known to induce behavioural changes.

Then you’ve solved the mystery, Alec. Benji has been eating cat shit.

The Liberty video with comparison to other countries, including comparable ones.

Last season David Pleat said that Cristiano Ronaldo had often been compared to the incomparable George Best.

The Guardian article is very good. It makes the case positively by meeting criticism head on with reference to the facts. Rather than trying to create an unequal burden of proof on those who oppose the legislation and painting them as moral cretins.

There is one factual problem with it, though. The evidence for the charges on the 27th and 28th days was obtained on the 4th and the 12th. So this does not support the claim that 28 days is needed, let alone that longer is needed.

dirigilbe,

And I concede that it’s pretty pathetic the government was seemingly incapable of crafting this argument for themselves (although I do have some sympathy with the thought that this level of detail does not always have the impact on public opinion that you’d hope it did).

On the evidence thing, you have to remember that the scope for post-charge questioning is limited and we have all sorts of rules about when evidence must be shared with the defence, etc.. The crucial pieces of evidence in both cases might well have been discovered early on during detention, but clearly the polcie were not convinced they had attained the required level of evidence to support charges, or at least be certain the DPP would agree with their assessment.* Weren’t 3 people detained until 28 days subseqeuntly released without charge and/or had their charges dropped? I’m not suggesting this is proof that >28 days is needed today, btw.

*I’m working on the premise that, given how stretched and under-resourced the police and security services are in their battle against homegrown terrorism, they will not string out investigations and tie up resources unnecessarily.

The most ironic thing about this is that, for those who really believe there is a civil liberties issue here, is that the earliest this law is likely to be repealed is when a Tory government is elected.

Of course I suspect that it is quite likely they won’t repeal it.

If you want to tear up the way parliament opearates becuase tonight’s vote went against you, then just say so. Alternatively, wait for an unelected upper house to save our democracy for you.

So to criticise the disgraceful way this bankrupt Prime Minister won this vote means one is effectively against Parliamentary democracy? This is bullshit and I was going to add, “and you know this, Brownie” – but actually I don’t think you do. Because of the narrowness of this vote, the fact that it was won only with the help of rightwing votes from without the party, the fact that much of the substance was filleted from the proposals anyway, mean that this atrocious measure is unlikely to make it to the statute books. What is the point of criticising the unelected second chamber? It’s part of Parliament after all. You’ve been too busy worshipping Blair for the least ten years that it seems to have escaped your attention that the second chamber is the way it is because New Labour failed to carry out the promises it made to reform it. This leaves us with a proposal that if it becomes law will have done so on the back of DUP votes and by invoking the Parliament Act, which brings me to this sort of thing:

“This is a great day. Just rejoice.

I’m getting a 42 days tatoo.”

Rejoice indeed! Where are you getting the tattoo, then – on your forehead? Or would that be too mental even for you?
Do you accept that supposedly unfavourable comparisons with other developed countries have been a cornerstone of opposition argument throughout?

Brownie, has it really escaped your attention that at least some of the criticism comes from people making unfavourable comparisons with the best traditions of British liberty?

So, you don’t care much about the issue, and speculate that people who do and oppose it are just opposing for the sake of it – sour grapes. No real thoughts about the motivations of those who voted for it, either.

Not much of a political analysis, your piece, is it? Why not find your forte and try covering celebrity cosmetics or Big Brother?

Shuggy,

You either accept that there were people in both the “aye” and “nay” lobbies for less than sincere reasons or you don’t. You’re too clever to believe the latter, so complaining about the government’s reliance on this MP or that party comes across as hypocrticial bleating from a sore loser. How many right-wing votes are included in the 306 who opposed?

I’m an advocate of proportional representation and I’ve always supported reform of the upper chamber which I believe should be 100% elected. I’ve criticised Blair about this in the past. But we we where we are and the idea that it’s only the government that works the current system is deluded nonsense.

BTW, my only problem with the parliament act is that it should ever need to be invoked at all. People who criticise use of this act kinda miss the wider point, in my view.

Brownie, has it really escaped your attention that at least some of the criticism comes from people making unfavourable comparisons with the best traditions of British liberty?

No, it hasn’t. It really hasn’t. Why should this disbar me from criticising the disingenuousness of those pretending that the British government is advocating a law that would make us the most illiberal and authoritarian of western democracies?

Why do you insist on trying to lock horns with me, Benji? Mice stay away from cats, rabbits keep out of the way of foxes, but you appear to have some masochistic urge to have me demolish your arguments every other day. Truly, it mystifies me.

Ah, an online egotist breast beater. How original. Yes, Brownie, you are Tarzan in you tiny corner of the cyber jungle. A big fish in a very, very small pond.

technomist,

Feel free to read my comments before making your own.

And what’s wrong with Big Brother? Are you one of those intellectual snobs who watches only costume dramas acted by dames?

Do you accept that supposedly unfavourable comparisons with other developed countries have been a cornerstone of opposition argument throughout?

I certainly accept that it has been a part of their argument, although I wouldn’t neccessarily say the cornerstone. It’s never been my argument though and I think others have placed too much emphasis on it.

As regards Germany, you proved my point. You cited a country that is allegedly more draconian than the UK, to support the British measure. It’s not a positive argument. In itself it is a weak argument. Yes, you have spent two posts berating opposition arguments, even though you apparently don’t feel strongly on the issue. No positive arguments.

Ah, an online egotist breast beater. How original. Yes, Brownie, you are Tarzan in you tiny corner of the cyber jungle. A big fish in a very, very small pond.

You made four consecutive comments mentioning me by name before any reply from me. The obsession is yours and such is its hold on you that you persist in your efforts even whilst receiving an intellectual hiding.

Run along and compare the comparable somewhere, there’s a good chap.

Andrew,

Fair enough.

Benji,

As regards Germany, you proved my point.

I guess that depends on which solar system you inhabit.

You come across as an unpleasant egotist Brownie. What is probably true though is that you are probably not like that in real life. The internet is a strange thing. Give a man a keyboard, anonymity, and strong coffee and he appears very different from what he really is. There are probably several theses to be written on the subject of distorted communication on the internet! :-)

I remember having rather strained debates with a chap on the net a few years back. Really quite unpleasant at times. However, I wound up meeting the guy at an event and he couldn’t have been nicer and more amiable.

Benji,

I have no doubt that, in real life, you are nothing like the tedious, contrarian, obsessive dunderhead you appear online.

Can anyone, with the aid of 3 or 4 bullet points, explain exactly why we need this ‘42 days’ law? Why do the police need 6 weeks to come up with a charge?

Goldsmith was just on the TV and he made a good point which hadn’t occured to me (stupid of me I know). How can the commons realistically independently evaluate individual cases without reviewing the evidence, evidence that probably cannot be made public?

Wekk said Shuggy. What a repellent bunch of people the rest of you are.

Brett,

One reason is the nature of the crime being tackled. The police are detaining suspects earlier in the investigation cycle, before they acquired the level of evidence that would normally justify an arrest and detention.

Conspiracy to commit armed robbery is not a misdemeanour, but the chances are that the police can operate in the background keeping suspects under surveillance, building the evidence without risking the deaths of a few dozen civilians in an atrocity. If you’re dealing with potential/suspected suicide terrorism, you simply don’t have the same luxury.

So it’s not only the fact that the police are often facing a daunting task of having to collate evidence spread across the globe (with all the problems this gives: language issues, different legal systems, etc.), they actually start the post-arrest process with a handicap.

In 2004, the security services investigated Dhiren Barot, a key conspirator in an al Qaida plot.

The case led to the seizure of 270 computers, 2,000 computer discs and a total of 8,224 items. Police inquiries took place in the US, Pakistan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, France, Spain and Sweden.

Take a look at the Hindle article linked to in the post.

Apparently, compensation for those held >28 days could be as high as 3 grand a day.

I’d like to put my name forward as the first citizen to be detained for 42 days.

Political bombshell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

“I’d like to put my name forward as the first citizen to be detained for 42 days.”

Puke

Can someone explain why a Conservative shadow minister is resigning over this?

Apparently he wants to trigger a byelection over 42 days, where he stands again.

He does not have the backing of David Cameron.

Is this the most vein decision in political history? Rather ironically he says he is doing it because 42 days is a political decision.

The cavalry has come for Gordon.

Yeah, I realised that, but what’s the point? I don’t see what he, or anyone else in his party can gain from this. It just makes him look a bit weird.

Nick Robinson says it’s the new Blair and Brown type warfare that dogged Labour for so many years.

Davis has generally been excellent on this issue but he’s being an idiot here.

The problems with trying to make the byelection a referendum on 42 days detention are

1. The public seems to side with the government on this issue so he’ll most likely lose and hand the government a huge progaganda victory.
2. Even if he wins he can’t prove that people were really voting on that particular issue or that his constituency is representative of the country as a whole.

Good points Andrew.

Maybe worth re-posting on the Davis thread at the top of the page.

Brownie. Can you provide a scenario where the reasonable suspicion which justifies a 42-day detention is not preceisely the same information that could support a provisional charge of conspiracy?

Brett,

I don’t get it. Are you saying you simply can’t envisage a situation whereby the police and security services are convicned they have their man on the basis of what they have discovered to date, are actively pursuing lines of enquiry but are still coming up short on evidence to justify a charge? My guess is this sort of situation pertains somewhere in the country every day we wake up, both in the matter of investigations into suspected terror offences and other crimes.

What’s being done here is to increase the time the authorities have to acquire such evidence for the reasons listed above, most of which are related to the complex nature of the investigations needed to unravel international terror plots.

I can understand and respect a view that increasing to 42 days upsets the balance between protecting the public and defending civil liberties, but I don’t understnad why you can’t ever imagine this sort of situation arising?

You also need to be careful about the legal implications of laying early charges that could prejudice your investigation into the more serious matters. The are limits on the scope for post-charge questioning in this country and when evidence must be shared with the defence, and once charged are laid it is incumbent on the authorities to bring a suspect to court within a “reasonable” period which, again, can have dramatic consequences for the wider investigation.

Hindle deals with some of this in his article.

Brownie. If the person is in detention (and thus removed from circulation), logically, what further evidence to confirm the police’s suspicions could come to light? Everything they could and would have done would have to have been done before they were detained, which, in order to have a reasonable suspicion to detain them in the first place, the police would have to have known about. Is it not possible to upgrade charges as more come to light?

Still, this is all theory. I’d like an example – even a hypothetical one – that sketches out a timeline.

If the person is in detention (and thus removed from circulation), logically, what further evidence to confirm the police’s suspicions could come to light?

I must be misunderstnading you. I hope I am. Becasue the answer is “just about anything”.

Everything they could and would have done would have to have been done before they were detained, which, in order to have a reasonable suspicion to detain them in the first place, the police would have to have known about.

I think you’re missing the point that there’s a difference between the burden of proof to justify arrest and that required to lay charges. I’m not a legal expert (no, really I’m not), but I think it’s roughly the difference between a reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed and a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. So police can arrest on the basis of the former and continue to investigate until they’re happy they’ve reached the latter.

It’s why not all arrests are immediately followed by charges, whether we’re talking about terrorism or the brick put through the newsagent’s window.

“It’s why not all arrests are immediately followed by charges, whether we’re talking about terrorism or the brick put through the newsagent’s window.”

No argument there. But why do they need 6 weeks for terrrorism? Why not 4 weeks or 9 weeks? I want to see a timeline of a typical investigation.

Oh, and I don’t buy the argument that some investigations have taken right up tothe 11th hour to complete. When I was a kid, instead of getting it done when I got home from school on Friday afternoon, I always left my homework until Sunday evening, and then I’d have to rush. That wasn’t an argument for longer weekends.

Oh, and I don’t buy the argument that some investigations have taken right up tothe 11th hour to complete. When I was a kid, instead of getting it done when I got home from school on Friday afternoon, I always left my homework until Sunday evening, and then I’d have to rush. That wasn’t an argument for longer weekends.

Is your point that the police have been out clubbing and watching re-runs of “Allo Allo” when they should have been investigating international terror conspiracies? I think your analogy needs some work. The police, Mi5/6 are under-resourced and, if reports are to be believed, close to breaking point specifically becuase of the amount of manpower needed to pursue terror suspects and collect evidence. The idea that they would sit on investigations, stringing them out unnecessarily is too preposterous for words.

You left your homework to the last minute because you could, not because you had to.

But why do they need 6 weeks for terrrorism? Why not 4 weeks or 9 weeks? I want to see a timeline of a typical investigation.

Leaving aside the fact that your questions apply whether the limit is 2, 4 or 6 weeks, I’d suggest there is no such thing as a “typical investigation”. So long as you understand that there will be a difference between investigating a 21st century terror conspiracy and following up a tip-off that the local offy is to be done over this Friday, it’s then just a question of where we draw the line. And I’ve already said that I resepct the view of those who come to the conclusion that 42 days takes us past where we ought to be. I can’t, however, fathom why some people find it impossible to even envisage the sort of scenario that might lead to 42 days being necessary.

“28 times Canada, and 4 times Turkey – and that’s at 28 days.”

China’s maximum period of pre-charge detention is 37 days, and now we have overtaken it yay!!!

What is with the ferocity of attacks on Benji. I mean I can understand why people hate me, but Benji seems quite polite in comparison. Perhaps you hate him because he proves you wrong most of the time, and spoils Mike and Brownie’s crazy celebrations of the Nu Labour’s ‘victory’ in parliament. It seems like the battle of the bulge to me LOL.

Tagnuzlsx, how old are you?

Conor, I see you are again trying to jump to the top of the moral high ground. It doesn’t work like that. You have to come with an argument. As with the “progressive” verdict on the SA government yesterday, you just chuck in untested assertions, not to mention self-righteous denunciation and blah blah blah.

Why dont we just do what the Saudis do or the Syrians?, After all the people most at risk of detention are muslims so they should be happy to be treated like their muslim brothers are treated by other muslim brothers.

I mean I can understand why people hate me, but Benji seems quite polite in comparison.

I don’t think anybody hates you “Tagnuzlsx”. I think the general reaction is more a kind of open mouthed gawping pity at your obsessive stupidity.

Another person with nothing to say makes inept attempts at insulting me. Go play with Raul and Paul.