Brown Wins 42 Day Terror Detention Vote

[immortalpuppet]

I still stand by the statment that if the police are running after you then dont run off. dress it up as much as you want and show me all the links in the world but what it all boils down to is that he was being chased by armed police and he carried on running.

[jimbms]

I still stand by the statment that if the police are running after you then dont run off. dress it up as much as you want and show me all the links in the world but what it all boils down to is that he was being chased by armed police and he carried on running.

I fully agree, what you have to remember is no matter what cockups occured at high level in situations such as these the police/troops on the ground are a group of highly trained individuals who at the time of a situation are so keyed up when an incident occurs training and instinct takes over there is no time for thought, he was told to stop he didn't they reacted to a situation that he may be about to trigger a device and neutralised the situation with speed. A similar situation can be show with the case of private Clegg in the paras in NI a car crashed through a checkpoint at speed, standing orders at the time was to open fire on any such vehicle, a soldier is trained in a way that once he has aquired a target he follows it and fires until the target is neutralised, this he did, the fact the target had passed him and he was firing at the rear would not have registered, to him it was just a target the position did not matter. His prosecution rested on the fact he fired at the target from behind and hit the girl, the appeal rightly found he was not guilty by the fact the joy riders failed to stop just presenting thierselves as a legitimate target and he only acted upon his training and instinct.

[triskelion]

I see that David Davies has now resigned over this.....

Blimey! At last some honour, integrity and some decency in British Politics coming to the fore. BBC News.

 

"Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who also voted against 42 day detention, said his party would not be fielding a candidate in the by-election, after speaking to Mr Davis.".

 

If Labour don't field a candidate either, nothing much will change though I suspect, but at least it makes for an interesting approach. Labour won't be happy it seems until they get half of British Joe Public angry enough and out on the streets.

Oh come on Albert, I know optimism is a rare experience for you, but this is obviously a stunt. He sits in a safe Conservative seat at a time when Labour are low in the polls. As has already been said, he's going to win this by-election because he almost can't lose and then CLAIM it was about 42-days.

 

"Honour, integrity and some decency" are all very well, but what about Ancient Greek democracy that you always harp on about? This is a measure supported by the majority of the UK electorate.

[Cronky]

David Davis has done exactly the right thing standing up for civil liberties in UK. At least someone in British politics has a spine. The erosion of civil liberites in the UK is appaling. Good for him.

[P.K.]

what you have to remember is no matter what cockups occured at high level in situations such as these the police/troops on the ground are a group of highly trained individuals who at the time of a situation are so keyed up when an incident occurs training and instinct takes over there is no time for thought

True. In my experience the training makes your reactions instinctive. Because to hesitate puts yourself and your mates at risk which is unacceptable.

 

I still stand by the statment that if the police are running after you then dont run off. dress it up as much as you want and show me all the links in the world but what it all boils down to is that he was being chased by armed police and he carried on running.

I'm not sure that's true. Witnesses saw folks vaulting the barriers at a run but it turns out they were the Mets finest. The report I saw on the box, reliant on their research and interpretation of the inquest of course, stated that Menezes was sitting on the train with two un-armed officers watching him. Three or four armed officers walked into the carriage at which time Menezes' arms were then instantly pinioned to his sides, presumably to prevent him detonating "his device", while one officer fired umpteen shots into his head while another fired one round which went somewhere. This is apparently the actions as recommended by the Israelis to deal with suicide bombers.

 

The whole thing was ultimately down to a failure in intelligence. But then intelligence is never perfect. It's unlucky for Menezes, wrong place wrong time, but ultimately successfully dealing with a terrorist threat will always start with intel which is a slow and painful process - hence the 42-day legislation to give time to bring it all together.

[Albert Tatlock]

The whole thing was ultimately down to a failure in intelligence. But then intelligence is never perfect. It's unlucky for Menezes, wrong place wrong time, but ultimately successfully dealing with a terrorist threat will always start with intel which is a slow and painful process - hence the 42-day legislation to give time to bring it all together.

Though the 42-day legislation, along with ID cards, would have been completely ineffective on the day. 'Wrong-place wrong-time' is not the correct way to describe institutional failures that many of the public consider were not investigated or brought to account properly.

[Albert Tatlock]

Oh come on Albert, I know optimism is a rare experience for you, but this is obviously a stunt. He sits in a safe Conservative seat at a time when Labour are low in the polls. As has already been said, he's going to win this by-election because he almost can't lose and then CLAIM it was about 42-days.

 

"Honour, integrity and some decency" are all very well, but what about Ancient Greek democracy that you always harp on about? This is a measure supported by the majority of the UK electorate.

It is not just one issue - that's why I support the stand.

In his resignation statement, Mr Davis said he feared 42 days was just the beginning and next "we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days". But, he added: "In truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms. "This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand," said Mr Davis.

 

What is a 'stunt' is that "The Sun" newspaper, the very headquarters of dumbocratic Britain, are threatening to stand: "Mr MacKenzie told the BBC earlier there were two reasons for running: "One is that the Sun is very, very hostile to David Davis because of his 28-day stand, and the Sun has always been up for 42 days, or perhaps even 420 days, frankly.".

 

Don't forget "The Sun" in reality in this case is an owner and an editor.

 

This debate is not happening in public under Labour. If this by-election offers the chance for the public to have their say over these issues, for the debate to get more attention, then I'm for it and admire the stand. Once again though, it is not based on just the 42-day legislation - though off course already opponents are focussing on that one issue claiming it has overall public support, and seemingly ignoring the ID card and CCTV surveillance etc.

 

BTW I don't vote conservative and never have.

[Chinahand]

I think Davies is raising important issues - I slightly wonder about his tactics.

 

It looks like NuLabour will simply not play by his rules and make him out to be the one desperate to get his views accepted by the public. If this ends up in a circus with the Sun being the ring master Davies has seriously miscalculated.

 

The problem for me is that if you ask should a suspected terrorist be held to stop them committing an offence most people are going to say yes.

 

But if you ask should innocent people simply due to their religion or innocent association with others be siezed by the state and held for upto 42 days on the say so of the security services - well I hope most people would say no.

 

Which of these two ways to spin the question is closer to the truth? I worry that the attitude of the government has become - in these matters it doesn't matter if the innocent are caught up in it, the risks are worth the loss of civil liberties.

 

I am concerned by that - Islamic terrorism is being made out to be an existential threat to our way of life - to such an extent that we have to give up some of the rights which have made our way of life so special. That is an exaggeration. You can't do double blind experiments on life, but I do not see the world being hugely different if we didn't have these powers. I think it is unlikely that their would be significantly more terrorist outrages if we didn't have them and there is the risk that if these powers are used stupidly they could further alienate and make the situation worse.

 

We've had quite a few debates about the surveillance society on the Forums - they tend to split into two camps - those who say technological change is benign and we should use these techniques to make us safer; and those who feel that there are too many risks of government etc using this data in ways which the individual has not given their permission, and which will affect their lives.

 

I'm sceptical of surveillance society - its an excuse - and the end result will be more government interference in our lives.

[Albert Tatlock]

I think Davies is raising important issues - I slightly wonder about his tactics.

 

It looks like NuLabour will simply not play by his rules and make him out to be the one desperate to get his views accepted by the public. If this ends up in a circus with the Sun being the ring master Davies has seriously miscalculated.

 

The problem for me is that if you ask should a suspected terrorist be held to stop them committing an offence most people are going to say yes.

 

But if you ask should innocent people simply due to their religion or innocent association with others be siezed by the state and held for upto 42 days on the say so of the security services - well I hope most people would say no.

 

Which of these two ways to spin the question is closer to the truth? I worry that the attitude of the government has become - in these matters it doesn't matter if the innocent are caught up in it, the risks are worth the loss of civil liberties.

I too worry about his tactics. He'll have to get his case explained clearly, and not let the 'opposition' take the high ground by spinning the question/issues. Again, this is about far more than just 42 days pre-charge detention - it is about ID cards, CCTV, 1 million (mostly innocent) people on DNA databases, habeous corpus and magna carta etc. etc.

 

Interestingly, the views from some newspapers, the current Joe Public 'opinion formers' seem to be:

 

The Independent (supportive):

The liberal principles articulated by David Davis in his resignation speech outside the House of Commons yesterday might have been extracted from an editorial in this very newspaper. So it will come as no surprise to readers that we agree wholeheartedly with the trenchant opposition of the MP for Haltemprice and Howden to “the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms” that has taken place in recent years.

 

Mr Davis’s criticisms of the growth of CCTV surveillance, the DNA database and the Government’s plans to set up a national ID card scheme are all absolutely justified. So is his disgust at the Government’s extension of the permitted period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects, which was whipped through the Commons this week. The latest Criminal Justice Bill is indeed a “monstrosity”, as Mr Davis put it.

 

Daily Mail (supportive though suspect of tactics):

He painted a picture of an Orwellian world of CCTV cameras on every street corner, a DNA database containing the details of one million innocent people, the introduction of ID cards, and council snoopers routinely using anti-terror powers.

 

Let it be said immediately the Mail applauds everything Mr Davis says. We have campaigned against all of the causes he has highlighted, and he deserves great credit for the consistency with which he has argued his case over the past two years.

 

But what of the wisdom of his decision to force such a by-election, rather than continue his admirable fight against Big Brother from the Opposition benches?

 

The Guardian (on the fence):

He is right on ID cards, but only on the basis of an excessively sweeping mistrust of the state. The liberty he is concerned with is, almost exclusively, liberty from official interference. There is little place in this conception for freedom from destitution, for example, which only the state can provide. There is also a strongly patriotic dimension, baffling to those who see rights as universal. Mr Davis’s defence of the age-old liberties of English common law, such as habeas corpus, is impressive, but his past disdain for the Human Rights Act sits strangely with that. The European convention which that act codifies may not be exclusively English, but it will provide the only legal basis for a challenge if 42 days becomes law. Another convention right is that to life. Liberals who see that as the most basic freedom will be uncomfortable with Mr Davis’s personal support for the death penalty.

 

A braver Labour party, prepared to speak up for liberty, might have welcomed the chance to debate rival conceptions of it. But true to the form that led it to grubby triumph on 42 days, the government has walked away from the fight. When it finished a distant third in Mr Davis’s seat last time round, Labour was in no position to mount a credible challenge, and therefore the decision, though disappointing, is unsurprising. It ensures that there will be little effect on the dynamics of competition between the parties. Within the Tory party the immediate effect is confusion, and by sacrificing his frontbench role Mr Davis could weaken his hand.

 

The Daily Telegraph (seemingly supportive, though suspect of tactics) :

Yet it is now evident that Wednesday night’s vote on detaining terror suspects without trial for 42 days finally tipped him over the edge. It clearly does not matter to Mr Davis that the House of Lords looks certain to reverse the decision and that the legislation may never reach the statute book. In his eyes, it represented an unacceptable new low for a government that has made us one of the most spied- upon and fettered societies in the Western world (with ID cards yet to come). For such a seasoned and effective parliamentarian to judge that he can only get his message across by taking the battle away from Westminster is sad testimony to the way in which the House of Commons has been marginalised.

 

But it is also a mistake. It has enabled Labour and its cheerleaders to depict the Davis resignation in the hackneyed language of splits and rows that are, of course, so poisonous to a political party, even one riding as high as the Tories are today. Mr Davis wanted to embarrass the Labour Party, but has failed. The only embarrassment thus far is to his own party.

 

The Times (against - sister rag of the Sun):

The Liberal Democrats’ decision not to field a candidate against Mr Davis makes his return to the House of Commons almost inevitable. It also creates the outlines of an unofficial Tory-Liberal Democrat alliance on civil liberties. But David Cameron suddenly has more pressing matters on his mind. His task since the Conservatives’ thumping local election victories last month has been to erase lingering perceptions of his party as the permanent Opposition and recast it as a government-in-waiting. He had been doing well. Until Wednesday night, the party had not looked so disciplined since Thatcherism’s heyday. But he was powerless to stop Mr Davis, who will soon cast a brooding and divisive shadow from the backbenches.

 

The Sun (against - rag):

This was no noble cause. It was a shabby act of treachery.

[bluemonday]

I am concerned by that - Islamic terrorism is being made out to be an existential threat to our way of life - to such an extent that we have to give up some of the rights which have made our way of life so special. That is an exaggeration.

Agreed, there's now the culture of fighting terrorism as the excuse for any ill conceived measure regardless of the effectiveness, perceived or other.

 

Added to a sheeplike /willingness/determination to agree to anything and an almost pathological fear of terrorists cultured by interested parties.

As an exercise in inducing moral panic, it is a great success.

 

It's efficiacy as a solution needs to be questioned strongly.

 

Terrorists?

 

The name provokes genuine fear far too easily.

 

And as a result, we loose rights bought by countless people with their blood.

 

The man hiding in a cave must be delighted............

[thebees]

What man hiding in a cave? The boogey man?

[Albert Tatlock]

What man hiding in a cave? The boogey man?

Osama-Bin-Missing - since 2001.

[VinnieK]

I think Davies is raising important issues - I slightly wonder about his tactics.

 

It looks like NuLabour will simply not play by his rules and make him out to be the one desperate to get his views accepted by the public. If this ends up in a circus with the Sun being the ring master Davies has seriously miscalculated.

 

I don't know, it's possible that the Sun itself may have miscalculated as a lot of people seem, rightly or wrongly, to be impressed by Davies actions and don't seem to be too influenced by the news coverage.

 

Speaking of which, the BBC seems to have been broadly favourable towards the government in its coverage. For the past couple of days, News 24 has been a lot more aggressive in its questioning of those opposed to the 42 day limit than it has its supporters, and its coverage of the Davies affair has been focused on discussing gossip about whether this represents a split with Cameron (in effect providing a basis for Labour's claims of disarray in the Conservative Party).

 

I'm no big fan of the Conservatives, especially with Cameron at the Helm, and I don't know if I'm just getting older and grumpier, but the BBC these days is a lot more biased in its coverage and analysis than I ever remember it to be.

[Mutley]

Interestingly, the views from some newspapers, the current Joe Public 'opinion formers' seem to be:

 

The Independent (supportive):

 

Daily Mail (supportive though suspect of tactics):

 

The Guardian (on the fence):

 

The Daily Telegraph (seemingly supportive, though suspect of tactics) :

 

The Times (against - sister rag of the Sun):

 

The Sun (against - rag):

 

Does any of the media report just the facts these days?

[VinnieK]

Does any of the media report just the facts these days?

 

It's cheaper for them to pilfer their stories from the wire services for the most part and then add some inexpert comment and analysis on top for good measure (in broadcast news there also seems to be a trend of spending time interviewing your own in-house editors to create the impression that genuine journalism is going on, when instead it's simply dividing the effort of reporting between two people).