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

So Davis is being hailed as brave, taking a stand and risking his parliamentary seat. This is complete crap. Davis won his seat by 5000 votes at the last election when the Tories were behind labour in the polls. Labour are now at their lowest ebb and the Tories riding high in the pols. The' risk' to Davis is that in a matter of weeks, the Labour support will recover not just to where it was at the last election, but even higher than that. The chances of that happening are so close to zero that there is no risk to Davis. What a load of bollocks. Hopefully, the Labour party will do the same of the LibDems and not oppose him (which would be pointless) so that the whole thing turns into a farcical embarrassment for the fascist Tory party.

:goodpost:

Having said that though, we have too many MP's who shout off the rooftops - displaying their opposition when it comes to a piece of legislation that is to be put to the Commons, and once it's passed these MP's suddenly disappear and their forthright opinions are then shelved, why? to get back to being bosom buddies with the Party Leader and the whips and to attempt to get that high ranking job, be it in the cabinet or the shadow cabinet. Davis, to his credit I think to an extent, has resigned on principal and has without doubt ruined any hopes he harboured of getting the big gig at the Conservative party.

It's weird I would have thought the "Conservative" Tories would be really up for this policy whilst the more "Liberal" Labour party would be against it.

BNP are also against it as well.

The stunt is a bit stupid, there's no way he's going to lose the seat whatever. If Labour take part in the By election they'll just end up looking like bigger fools then they are at the moment.

Labour have said that they won't take part haven't they? :unsure:

Liberal Democrats won't and neither will those scumbags BNP, so it's going to be Davis V someone small, independent and not worthy voting for.


He'll be back, but as a back-bencher.

Also bizarre is Davis going to the polls to 'let the people decide' when in fact the majority of people in the country actually favour the 42 days. Clearly the guy is completely in touch with 'the people'. ;)

Well, if all the non-tory voters vote tactically, he might end up being beaten by the Moster Raving Looney Party. Oh, if only we could be that lucky. :pointandlaugh:

:goodpost:

Totally agree with that.

Well said.

Bravo

Go away.

"Labour has yet to decide."


I don't they'll be stupid enough to accept. It's a no win situation for them. They have no chance of winning the By Election. Even though, I believe the policy is a conservative policy, I believe the voters will still vote for Davies, as he's too high up and too well known to lose.

It's just a publicity stunt by Davies to get some media attention for the next week or so.

to be fair it isn't his fault if labour don't field a candidate and the lib dems aren't posting a candidate as a way of supporting davis's stand not of undermining it

I personally do think things like the 42 day bill are a sign to terrorists that they are winning and rather than standing by our convictions and basic standards we will do whatever it takes, including denying basic liberties, in the name of liberty.

The government is pretty incompetent on the issue, including a minister endorsing focusing more on islam than christianity because, she says, that is where the terrorists come from.

As, for Davis, it's nothing more than a pointless publicity stunt. I think anyway that if the Tories were in power, they would be pushing the same bills through

Well, what do you expect? Most current terrorists claiming a religious angle ARE claming to be muslim and not christian. Do you expect the home secretary to focus on areas where no threat appears?

no, but the government is ignoring Christianity the established Church of this country (yes it is a Christian state, although not a theocracy, and not a secularist state - and that is state, not population)

so what you are saying is what Christians should do is have a few who think terrorism in the name of God is ok if they want the government to listen? great logic! whilst the government is a government of all peoples I don't think it should give preferential treatment based on the threat of terrorism.

Can't you read? I'm not saying christians should do anything. They are irrelevant to the point.

:haha: racist

No but seriously 42 days? Why is it wrong???.

because in a free society that is fighting an ideological war against those who commit or support those who do commit acts of terrorism we should not be surrendering what makes us free. In my view being locked up for 42 days without even a charge needing to be raised is unacceptable.

either that or we should stop pretending we are fighting on the side of liberty.

Not sure where the 'racist' bit comes in? :unsure:

On the 42 days thing - I have not condoned it nor condemned it.

The point I was making was basically that if the main terrorist threat to the UK is from murderers claiming (wrongly, IMHO) to be doing it in the name of Islam, it is not too surprising that the Home Secretary, being responsible for the defence of the people, should focus on those same 'Islamic' extremists. What Christianity has to do with that beats me.

Meanwhile, the 42 day issue....

I have no trouble with, say, a system where a suspect can be kept for longer periods (say renewable at 7 day intervals) where it has to be approved by 3 judges who have been informed why it is necessary, even though the public are not directly informed. On the continent, 3 judges are used to try cases so the legal protection is similar. However, when the politicians are saying that they will vote to decide on individual cases as to whether a person should be detained, that is highly dangerous.

The trial of people is supposed to be kept independent of politicians and that rule is broken at the peril of basic freedoms in this country. Consider, for instance, the Sun, Mirror, Express, Mail and such rags seeing a vote coming up and then putting pressure on MPs that if they do not vote to keep the person in prison, then they are traitors, etc. It just does not bear thinking about.

we should stop pretending we are fighting on the side of liberty

You do that all the time by saying that the war to overthrow Sadam Hussein was done to bring democracy to the Iraqi people and overthrow an evil dictator when it was done by the US with Blair up their arses in order to get Iraqi oil back on the world markets.

I'm in two minds about the 42 day thing.

It does seem a long time to detain someone without charge.

On the other hand the way the system is set up, innocent until proven guilty, makes it necessary sometimes to detain people when there is good reason to believe someone is up to no good but there isn't enough hard evidence to convict them.

One day I'm sure another 7/7 will happen and the people bleating about this will say "well the 42 day law didn't make any difference, did it?", (assuming it becomes law, I think the House of Lords will have something to say about that). what they don't know of course is how many potential 7/7s may have been averted by laws like this.

That is why a specific rule saying '42' days is bollocks. If there is a danger that needs a person to be detained, then they should be detained. It is a question of checks and balances to ensure it is done carefully and fairly. Hence my suggestion that 3 judges can authorise a person to be detained for a week at a time if the specific circumstances require it. However, as I mentioned, the idea that parliament should decide cases as a 'safeguard' would be a highly dangerous move and should be resisted at all cost. Once parliament starts getting direct powers on individual legal cases, we are on a very dangerous path.

I'd buy that, a system where a person's detention is periodically reviewed and more time had to be granted on a rolling basis.

Coney for PM!

I don't think the people who bleat about Civil Liberties begin to understand now many acts of terrorism are averted by the laws they're so against.

Maybe because the parliamentarians are trying to keep control over all aspects for themselves because the judiciary sometimes rule against them. They fail to understand that there need to be checks and balances against their own excesses. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just look at the mods. ;)

I don't think immediate success in a few cases makes the case for a law

for instance if we allowed the police to detain indefinitely any one who had any sympathies for terrorism in this country that would probably prevent a terrorist attack or two but it would also make this a police state without any meaningful basis for calling ourselves a free country.

That's not quite what's being suggested though, is it?

I'm sure if they're going to lock someone up for 42 days there would be a bloody good reason for it. I don't think anyone who's ever typed certain words into Google is going to get carted off. There's too much hysteria about this, for the most part it's not going to make much difference and would only be used in very specific cases.

Someone on the radio said it had to be raised to 42 days to give the authorities time to find the 'evidence' they left on the train.

:clap:

:goodpost:

:haha: Excellent!

This is the 9th time I've read that post and each time I crack up with laughter. Post of the year IMO.

1st time ive read it and didnt get it.

But then i have a sense of humour

Poor joke that was

Maybe you didn't get it because you don't know your Politics?

Yes that would explain it.

As you well know, politics bore the shite out of me

Politics is fantastic - I love it. It is literally everything.

Well let me know if anything interesting happens that effects us.

:sarcy:

They're going to be able to lock you up for 42 days up from now on without charge.

I think it's a good thing.

:dance:

Not long enough... :ilt:

Davis was wrong to stand on this issue.

However at least he does have the balls to go to the public. Which is a darn sight better than the sheep who currently resides at number 10.