 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Blairs first defeat
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Cllr Date: 09 Nov 05 - 01:35 PM I know there are other threads on the subject of this topic but I couldn't resist stating this one as it has a slightly different focus than the specific view on the rights or wrongs of the Bill itself. What do people think is this the start of the end for blair or just a blip in the path of the mighty war machine that is new labour?. Cllr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 09 Nov 05 - 01:39 PM I'm sure the rest of the Blair haters know what you're on about, but any clues for the rest of us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Cllr Date: 09 Nov 05 - 01:52 PM As you well know, oh big and pink, I dont hate anybody, (there are a few people I don't like very much but that's a different story) the serious question behind my remarks is about Blair's political longevity. The loss of one vote may not have serious ramifications or it might single to other ambitious labour politico's that Blair is in a much weakend position. Cllr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:05 PM He's down! And the circling wolves know it's only a matter of time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: mandotim Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:15 PM Blair had already set up his 'default' losing position, as would any shrewd politician. The polls show that there is massive support in the country at large for the 90 day detention without charge, and Blair is in a perfect position to play heavily on that. He is weakened temporarily, but can you imagine how the Labour rebels and the opportunist Tories are going to be portrayed when the next terrorist outrage happens? There will inevitably be another one, from one source or another. There were lots of delicious moments in this debate; Blair defeated when for once actually doing what most of the the people want; Michael Howard, by common consent once the most rabidly right-wing Home Secretary we've ever had, arguing for a more liberal approach to custody and habeas corpus. Great stuff, I might even start taking an interest again. Tim from Bit on the Side |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:40 PM Too bad there isn't any provision under which the Labour MPs get a chance to vote whether they want to keep him as their leader or not. Of course there's nothing to stop him inviting them to do that, the same way John Major did at one point, but I very much doubt if he will - the chances are they'd tell him to step down. If he couldn't get a majority over this, he hasn't a chance of getting a majority on a lot of other isssues. I rather suspect that as that realisation sinks in, we may be told that his health has taken a turn for the worse, necessitating a resignatiion on health grounds, that being the traditional way in such situations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Big Al Whittle Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:40 PM absolutely crazy - if the cops say they wanted it, they should have got it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:43 PM Cllr - My apologies ... I never meant to insinute you hate anyone, gosh forbid! You're one of this forum's best-loved philanthropists ;o) However, for my fellow thickies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: The Shambles Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM Yes whatever The Gestapo said they needed - they tended to get. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:23 PM The incredibly reliable and competent guys who shot Jean Charles de Menenzes? The point is they don't use the powers they have intelligently and appropriately. Asking for more powers and fewer restrictions is just a way of avoiding facing up to the mistakes they have made. And of course they needed to tell Tony Blair what he wanted them to tell him - that's how "intelligence" works with this administration. Here's an article about all this which is worth reading - Don't be duped by yet another dodgy dossier : "Any MPs who hold misgivings about supporting an invasion on the basis of a dossier later discovered to have been utterly misleading ought now to be demanding a proper, transparent investigation into what the police did and did not do that might have prevented the bombings in London of July 7; and they ought to treat with extreme caution the "dossiers" prepared to support 90-day detentions." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Georgiansilver Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:32 PM And who is going to "carry the can" when the next lot of terrorist bombs go off and the Police say that it could have been prevented if they had the power to?. It won't be Blair with egg on his face then will it? So who will people blame for them...the Police? NO! they tried.....Blair? NO! He tried......who will get the blame next time....all academic really as the damage to human life will have been done! Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: The Shambles Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:38 PM First defeat - and then de neck............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,redhorse Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:54 PM 90 days was always a political figure rather than objectively based. The police's job is easiest if they can operate without any restraint: 90 days was merely the longest figure they thought they could get through, and may even have been a bargaining position. So far only 11 people have been held for the full 13/14 days: all were charged, none released. Nothing in the police case argued the relative merits of 30/60/90/120/360 days; it just made a moderate case for something longer than 14. Blair needs to understand that there is a bit more to making a compelling case than repeating "It's a compelling case" nick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 09 Nov 05 - 06:27 PM 28 days was finally voted in. My own feeling is that following the Blunkett farce this is another blow which his detractors will use to undermine him. Add his inept wife's faux pas and the record of some of his ministers ineptitude and you have a man with no authority. He has already said he will stand down at prior to the next election, GB will be making moves behind the scenes to become leader and maybe Prime Minsister. 28 days would seem about right to hold a person without charge, longer and you are playing around with fundemental freedoms. I agree in these days you need to have stronger powers to combat potential terrorism, but they have to be weighed against potential power to abuse basic freedoms which the UK has enjoyed as part of their law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Nov 05 - 07:08 PM 28 days would be about the right time for Blair to make his excuses and leave. As that article I linked to mentions, up to now the police haven't actually used the powers they already have in dealing with terrorist threats. This is essentially political sleight of hand, designed to distract attention from the failures to date, and to give Tony Blair a chance to grandstand, and to face down the people in his own party who want him to go. It hasn't worked in either respect, it appears. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: George Papavgeris Date: 09 Nov 05 - 08:16 PM The trouble is, it's such an arbitrary number. Do the police claim that if given the 90 days they will increase their chances of stopping any terrorists by xx%? Of course not. Would only 45 days halve those chances? Who knows. I'd happily give them 6 months, if they can guarantee me results. But they can't, can they? And instead I am just running the risk of disappearing for 90 days the next time I return from Greece suntanned and run for the bus. So - sell me a number of days, but give me guarantees; otherwise you just look inadequate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: George Papavgeris Date: 09 Nov 05 - 08:20 PM As for what this defeat means for Blair, a pundit on the telly said it better than me: If he couldn't pass this Bill, when he staked his own power on it, what are the chances of passing the rest of the Bills on the Health Service, Immigration reform etc next year (all part of his "legacy agenda")? He has been seen to be vulnerable, and no doubt the jackals will again grab a bite. He is a lame duck now - but it may take him more than 12 months to realise or acknowledge that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Boab Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:18 AM There is no doubt that in Britain today there is a need for increased security and defence against terrorists. The increased "detention without trial" could well be a part of that necessity. But for a quarter of a year? A bit much, I say. And let's not forget that coupled with this attempt by the Prime Monster were little hardly-publicised proposals with regard to what constitutes "terrorism" or "activities in support of terrorism". All that aside, none of us should lose sight of the fact that had Blair had the nous to keep Britain out of the Iraq fiasco, the measures now being proposed would have been a damn' sight less imperative. Call me "Blair hater" if you will; it's not a badge to be ashamed of. He has made a shambles of the British Labour Party, and driven many moderate "lefties" to an extreme position because of the blatantly rightward march of "new" labour. While it is far too late to prevent further vengeful terrorist action, his demise cannot come fast enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: dianavan Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:26 AM Hooray for Britain! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:10 AM Why did Blair do it? He knew that his own party would be hard to persuade. What was in it for him? He said that it was better to do the right thing and lose. We know that a number of Labour MPs always vote against Blair. We know that Tory MPs were privately strongly in favour, but saw a chance to hurt Blair. So it is not melodramatic to say that politics took preference over the safety of the people. The police say it was necessary. So do the prosecution services.(Yes they sometimes make operational mistakes.) The ordinary people were strongly in favour, and unlike polticians they have to ride the tube and use large hospitals and schools (likely next targets). At least Mudcat Left are happy And when the attack comes they will just say that the West had it coming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Big Al Whittle Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:16 AM yeh ask the Jordanians if 28 days seems about right this morning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Shanghaiceltic Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:41 AM Although not linked to yesterdays defeat this article that appeared in the Guardian shows that Blair and his team have often ridden roughshod and ignored local advice. Sir Christpher Meyers view on Blair |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Paul Burke Date: 10 Nov 05 - 03:55 AM I'd really be glad to be rid of New Labour and Blair and Golden Brown. If it weren't for the prospect of what would replace them. Head back under the bedclothes for another 5 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Georgiansilver Date: 10 Nov 05 - 04:17 AM In an ITV Poll this morning....support for Blair from 84% of the over 5,000 people who voted via phone and website..........what does that tell you? The General Public still believe in him!!!!! Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: mooman Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:44 AM Personally, I think it's the first serious nail in the coffin for him. Unlike GS above I perceive that public opinion is ebbing for him... polls are very often completely out depending on the way the questions are phrased. Peace moo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Big Al Whittle Date: 10 Nov 05 - 06:04 AM you wish.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: sapper82 Date: 10 Nov 05 - 06:54 AM Irony. One of the leading lights in New Labour is Peter Hain who made a name for himself as an anti-aparthiet campaigner. 90 day detention without charge was used as a tool be the SA security services in the '60s. In addition I would not trust Ian Blair not to abuse this provision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,DB Date: 10 Nov 05 - 08:53 AM All powerful people tend to bring about their own downfalls. An example from recent history is Maggie bringing in the Poll Tax. With this 90 day masterpiece Blair has not only alienated his own party but was very close to creating ideal conditions for terrorism to flourish in. As such he is merely following 'Tuchman's Law' (after the American historian, Barbara Tuchman who wrote a book called 'The March of Folly' about this same phenomenon). I haven't seen any of the questions that were asked in the polls but I imagine the question was along the lines of: "are you for terrorism or against it?" - how do you think most normal people voted? Such evidence does NOT support imprisoning terrorist suspects, without charge, for 90 days. I don't doubt that if there is another terrorist outrage, in the near future, Blair and his supporters will be saying "I told you so!" Do not believe them - they told us no such thing!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:24 AM If you imagine reputable, established polls would ask a question like that, you are in denial. Go outside and ask around yourself. Most people trust the police on this one. The police and ITV are politically neutral. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:44 AM Tactical voting intended to snub Mr Blair is my interperetation. Pity his first defeat wasn't the anti -fox hunting bill! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Georgiansilver Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:11 PM Have to agree with you there Ted..it would have made much more sense to use the might of Political wrangling on something less 'crucial' to the Country. Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:54 PM Whether or not you believe in Blair, it can't be right to set up circumstances in which police can grab anyone off the street, lock him up for the equivalent of a six month jail sentence (90 days being the average served by a convict sentenced to six months), and go on a fishing expedition to see if he can be used to improve their clear-up rate. Having failed to find any evidence, he can then be released without apology or compensation, having been blackened by the mere fact of his detention so that some people will believe he is guilty of some unspecified crime. Oh, by the way, if this post gives the impression that I don't totally trust the police, I don't. Most especially I don't trust the intelligence on which they so often base their actions (remember WMDs). Erosion of civil rights is a not a process to be undertaken lightly, and the last people who should be trusted with it are those who call for it in the first place. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:37 PM If you imagine reputable, established polls would ask a question like that, you are in denial. I'll go by the BBC Internet poll. Most people trust the police on this one. 58% on that one say Bliar got it wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Georgiansilver Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:41 PM Wonder what the terrorists think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:11 PM Good God Don! You'll be voting Labour next! The crucial issue is this (I think). If you were an innocent man, and siezed and detained for 90 days (as this provision would empower) what would you think? If you think the police would never sieze you because you are innocent, you are barking mad. This terror - the possibility of misuse of the power - must be balanced against what proper things it might achieve. A blank cheque for 90 days is unacceptable. Do not forget the vast majority in Germany suported Hitler's additions to his own powers until it was far too late. Not (I hope) that Blair is like Hitler, but the majority can not be relied upon to defend those a minority, even when justice so requires. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: ard mhacha Date: 10 Nov 05 - 03:05 PM Britains fair laws?, to realise what detentsion without trial means, Google up John McGuffins Internment, it`s a compelling read and for good measure also read The Guinea Pigs, this second book is an insight into what went on in detention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: mooman Date: 10 Nov 05 - 03:59 PM If you imagine reputable, established polls would ask a question like that, you are in denial. I am not in denial. Go outside and ask around yourself. I did and I did. Most people trust the police on this one. Quite possibly but most people don't trust Tony Blair in general any more. The police and ITV are politically neutral. Really! I never knew that! Peace moo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: akenaton Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:00 PM Keith, wee drummer GS......Blair is history, get over it! He has become a liability to those craven people who supported him when they knew he was wrong. Once again he tries to play the populist card to save his skin.. He failed and now that the rebels scent blood he's finished. Many on the left see Blair and New Labour as a bigger threat to Socialism than the Tories. Just as the Conservatives could never have involved us in Iraq, they would never have been able to attack our civil rights in the the way Blair proposed. Legislation can never be based wholly on what the public "want". If that was the case, Mr Pierrepont would still be in business and doing his work in public to a paying audiance...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:02 PM Not likely Richard, as long as what passes for Labour is led by this crooked, lying b*****d. Give me a socialist party to vote for and................. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: akenaton Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:11 PM Guest DB....You are quite correct. Apparently, before yesterdays vote questionaires were circulated to Labour MPs from the whips office asking simplistic questions on whether they "supported terrorism " or not . Most of the replies were unprintable ...and Blair lost the vote ..Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DougR Date: 10 Nov 05 - 11:45 PM Okie dokie, ye happy folks at Blair's defeat, but if some person held on suspicion of planning or executing terrorism is the key person to cause an event that results in great devastion to the people of Great Britain, don't cry on our shoulders because of it. (Must be nice to terrorists.) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Boab Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:32 AM Doug R.---I have in the past had respect for your strongly held rightwing opinions---but I have NEVER seen such a pointless and deliberately insulting concoction of trash as your 11.45 pm posting. We WONT be "nice" to terrorists. Neither should we or anyone else be nice to those who create terrorists. Now here's something which would doubtless prompt Tony Bliar to stick the label on me ---if any foreign country invaded mine with as little provocation as the Iraqis displayed a few years back, with tanks planes bombs and guns, then I for one would take up any weapon that was within my grasp and use stealth and darkness if necessary in order to level the playing field, and to impres upon the invader that there was no profit in his staying around. Now wouldn't Tony and wee Georgie [and Doug?]just be real keen to stick the "terrorist" label on me? Have I |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Boab Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:38 AM As I was about to say---"Have I said anything wrong, Doug?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:17 AM Doug R, The argument about a person released after fourteen days going out and blowing up a bunch of people is specious. The same could be said about someone who had been held without trial for a month, or a year, or a decade....... Do you seriously suggest we grab anyone who looks a bit Muslim and hold them for life just in case? Get real, for God's sake. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: The Shambles Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:31 AM yeh ask the Jordanians if 28 days seems about right this morning. There remain many places in the world (Jordan possibly being one of them) where there are no safeguards to protect their people from being imprisioned indefinitely on mere suspicion - or places where there are no effective laws at all. I hope you are not suggesting that we join them? As it would seem that having these powers does not protect them from terrorist attacks and some may argue that such unchecked powers make terrorist attacks more likely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: akenaton Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:15 AM I'm heartened by the posts above from good people who are intelligent enough to realise that stopping terrorism needs more than brute force. Force, either legal or military will always inflame the situation. I can hardly think of one conflict involving "terrorism " which has been solved by force. After many weasel words and bluster from the politicians, any sort of peace has been arrived at through diplomacy, and whether we like to admit it or not the "terrorists" always win. People using terrorist tactics, be they blacks in South Africa, Republicans in Northern Ireland, or insurgents in Iraq, have always an ideology which drives them, even when that ideology is a madness like fundamentalist Islam. We on the other hand are driven only by the need to keep this corrupt system in place dividing our society and causing death and destruction throughout the world. We are ideologically bankrupt, as can be seen from the postings of Doug Keith ect. The best we can hope for is to start showing a good example for a change ...and keeping our fingers crossed...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,DB Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:20 AM Keith A of Hartford suggests that I am "in denial" about dodgy polls - I only wish I was - although I do admit to some SLIGHT exaggeration in framing my fictional poll question. The fact is that another characteristic of powerful people is that they always seem to require justification for their actions and, these days, this always comes down to having numbers available to support their agendas, preconceptions and prejudices. The interesting thing is that the likes of Blair, who must operate within a parliamentary democracy, needs such numbers, spurious or otherwise, to support his case but even unconstitutional tyrants seem to need them as well. Until recently I worked for such a gang of tyrants (typical British bosses!) and they were always commissioning studies carefully designed to give them the answers they wanted. As someone with an interest in data and statistics I get sick and tired of the phrase, "there are lies, damned lies and statistics". I can't remember who coined this phrase but he was WRONG: there are only LIES! By the way, what is the point of going to all the trouble and expense of running a spurious study - why not just make the numbers up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Davetnova Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:14 AM After trying so hard to get 90 day detention, I find it surprising that the British goverment are so upset about the thirteen day dentention of two britons arrested by in Iran in disputed waters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: The Shambles Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:27 PM I heard on the news today that Jordan had arrested just about everyone and their cat for the attack................ Perhaps if they had done this before the attack - the measure may have prevented it. One thing is sure - taking such action after the event will not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:58 PM Keith, Georgiansilver and weelittledrummer should engage their brains for a moment. Where is the evidence that holding and questioning suspects for 90 days without charge would make us any safer? If between the three of them they can answer this, they will have done better than Blair, who was asked this question repeatedly on Wednesday and could give no answer. A couple of hours later the home secretary (working hand in glove with the nation's chief constables) did manage to come up with an example. He told MPs that the risin case might have resulted in a conviction had the 90 days been an option, whereas in fact the suspect had been released and had left the country by the time forensic evidence came to light. This example was shot down by one of his own backbenchers, Chris Mullins, who pointed out that the suspect had not even been held for the 14 days then available to police, but had been released after just two! All very heartless of Mullins, given that this was the only example that Blair, Clarke and 40 police chiefs had managed to turn up to support their curious fixation with 90 days. Why the sudden enthusiasm for dancing to the police's tune? The police are against extending the hours during which alcohol may be served, but that is not going to dictate the legislation. Politicians should take account of professional advice whether it's from lawyers, clinicians or whoever, but it in the end they are elected to exercise their judgment. Even if there was some new code that said the professionals should dictate the legislation, what about the country's most senior judges, the Law Lords, who are opposed to 90 days? "Exhorbitant" and "reprehensible in a free society" are among the comments they have made. At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday Balir responded to that by saying "As for the Law Lords, I would rather listen to the police than them." Why? Because he is obsessed with blowing in the wind of public opinion and believed he saw a chance to embarrass the Tories in that respect. Those in this thread who think it was the Tories who were playing party politics on Wednesday are not in the real world. The Tories have lost members to terrorism, and their cabinet could easily have been wiped out in the Brighton bomb. Lord Tebbitt suffered serious injury in that bombing and his wife was paralysed. To suggest his oppositon to the 90 days was political expediency is as offensive as it is stupid. Have people forgotten the catastrophic effect of internment in Northern Ireland? In what real sense is the equivalent of a six-month prison term morally more acceptable? Have we really learnt nothing from that staggering blunder (as all but the DUP lunatics now accept it to have been)? What if Georgiansilver's ofrecast is fulfilled and there is another atrocity? Well first of all, to his acute disappointment, it would probably turn out to be like any others that have occurred so far - that is, completely unaffected by any 90-day legislation. But even if it turned out to be the very first case where such legislation would have made a difference, and even if such an atrocity was certain to occur within six months, I'd be happy to take my chances. We live with risk every day. None of us can assume we will live three-score years and ten, and even if another atrocity was guaranteed within the next six months, we're probably all at greater risk of being killed by a piece of office furniture than of being caught in that blast. We're certainly at greater risk from road traffic accidents and the consequences of alcohol abuse by others. One thing's for sure - the Sun newspaper will flourish as long as there are people like Keith, Georgiansilver and weelittledrummer to swallow its ranting crap without question. Oh, and yes, of course Blair's finished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:46 PM Phone-in polls are meaningless as a way of gauging public opinion. And police chiefs know when to say what the Prime Minister needs them to say. "One hand washes the other hand..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,cobra Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:47 AM Excellent analysis there, Mr K. Just one small point:- " We live with risk every day", you said. And ain't that the truth. I am. of course, speaking as one who has heard you sing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Cllr Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:45 AM Mr K I take my hat off to you, I agree wiht guest cobra about your analysis. I have spoken to a couple of conservative MP's over this and the internment issue in NI is the one that keeps being mentioned. There is a lot to be recommended in the bill or at least a lot we agreed with but the sticking point was the ninety days if that had been negotiable the conservatives MP would have been able to support it, at least that is my understandng. Cllr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:19 AM Investigating a terror suspect often requires gathering evidence from foreign countries. Computer files have to be opened that have been encrypted by the most advanced methods. Mobile phone records have to be studied, again from more than one country. Thousands of hours of CCTV have to be scrutinised. After 7/7 one address took 14 days to make safe enough to search. These are the reasons given by the police for needing extra time. I trust them more than a bunch of politicians desperate to topple Blair and get their own snouts deeper in the trough. (How unusual for Akeneaton and friends to be alligned with the Tory party on this issue!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:30 AM By "we" I take it you mean the Tories, Cllr? Caroline Spelman MP, a Tory frontbencher, said on BBC Question Time on Thursday that 28 days was the most the Tories had been prepared to consider so therefore there would have been little purpose in negotiating. I am a socialist through and through, but I have no difficulty (for once) in saying good for the Tories. Except that even 28 days is too much in my view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:39 AM I agree with that Peter. Every tiniest part of our civil liberties needs to be protected from people who would, given the chance, allow us none. It surprises me that so many have forgotten the results of the West Midland Crime Squad's well meaning efforts to strengthen their cases. Ask those freed as a result how much they would trust the police to have extra powers. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:13 PM It was proposed that the police would be strictly monitored on this one. Each case was to have a judicial review every seven days. With such safeguards imposed, and the risk of an even greater slaughter next time, I think we should have supported the police who, for all their mistakes, have served us pretty well so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Cllr Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:17 PM Yes Peter I did mean we as in conservaties |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:22 PM Keith A said (along with others elsewhere): After 7/7 one address took 14 days to make safe enough to search. I'd like some elaboration of that, but so far haven't heard it. If they knew the building was unsafe, they presumably knew it had explosives or whatever in there. That's surely an offence in its own right and the people responsible could be arrested and charged immediately. Under the (new) double jeopardy rules, I think, the people involved could be charged with unlawful possession of explosives, etc, and then the charges related to terrorism applied later once the evidence had been gathered. Or is that mistaken? Have you more details? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:47 PM You could not prove even that everyone using the address was guilty, never mind other accomplices. The most useful evidence is forensic, documents and computers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:05 PM Agreed, Keith. But are you then prepared to detain a significant proportion of the people closely linked to that address for the 14/28/90 days in the expectation that one of them is the guilty party? In the actual case, was the most likely suspect held for the full 14 days that currently apply? If not, I don't see how extending the time limit would have made any significant difference. Another question. Do you know why it took 14 days? Were they working on it for all fourteen, or were 12 of them wasted because they didn't have the staff levels or special equipment needed? If the latter, its a good argument for increased staff/resourcing, but not for changing the time limit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:29 PM Why ask me. I am just Jo public whose 2 sons have to use the tube and like so many others know they were just lucky last time. The police point up this case. Have any of the politicians raised any query over it ? Why not? If there was anything dodgy about it Mr Howard would certainly have brought it to our attention. On one side we have Blair, with nothing to gain, accepting the operational advice of those with more knowledge and experience than anyone in the world of the threat posed. On the other we have some anti Blairites whose careers will advance dramatically when he has gone. And this is not about fox hunting or council tax, but massive violent death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM Thanks for your comments, Keith. I'm 'just Joe Public' as well! As I see it, this is not a case of choosing to do something to prevent terrorism, but doing something that may reduce terrorism affecting, to be realistic, a minute proportion of the population at the cost of not just civil liberties but increased risk of violence to the majority of the population, caused by various groups feeling they are victimised or seen as worth less by the rest of the population. Putting it in what I admit are probably extreme terms: how do we trade off the risks of more cases like Steven Lawrence against the chances of preventing 7/7s? It's the uneviable task of Parliament to come to that balance. What I think is a great tragedy of politics, generally, is that once people have come to that difficult decision they feel obliged to present their conclusion without admitting its costs and also disparaging anyone else who came to a different balance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:42 PM "..a risk of violence to the whole of the population"? How many Lawrence like racial murers do we really get? How many actual people actually were killed on 7/7 How many more would have died in the suicide attacks on 21/7 but for the lucky chance that the explosives had degraded? How many next time? I fear you may be seriously underestimating the threat. That is what those who we pay to know these things are telling us. I think we should listen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:46 PM Sorry, your actual quote was increased risk of violence to the majority of the population, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:14 PM Keith, it's surely poor form to cite an example as proof of your argument then blithely wash your hands of it the first time anyone asks you to enlarge. But in all probability the example wasn't worth anything to start with, otherwise Blair and Clarke would have clutched at it rather than leave themselves with nothing. If you're that worried about your two sons, after their recent brush with death, you might have to fork out for them to spend the rest of their lives in long-haul flight. It's safer than any environment they're like to encounter on the ground, apart from perhaps a high-dependency unit in a private clinic. But do NOT ever let them take a car journey - even a short one. According to your own perception of risk, that would mean certain death. Visit this thread for more risks you need to know about. According to Channel 4 (ITN) news in the UK this evening, US troops have detained 35,000 Iraqis since Bush bragged "mission accomplished". Fewer than two per cent of them have been charged with anything, and fewer still convicted. I wonder if Keith & Co seriously believe this has made the world a safer place. I can't imagine it's won many hearts and minds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:49 PM No problem with the quote, Keith. As I said, I don't believe for one moment that this is an easy decision for anyone who thinks about it. I agree that we are fortunate in not having many racial attacks that end in killings, but we are not free of race riots by any means, and I would not underestimate the consequences if - a big if - we lost our grip on race relations. And of course, you need not go as far as death. How many violent beatings that end in permanent damage do you trade off against each death due to terrorism? So: I respect your views and am sure you have thought long and hard in coming to them. I recognise that there is the possibility that another attack could kill far people than 7/7 did. Nevertheless, I have come to different a different balance and would want to make sure that we have looked at all the other options properly (such as the staffing and resources question I raised above) before we implement laws which may have all sorts of unexpected side effects. You may recall that this thread is actually about whether this is the start of the end for Blair. I don't think it is, particularly if there is another major terrorist attack anywhere in America, Europe or Australia. Even without that, he's too skilful a politician to let a single defeat get to him. Everything hinges on whether he can prevent defeats on the other major manifesto issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:16 PM That's the point, DMcG - he can't. At least 50 of his own MPs are sufficinetly pissed off with his presidential style and contempt for parliamentary process to be out for the kill at the first sniff of blood. And they've had that sniff. Did you see Brown proclaiming in the papers yesterday that the defeat would have been even greater if he hadn't weighed in for Blair? Extraordinary. If Blair can't expect even a public show of loyalty from his most senior (de facto if not de jure) colleague, then he's finished. My money would be on Brown being installed before the next Labour Party conference (Sept 2006). The Tories would be delighted with that. It would not suit them to have Blair hanging on till the end because Brown would then go into the election basking in a honeymoon start, and with the luxury of being able to say everything had been Blair's fault. But the fact that an early succession would play well for the Tories will not hold back the critics on Blair's own back benches. Their loathing for the man is palpable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: akenaton Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:58 PM Iraq finished Blair....His ego obliged him to support Bush against public opinion and the Party. When his majority was so drastically reduced, the writing was on the wall. If he had not announced that he would be stepping down before the next election, the Party would have had to sack him! Everyone says that the recent vote was the turning point for Blair, but I remember the ladies of the WI slow handclapping him on TV after he had been evasive to their questioning. The change started that night, and the momentum increased with every disaster. On elction night Blair and his wife had to stand and listen to a devastating attack on his character and judgement by the father of a young soldier killed in Iraq. Blair visibily aged five years before our eyes. Every victory for George Galloway was another nail in Blairs coffin...and didn't George love it. Blair clings on ,wounded, psychologically flawed,but still searching for a legacy. Somebody should tell him that he carries a legacy which will never be forgotten. The man who killed the aspirations of a nation; and took them to war on a "pack of lies"...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:44 AM Peter K, Thank you for reminding me that should the bombers kill hundreds or even thousands, statistically it is unlikely to effect anyone I care for. How stupid are people who feel anxious about being deep underground in overcrowded carriages. They should be able to clear their minds of those horific news images by applying your logic. Since the bombers can not even compete with road deaths, should we pursue them at all? There is the apalling risk that an innocent person might be questioned. I did not wash my hands of the example I gave. I am a suburban school teacher. how could I verify it? Hardly a debating point to ask me to. Someone asked why the police needed extra time and I repeated what they have said. There has been ample opportunity for those political opportunists to refute it. It has been extensively debated in parliament, the media and the press. It has notbeen questioned or refuted. What does that tell you? I do have one bit of inside knowledge. As a Territorial I have volunteered for the Contingency Reaction Force, who will move in 48hours after a major incident to support the emergency services as they become exhausted. Last month we had an exercise. It was about setting up temporary mortuaries as the existing facilities become overwhelmed. Silly to worry about it though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:35 AM For the last sixty years we have seen civil defence exercises practising response to everything from nuclear attack to KT type impact. Governments would be guilty of dereliction of duty if they did not prepare in this way. There have been no instances of civil rights erosion in connection with any of these. The arguments you advance for holding innocent people (and remember, they are all innocent until convicted) without charge do not stand up under logical examination. If, as you suggest, the problem is the time it takes to get information from foreign countries, the obvious answer would seem to be to improve communication, not to hold suspects longer. We live in a time when I can talk to people anywhere on earth virtually in real time. Police can easily avail themselves of the same facilities. Does nobody but me wonder why they haven't already arranged direct access to foreign databases? Every totalitarian regime has started with the removal of some civil rights "for the protection of the public" from a perceived, or a manufactured threat. In each case the public has eventually been in need of protection from the regime itself. Is this the way forward? I don't believe it is. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:54 AM Personally I don't agree with 90 detention but I despise the politicians that have used this purely as a way of knocking TB. As for that prat ake (if he had a brain he'd be dangerous), I think you'll find that Galloway has far bigger problems than TB. Blair's legacy? he marginalised the loony left (are you still reading ake). You carry on buying morning star and soc worker and the real left, who really care about people will do the job for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:20 AM I hope you are right Don, and that you do indeed know more about counter terrorism than the professionals who have spent their whole careers in the service. Your side has won. The amatuers and politicians have over ruled the professionals. Let's hope it turns out OK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: akenaton Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:22 AM Shakey.....On the subject of brains. I was selling carpets in Baghdad, when you were in you're dad's bag....... Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: akenaton Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:40 AM BTW....Have you apologised yet!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM Stuff and nonsense, Keith. I don't pretend to know about counterterrorism, but I do know what has resulted from allowing governments to abrogate civil rights. The results of that are turning up on our shores by the truck load. The police need to make better use of technology, and co-operate more efficiently across national boundaries. Then they wouldn't need the extra time. Those who care least about others losing civil rights usually squeal the loudest when their own are affected. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:29 PM So Don, You do not know as much about their job as they do, but you know better than them how long they need to do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:44 PM No Kieth, Don is seeing a bigger picture. You can carry on applying patch after patch to our problems the way you advocate reducing civil liberties in the process and you know what? Our problems will increase, not decrease - at least until we all have chips implanted in our brains... It's not as if it's a path that hasn't been trodden before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:45 AM Pathetic, Keith. Your reasoning is on a par with the editorials of the gutter press. Contrary to your innuendo, politicians are professionals too. They are elected and paid to legislate. I don't question that the police are professionals, but their job is to uphold whatever laws the legislators pass (along with interpretations of the law established down the years by the courts - ie case law). Like any other professionals - teachers, lawyers, mining engineers, clinicians - the police have their wishlists. But how often do any of them get everything they want? And do you really think they should? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Tam the man Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:49 AM it was great |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:18 AM Murdering someone deprives them of all human rights and civil liberties. The terrorists intend to do that to hundreds at a time if they can. Stopping them is not about patching. It is a big picture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: ard mhacha Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:20 AM To all of those people on this Thread who advocate internment without trial I ask, do you know what it is like to be locked up in prison for years at the whim of some anonymous government figure?. This was the outcome for many totally innocent people in the north of Ireland, I would wish internment without trial, on the all of those people who think it patriotic to apply this draconian measure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:28 AM Peter K Not a wish list but ther professional advice on what they need to to do their job. I note that Lord Carlisle, the Liberal Democrat peer appointed to be an independent advisor on security, agrees that 90 days was needed. Your so professional politicians are ignoring his advice as well as that of the career professionals in the field of counter terrorism. It is hard not to believe that those politicians are motivated only by the desire to get the knife into Blair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:29 AM 90 days is not a lifetime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: The Shambles Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:57 AM As none of know exactly when our hearts and bodies are going to give out - 90 days (or less) could well be all the life someone has left. And establishing that this someone was in fact innocent after their death - is little consolation to one who has spent their last days deprived of their freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:22 PM Fair point shambles. I should have said that a maximum period of 90 days, with the police having to convince a judge every seven days that the suspect should not be released, is not what is normally understood to be internment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 14 Nov 05 - 03:39 PM A thought experiment: You are a judge responsible for carrying out these reviews. The police have detained someone and you agreed to that three weeks ago and two weeks ago. In the third week you felt no progress had been made and made this clear to the police. Now you question the police again and are not satisfied that they have found any more solid evidence all over the last fourteen days. Nor are you convinced they are likely to. Being both human and intelligent, you are aware of what the outcry would be if you ordered his release and he then went on to commit some atrocity. On the other hand, you not satisfied that any evidence is likely to appear, but you know that if you let things continue for longer few people are likely to complain much. After all, even the accused isn't party to your doubts. Have you the courage to order his release? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:09 AM Don, At any moment a terrorist atrocity could make you look like a misguided dupe, but it does not prevent you from expressing your opinion publicly here. As for the judges, they are made unsackable to ensure their independence. If the police can not supply evidence to continue detention, no one could blame them for ordering release. If there was doubt, I would hope that they would err on the side of caution and safety. A similar situation happens now, as judjes frequently over rule police opposition to bail, and there have been plenty of cases of bailed criminals committing serious crimes including murder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: ard mhacha Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:05 AM The state has incredibe time saving devices, such as computerised fingerprint-readers and communications monitoring software that outstrip any technology available to their enemies. In reality, it not so much forensic investigators as ruthless interrogators who are being facilitated by this law. Extracting information is what it is all about and those who have experienced British interrogation techniques in the north of Ireland are aware, it is a nasty business. Torture is a cruel science. Alternative schools of torture inflict pain. either physical or more importantly psychological, which conceals the evidence. The latter requires more time but cannot be so easily detected by Human rights defenders. After 28 days with trained and ruthless men you will be aware of every second, certainly not a lifetime Keith, but it will stay with you all of that time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: The Shambles Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:18 AM As for the judges, they are made unsackable to ensure their independence. Now that is an interesting concept. If my boss promised me that whatever I did - I would never be sacked - I would be very grateful and would always be sure to always act independently..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:31 AM Classic Keith, When your arguments fail to convince, attack the intelligence, morals, or ethics of your opponent. My statement was that the first point of attack for police should be to improve the speed at which the required information can be obtained, and that any erosion of civil rights should be avoided except as a very last resort. If those two are reversed, it would seem that the intention was to gain time for a fishing expedition, something which most judges on both sides of the Atlantic strive to prevent, for very good reasons. As for your somewhat naive reliance on allowing the "professionals" any powers they ask for, because "they know best", these are the same professionals who recently followed a young man across half of London, before chasing him into a tube station, where they blew him away with gunfire. His crimes? 1. He came from a building they had under surveillance. 2. He was South American, with a complexion that COULD have been Middle Eastern. 3. He ran to catch a train, or maybe because they scared the s**t out of him. Anyway, he ran. Ask the parents of Jean de Menezes whether THEY would agree with more powers for police. Their son was deprived of his civil right to go on living by the very people who should have been protecting those rights. If you feel the need to live under a more repressive regime, the world is full of countries that should be more to your taste than this one. Lasly, 90 days in the nick may seem like nothing when viewed from outside by one who is unlikely ever to be in that position, but I reckon the thought of it is probably very worrying to anyone with a swarthy skin and a beard, i.e. Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, and a host of other ethnic groups. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:18 AM Just one tiny point to correct there, Don. The guy didn't even run! I think the inquiry will conclude that the running (and jumping a ticket barrier) was done by a plain-clothes cop. Those who demand victims' justice and say "ask the survivors" might like to look at http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1639458,00.html . But maybe you've all seen it already. Sorry - I only heard about it last night. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:31 AM Lasly, 90 days in the nick may seem like nothing when viewed from outside by one who is unlikely ever to be in that position I don't suppose I'm likely to be in that position but I have been locked up for around 30 hrs accused of a crime that wan't committed by anyone. I was accused of rape when (as we found out when the truth came out) some young girl decided she was not getting enough attention from her parents and that to invent a story that she was attacked on her way home was the way to get it. I can assure you that even for that length of time, being locked up and falsly accused is far from pleasant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: The Shambles Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:01 AM It is obvious that we see it as vital to deprive people of their precious freedoms in order to see these freedoms are protected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:02 AM Thanks Peter, for both the correction and particularly the link. It just shows the utter cynicism of our current leaders, and some of our media, and the worst of it is that few citizens will actually see the rebuttal, while the original image will remain with them for a long time. I too saw Tony's stance on receiving the news (as portrayed for the media), and I thought at the time that it would qualify him for a career at the Old Vic when his political career is over (hopefully very soon). Jon, that would be a horrible situation for anyone to be in. You have my sympathy. I sincerely hope that you received an abject apology from the police. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:38 AM Firstly, Don I really did not intend that opening as an attack. It was meant to be a jokey reply to your concern that judges might be afraid of events proving them wrong. I was saying look, it does not stop you. I appologise for the wording. When someone has been arrested, I imagine that the counter terrorist unit goes as fast as they can against the clock. I can not believe that they run out of time due to laziness or stupidity. Certainly not through ignorance of modern techniques. They need to have IT experts to combat the terrorist use of computers. Yet they make the odd mistake. Likewise the medical profession who until very recently believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and acid. The treatment was sedatives, antacids and surgery. They now know that a bacteria is responsible for most and antibiotics are a cure. I would still consult a doctor rather than a bunch of politicians about cancer treatment. Also, if the surgeon said he needed an hour to do the operation, and the Parliamentary Tory Party said he should only have twenty minutes, I would shout for the surgeon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:48 AM I found this. In one case, the material on a computer's hard-drive disc was equal to 60,000 feet when printed out. Equally, the increasingly international nature of terrorist networks posed a greater language difficulty, and a greater need to gather evidence from abroad. Terrorist networks were increasingly complicated, and also, the police had said they needed six to eight weeks to analyse material found in a rubbish dump in Dewsbury. The comparison would have filled eight Olympic sized swimming pools. This was a graphic illustration of the kind of complexities the police now faced when trying to investigate these cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:07 PM The surgeon quote can be dismissed with three words. Apples and Oranges. We both know that it is not germane to the issue. In the case of your computer comments, there might be some validity in what you say, so as technology and criminal organisation becomes ever more complex, where do YOU draw the line? 6 months?..... A year?......Life? It isn't defensible, and I suspect that you know that. In my experience, the factor which causes most delay in computer communication is keyboard thrombosis (the presence of a static clot at the keys). Nevertheless, almost any information needed should, by use of IT, be possible to acquire in days rather than weeks, if the will exists to do so. 90 days incarceration is the lazy way IMHO. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM Keith, you can surely come up with more pertinent examples than those - none of which threaten the human rights of everyone. Would you hang ten people, or even jail them, if you knew that one was truly innocent but you didn't know which one? If you aay yes to that, take it a step farther: you know eight are guilty for certain, but one of the last two is innocent. What then? Somewhere along the line, balances must be struck. I should think we can all agree about that. In a democracy, finding that balance is the responsibility of elected legislators. As this is something you cannot accept, and you think it is the police who should define the limits of our human rights, you should be arguing that case with whatever evidence you can find. And it's no good saying you're only a suburban schoolteacher. You can Google like anyone else. But just repeating the trash peddled by our wretched press, without giving it a second thought, really is no way to win an argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:23 PM No, I do not accept your dismissal of my comparison. A surgical procedure and a complex anti terror investigation are both operations that require specialist knowledge and skills. Persons without any of that knowledge and experience, however important they may think they are, are not well placed to tell those experts how to do it. I mention again, since it has been ignored, that the senior Liberal Democrat peer, appointed to be an independent advisor on security issues, supported the police on this against his own party and the Conservatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:33 PM Peter You wrote Would you hang ten people, or even jail them, if you knew that one was truly innocent but you didn't know which one? If you aay yes to that... Answer no, without hesitation. We are not discussing hanging or imprisoning, but holding for questioning for a maximum of 90 days, and then only if the police can provide sufficient evidence to convince a judge it is essential for the safety of everyone. Remember, this is about mass murder on an unprecedented scale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Sttaw Legend Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:40 PM 100 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 15 Nov 05 - 03:55 PM No Don there was no official appology from the police but I suppose in fairness such things have to be investigated and it does sound as if the girl was a pretty good actress. I suppose a more worrying aspect was that according to my solicitor, the police were convinced they had the right man. Now imagine that sort of "police feeling" (which even in my case involved some buisiness like police having powers to hold me longer than 24hr [I think] as they had reasonable grounds]) that someone is guilty onto this 90 days business... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:00 PM You had a rough time Jon, but your experience does not apply here. The evidence against you was that wretched girls testimony. The police did not need to trawl through thousands of encrypted computer documents, phone records from many countries etc. etc. The police would have to provide enough evidence to convince a judge that you still needed to be held every seven days. The proposal only applied to terrorist suspects. Peter I made my plea about being only a teacher when someone demanded that I explain why the bomb disposal team took so long at that address. How should I know, even with Google. (I would not want to tell them how to do their job either) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:16 PM And one more thing Peter, You wrote " just repeating the trash peddled by our wretched press, without giving it a second thought" The only paper that came out in favour of Blair was The Sun which I have not read in years. (I listen to press reviews on radio) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:27 PM By way of clarification, Keith, I don't think I 'demanded' anything - I asked if anyone knew. You have made the point that the sheer quantity of materials to go thorough is part of the problem. In essence, that was my question: does anyone know if the delay was purely a consequence of that workload or was there an intrinsic reason it took 14 days. An example of what I would consider an intrinsic reason is that various biological tests may need some numbers of days for cultures to grow to a testable level. To me, this is quite important. If the reason is workload then additional staff, etc, can go some way to addressing it without necessarily doing anything about the detention period. On the other hand, if the testing is intrinsically irreducable (under current knowledge) there is a stronger case for detaining people - or more accurately keeping them under some kind of supervision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:41 PM It seems to me, Keith, that you have become so focussed on a single (admittedly serious and important) issue, as to have failed to think it through to its logical, and dangerous conclusion. The police are supposedly the experts on all forms of crime detection and prevention. If we give them the power they seek with respect to this issue, it will be more difficult to refuse the next, and subsequent demands of this type. Initially, these will most likely be similar latitude in cases of murder and armed robbery, and later extend to less serious crimes. This is what I mean when I use the term "erosion of civil rights", a gradual wearing down until ultimately we have a truly police state. When the day comes that they say it is now necessary for all police to be armed, will you still say "let them have that power because they are the experts". I have asked you several times to state clearly where YOU would draw the line, but you have chosen not to respond. I will tell you clearly where I draw the line, and it is right here, before the process gets started. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:04 PM The evidence against you was that wretched girls testimony. The police did not need to trawl through thousands of encrypted computer documents, phone records from many countries etc. etc. Oh I'm not sure Keith. The only evidence against me was that I was one of few that would have walked some of the same route as the girl. She could not even identify me in an ID parade (but managed to positively ID someone else). On a much smaller scale, the police did have thier time consuming evidence to trawl through such as searching our house not once but twice... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:05 PM The case was actually solved BTW because someone (not sure he had the guts) came to the police station and said he had been having sex (not rape) with her at the time of the offence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:06 PM I meant not sure how he had the guts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Redhorse at work Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:41 AM Jon You at least had he advantage you were told what you were accused of: suspects held for the 90 days would not have had that(security reasons). nick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:29 PM Don, The issue to me is that unfortunately we have to sacrifice a little of our hard won civil liberty, to try to stop our enemies killing us. You ask where I would draw the line on detention, but how can we judge how long is necessary to be effective. The police must not be given a free hand, but in this country we have set up independent watch dogs to scrutinise what the police do. We also have a very independent judiciary. They have repeatedly overturned legislation that this government HAS got through parliament, especially in the areas of immigration and security. With all those safeguards and with the present level of threat I would have accepted 90 days that the security forces claim to need. All acedemic since the vote was lost. Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:33 PM Peter, I think I see why you made such a mistake about the press. The "Gutter Press" is overwhelmingly Tory. You were forgetting that on this issue you have lined up with The Conservative Party. I imagine that it does take some getting used to! Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Cllr Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:36 PM I started this thread originally to see what people thought the consequences would be of this Bill's defeat. It wasn't a vote of confidence and it would be unthinkable that a vote of that sort would see the government lose. However given that Blair has said that he would go before the next election ( a mistake to make a statement like that in my book) I wondered if people thought it would trigger the party machine to make it quicker rather than longer till Blair resigns. I have said for a number of years that the current time table of the british political parties mirrors what happened in the 79 - 97 conservative rule, if Blair is replaced in three years time allowing two years after that for a general election to be called (five yrs being the maximum length) it would match the timing of Thatchers departure in 1990. and the re-election of the party under a new leader for a fourth term. The two main differences I see is that we (the conservatives) have not started the modernisation process early enough ( Kinnock started the modernisation of the labour party not Tony or even mr smith, and it will be up to Cameron to do it for the Conservatives (if he wins) and secondly Labour seem to be further ahead in replacing the current leader given that Tony ha said he will go at some point and Thatcher didn't. If new Labour continues to lose public support and grass roots support which they are (iraq tax etc)and we conservatives don't put up a credible opposition (in the view of the general public) does this mean the liberals will start gaining eminence by default or that new labour will just continue indefinatly under a new leadership until the status quo becomes untenable. The London elections are coming up in about six months and it will be intersting to see what the results are and what pressure that will put into the system. Cllr I don't mean to distract you from the debate on the bill but it is thread drift which I admit i am also guilty of joining in on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:12 AM If Keith had his way the Birmingham 6, The Guilford 4, would all have been hanged, and all of those other innocents that spent upwards to 20 twenty years in jail for crimes they never commmitted. Remember Keith it was on the word of the English police that these people spent all of those years in jail aided and abetted by Judges who in the words of Paddy Hill one of the Birmigham 6, "could not spell justice". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Nov 05 - 06:50 AM Hanging???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: George Papavgeris Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:03 AM Mike, you said: "If new Labour continues to lose public support and grass roots support which they are (iraq tax etc)and we conservatives don't put up a credible opposition (in the view of the general public) does this mean the liberals will start gaining eminence by default or that new labour will just continue indefinatly under a new leadership until the status quo becomes untenable". I think the situation is rapidly becoming untenable for new labour anyway, so I can't see them continuing indefinitely. More likely that the liberals will gain (some) eminence and we will reach the level of Italian politics, with alliances being necessary, and all the bartering and watering down of principles that this means. |
