Re: David Davis to resign
 

It looks more and more like Davis's little stunt has backfired, the Labour party are not going to stroke his ego by putting up a candidate in this safe Tory seat. As regards Mackenzie standing against him, my god who would you choose between them.

Re: David Davis to resign
 

I notice Bown is saying that Davis's move highlights "deep divisions within the Conservative party."

Hmmm....

Conservatives: 1 dissenting voter.
Labour: 36 dissenting voters.

That's excluding the 3 "free votes" because many wouldn't follow the part whip.

I think Brown should be more worried about the divisions within his own party.

Re: David Davis to resign
 

I think it is the Sun that is involved in a 'stunts' myself.A great way to sell more newspapers.

However I cannot see MacKenzie as 'The Man in White' myself.:erm:

Re: David Davis to resign
 

Anne Widdecombe voting for the 42 days is considered a split for the Tories???

Re: David Davis to resign
 

That is not what I said, "basically" or otherwise :rolleyes:

Furthermore, as Xaccers has already pointed out, do you really think the authorities would need even 28 days - let alone 42 days - if by some freakish occurrence bin Laden was arrested in the UK.



42 days would not have prevented 7/7.


Oh, & since when have the Tories (including David "Capital Punishment" Davis) been "bleeding heart liberal do-gooders"?


Where is the need for 42 days?

At no point has anyone in the Government actually shown exactly why it is needed.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has accepted that there has not yet been a single case where the police needed more than 28 days.

Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has accepted that there has not yet been a single case where the police needed more than 28 days.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has said "42 days" is not necessary, due to the recent implementation of the "threshold test" for charging terror suspects. Instead of requiring enough evidence to stand a "realistic prospect of conviction", terror suspects can now be charged where there is enough evidence to support a "reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence" and where it is likely that additional evidence will soon be obtained.

(Linky)


Lord Falconer, former Lord Chancellor, has criticised "42 days", has said the Bill was "unacceptable", has said the concessions to add "additional safeguards" do not go far enough, has said 42 days is unnecessary due to the new "threshold test", and has vowed to lead the fight against 42 days in the House of Lords.

Lord Goldsmith, former Attorney General, has criticised "42 days", and has said it would destroy society's "fundamental values".

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee has criticised "42 days", and has said that "neither the police nor the Government has made a convincing case that the current limit of 28 days is inadequate at this time".

The Commons/Lords Joint Select Committee on Human Rights has criticised "42 days", and has pointed out that it would be illegal under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Power already exists to extend the pre-charge detention limit by 30 days, in case of a national emergency, under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The CCA has stronger safeguards than the Counter-Terrorism Bill.[although... the CCA is now going to be amended by the Counter-Terrorism Bill (assuming it passes) to prevent the CCA from being able to be used to extend pre-charge detention for terror suspects].

Also, why not allow the use of "intercept evidence" in prosecutions? If such evidence were admissible, it could be used to enable earlier charging.



In my opinion, the only reasons Brown has staked so much on "42 days" are, for example, to emphasise his authority (oops), and (of course) to attempt to make the Tories look "soft on terror". Oh, & New Labour's fondness for Authoritarianism & trampling on traditional & fundamental British liberties.


The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could be used to extend pre-charge detention by 30 days in case of a national emergency [see above].

---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------

Back to the specific topic...


I do wonder if Labour will field a candidate.

If they don't, it could be seen as cowardice by some.

And if they do, he/she is likely to get slaughtered at the polls.


And I find the idea of Kelvin MacKenzie standing rather ridiculous. [And would he stand as an Independent, or as a member of the Rupert Murdoch Party?]

Re: David Davis to resign
 

I wonder if Rup has broken a law here, a foreign national trying to influence our democracy in this way must be illegal and if it isn't then it should be, it's bad enough he pollutes our party's and electorate with his rags.

Re: David Davis to resign
 

Murdoch's been influencing our politics for years now, but what I find really sickening is the way both major party leaders suck up to him in an attempt to have the Sun back them.
In the eighties and early nineties the Sun was staunchly Conservative, but once it saw which way the political wind was blowing, and with new Labour sucking up to Murdoch the Sun had what can only be called an epiphany, and began to back Labour.
What a lot of senior Conservatives are worried about is David Davis alienating Murdoch with this stunt, its been said by politicians and journalists that a party can't win without the Sun's backing. What a truly sad state of affairs that this Aussie thug has such sway in our politics.:mad: