David Davis to resign

[Derek]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

like it or not these supposedly tough pieces of legislation always go down well with the general public.

To be perfectly honest I don't think the majority of the UK population care about it.
A significant chunk would be quite happy for people suspected of wanting to blow up buses/tubes trains etc. popped into a darkened room for a couple of months as they think, rightly or wrongly, the chances of them or their family being locked up are practically non-existent.

The majority are more worried about prices of fuel, mortages, food, crime to really pay that much attention to a piece of legislation that might be used a couple of times a year at most.

[Osem]

I'm not sure about this. I wonder how many people have been held for 28 days without charge since the law was last changed. I don't think it's very many and if it isn't, surely that's some evidence that the powers aren't being widely abused. That's cold comfort to those who may have been wrongly held however.

[papa smurf]

i would rather see a suspected terrorist locked away for 42 days, rather than let them loose to blow up a buss full of kids, its not like its a russian gulag there staying in is it ,the uk needs to be a safe place to live ,and the right to live without violence must imo out way a suspected terrorists right to carry out there mission.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Osem

I'm not sure about this. I wonder how many people have been held for 28 days without charge since the law was last changed. I don't think it's very many and if it isn't, surely that's some evidence that the powers aren't being widely abused. That's cold comfort to those who may have been wrongly held however.

It's only a very small handful AFAIK.


Which, surely, is more a case of "evidence that going beyond 28 days to 42 is not needed"?

No one has made a convincing case for the 42 day limit. [IMO ]

The Govt only won the vote (narrowly!) due to (alleged ) backroom deals with a certain party, plus the usual "We know you don't like this bit of the Bill, but you have to stomach that & vote for it anyway as loyal Labour MPs, OR ELSE YOU'LL DESTROY GORDON'S GOVERNMENT!!!!! OMG!!!!"

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i would rather see a suspected terrorist locked away for 42 days, rather than let them loose to blow up a buss full of kids, its not like its a russian gulag there staying in is it ,the uk needs to be a safe place to live ,and the right to live without violence must imo out way a suspected terrorists right to carry out there mission.

Why isn't 28 days sufficient to stop them blowing up "a bus load of kids"?


As for "the right to live without violence must imo out way a suspected terrorists right to carry out there mission.", erm... that's not the argument.

No one is saying that suspected terrorists have a "right to carry out their mission".

But suspects have the right to not be detained for excessive periods without charge or trial, the right to be promptly informed of the reasons for said arrest & the right to be promptly informed of the charge...


We already had the highest pre-charge detention period in the West with the old 28 day limit (higher than the US, higher than Europe, higher than Turkey even)... why the need for 42?


And as David Davis said in his resignation statement, he said he feared 42 days was just the beginning and next "we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days"...

Remember, Blair wanted 90 days the last time this came up... 28 days was actually a compromise, after the 90 day provision was defeated in Parliament.


Terrorism Act 2000: 48 hours, could be extended to 7 days with permission from a judge.

Criminal Justice Act 2003: 14 days.

Terrorism Act 2006: 28 days.

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008: 42 days.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Matt D

It's only a very small handful AFAIK.


Which, surely, is more a case of "evidence that going beyond 28 days to 42 is not needed"?

No one has made a convincing case for the 42 day limit. [IMO ]

The Govt only won the vote (narrowly!) due to (alleged ) backroom deals with a certain party, plus the usual "We know you don't like this bit of the Bill, but you have to stomach that & vote for it anyway as loyal Labour MPs, OR ELSE YOU'LL DESTROY GORDON'S GOVERNMENT!!!!! OMG!!!!"







Why isn't 28 days sufficient to stop them blowing up "a bus load of kids"?


As for "the right to live without violence must imo out way a suspected terrorists right to carry out there mission.", erm... that's not the argument.

No one is saying that suspected terrorists have a "right to carry out their mission".

But suspects have the right to not be detained for excessive periods without charge or trial, the right to be promptly informed of the reasons for said arrest & the right to be promptly informed of the charge...


We already had the highest pre-charge detention period in the West with the old 28 day limit (higher than the US, higher than Europe, higher than Turkey even)... why the need for 42?


And as David Davis said in his resignation statement, he said he feared 42 days was just the beginning and next "we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days"...

Remember, Blair wanted 90 days the last time this came up... 28 days was actually a compromise, after the 90 day provision was defeated in Parliament.


Terrorism Act 2000: 48 hours, could be extended to 7 days with permission from a judge.

Criminal Justice Act 2003: 14 days.

Terrorism Act 2006: 28 days.

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008: 42 days.

so basicly if the authorities caught osama bin laden in London ,you'd let him go free after 28 days ,just because more time was needed to gather evidence, i cant see a problem with 42 days [you ask for a reason for this ] i can give you 52 reasons ,thats how many people died 7/7/05 in the london bombings, or how about the twin towers in new york ,all of those people had the right to be safe . but not if the bleeding heart liberal do-gooders get there way . the world has changed since 9/11 ,how can one persons liberty be more important than the safety of thousands.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

so basicly if the authorities caught osama bin laden in London ,you'd let him go free after 28 days ,just because more time was needed to gather evidence, i cant see a problem with 42 days [you ask for a reason for this ] i can give you 52 reasons ,thats how many people died 7/7/05 in the london bombings, or how about the twin towers in new york ,all of those people had the right to be safe . but not if the bleeding heart liberal do-gooders get there way . the world has changed since 9/11 ,how can one persons liberty be more important than the safety of thousands.

You think they'd need 28 days to build a case against him?

Would you be happy to be locked up for 42 days?

There is no evidence to support your notion that it would have taken 42 days to build a case against the 9/11 bombers or the 7/7 ones either.
Of those who've been held for nearly 28 days, about half were innocent.

Try to realise we're not talking about terrorists here, we're talking about suspects, which so far half have been held for nearly 28 days after doing absolutely nothing illegal.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Matt D

It's only a very small handful AFAIK.


Which, surely, is more a case of "evidence that going beyond 28 days to 42 is not needed"?

No one has made a convincing case for the 42 day limit. [IMO ]

If that's true I tend to agree. Had the 28 days been shown to be totally inadequate, there'd have been a better argument for more time. What's to stop them, under current legislation, from just releasing and immediately rearresting a suspect who's already been held for 28 days if that person is considered a serious threat and they need more time to build a case?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Osem

I'm not sure about this. I wonder how many people have been held for 28 days without charge since the law was last changed.

Originally Posted by Matt D

It's only a very small handful AFAIK.

Its actually none. No suspected terrorist has ever been released since the law was changed because the police ran out of time to gather evidence. The closest we have come is that 2 individuals came within 2 days of being released whilst awaiting foreign agencies to procure the required evidence. So the longest anyone has been held without charge is 26 days.

Slow cooperation from foreign entities is (an admittedly) good reason for increasing the detention time limit. However I think a better solution overall would be to improve international ties in respect to suspected criminals and justice, decreasing the wait for evidence rather than keep pushing the detention limit further and further up.

---------- Post added at 09:15 ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 ----------

Apparently Rupert Murdoch has offered to put Kelvin McKenzie up as a candidate against David Davis. Madness, he doesn't stand a chance.

[Osem]

Interesting. I'd still like someone to explain why the 28 days could not just be extended if needs be under current legisaltion either by rearrest or use of what I seem to recall (could be wrong on that) are existing emergency powers.

[tweetypie/8]

Originally Posted by Osem

Another by election is on the way as David Davis resigns apparently due to internal differences about the Tory stance on the 42 days issue.

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

who really gives a toss.

[BBKing]

Hmm, does this mean Labour MP Denis MacShane thought Robin Cook's resignation was a "stunt" too then?

Probably, since MacShane is from the right-wing/neocon wing of the Labour Party and a strong supporter of invading Iraq. He's politically closer to a lot of Davis' colleagues (people like Michael Gove*) than Davis is, let alone the late Mr. Cook. It's important to realise that this is as much about splits in the Tory Party as it's about 42 days. Obviously the Labour Party is even more split. It's not, fundamentally, a party political issue.

* They're both IIRC signatories of the Henry Jackson Society, which is an organisation with strongly neocon views who'd be well up for 42 days, 90 days or quite possibly 'forever'. Signatories include the hard right of both main parties plus journalists and indeed Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6.

http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/s....asp?pageid=36

[punky]

Originally Posted by Osem

Interesting. I'd still like someone to explain why the 28 days could not just be extended if needs be under current legisaltion either by rearrest or use of what I seem to recall (could be wrong on that) are existing emergency powers.

I'm guessing if someone was re-arrested immediately after the 28 day limit was up on the same reason*, then even a barely-competent lawyer should be able to get him released under police harrassment. The only way police could re-arrest suspects is if they can immediately charge a suspect and get him remanded.

There is possibly another work-around tactic which is possibly legal but ethically questionable. If there isn't enough evidence to charge a suspect with terrorism, you might be able to buy time by charging them with a minor related offence with the intent to remand him whilst evidence for the principal charges can be procured. I don't want to see that tactic having to be utilised.


* Although some people say the suspects won't know the charges against them (partly because there are any), the suspects do know why they are arrested as its part of their memoranda rights. "I'm hereby arresting you on suspicion of ............. Plus the questions ask are a bit of a clue too.

Someone please tell me that the Police need to keep going to a Judge thoughout the 28 days to continue getting it extended?

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Damien

Someone please tell me that the Police need to keep going to a Judge thoughout the 28 days to continue getting it extended?

Yes they do, the application for a further 7 days goes to a senior judge, I found this link which explains it better than I could.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...civilliberties

[Angua]

Looks like Kelvin Mackenzie might stand against him BBC News