Not a resigning matter
"I don't think it is". With those five words Ed Balls ends any suggestion that next week's vote on extending detention without charge to 42 days should be treated as a vote of confidence in the government. That was the question he was asked on Radio 4's Today programme this morning.
What this means is that you should discount any nudge by the whips or wink from a spindoctor that Gordon Brown's future depends on whether he wins next week or not. Let's be clear. He can lose and stay prime minister just as Tony Blair did when he was defeated on his 90-day proposal. That is not to say, of course, that defeat wouldn't have huge consequences for Mr Brown.
The prime minister's hope is that the argument which will dominate politics for the next 10 days will show that he is "taking the right long term decisions in difficult times" and is "on the side" of voters many of whom would instinctively back locking up terrorist suspects for 42 weeks without charge.
If he loses, however, people will be reminded that this is a battle he chose to fight despite having been warned as long ago as last November that:
• there was no consensus for change (he met Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti twice in one day in order to find a deal)
• that he faced parliamentary defeat
• that the director of public prosecutions, the former attorney general and former justice secretary did not support the need for change
• that MI5 would not back his arguments either privately or publicly - the spooks have let it be known that they are "neutral" on the issue
• and that many of his own ministers - not least the man he brought into government to deal with terrorism, Lord West - had had real doubts about whether this was the right priority.
Labour MPs return to the Commons today for the first time since the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. They will watch as the man dubbed the "Tory toff" fills the space once taken by Gwyneth Dunwoody. Many will be asking themselves what they should now do to avoid losing their seats.
When it comes to the vote on 42 days many Labour MPs will vote out of party loyalty, many out of conscience but the group to watch are those will vote out of self-interest. They must decide whether defeating 42 days with the consequences for Gordon Brown is more or less likely to save their skins. One thing they now know, thanks to Ed Balls, is that defeat will not trigger his immediate removal.
UPDATE, 02:50PM: Gordon Brown has, under pressure, confirmed that the 42-day vote will not be a confidence vote by declaring that it will be a "normal" parliamentary vote.
He was speaking alongside the Japanese prime minister - a man who got his job when his party sacked the previously failing leader. John Rentoul of the Independent on Sunday wrote an excellent piece about the parallels... or not.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~10~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
I see...., So what Ed Balls says goes, does it. ?
Complain about this comment
Ed Balls, the man who says "so what" to voters' concerns, is hardly the most reliable source! He's right though. Brown will not be forced out, probably over anything, as the Labour Party know that another 'appointed' PM would be unacceptable to the public and to go to the polls when their ratings are at such a low ebb would be suicide.
Complain about this comment
42 days or 42 weeks?
And it's Chakrabarti with two 'R's, I believe. Silly non-rhotic English accents.
Back on-topic, you've got to admit that GB must really believe in this policy to go ahead with it despite substantial opposition, and with personal and party approval ratings in the Mariana Trench. It's very courageous.
Either that or he's completely lost touch with reality and reason, which is also a distinct possibility.
Complain about this comment
My understanding of this issue is that the extraordinary circumstances this legislation would be triggered under is proportionate to a sizable terrorist attack. It's a useful tool to have should circumstances dictate and having it available so panic driven legislation isn't needed or ministers time isn't wasted seems fair enough. It's a half-way house between an outrage and needing to declare a state of emergency. If parliament and vested interests reflected on that this would be a much more minor matter and dealt with more sensibly.
Is it a resigning issue? Some people may think that or wish to fan the flames of disharmony but I wouldn't say it was. In fact, I wouldn't even call it close. Perhaps the issue wasn't framed the right way and vested interests didn't deal with it maturely enough but it's on the table for when circumstances change or people have developed a calmer outlook. The narrow minded and partisan view clutters discussion and makes things more emotive than they need be. Win, lose, or draw this should people something to chew on in their own time.
Personally, I consider this time the lowest point for Labour, and the Tories high water mark. As surely as the moon moves across the sky the tides will change. Perception lags reality and, I believe, a little of the Gordon Brown pixie dust will begin to mysteriously but surely move political fortunes more in his favour. Simply, by being more humble in presentation and allowing people to discover their inner success, the sage succeeds with little effort. One can almost hear the screeching of political brakes as good-time friends flip-flop on the ashes of their ego.
This is quite amusing. Truly, Blessed Leader has a great sense of humour.
Complain about this comment
Gordon is fighting for survival. While many of us support the notion that we should do whatever we can to fight terrorism, this is simply an attempt to undermine the judicial process. As you point out Nick there seems to be little stomach for this measure. It will be strange indeed if he has to call on his 'enemies' to defeat his 'friends'.
Complain about this comment
we don?t need detention without charge, and to say it wont be used is silly, if its legal, then it will be used, not necessarily as intended, but look at the councils using the new surveillance laws to snoop on people not using their bins correctly.
It?s easy enough -
Police Officer "Give me the password to your computer"
Suspect "go do something rude to yourself"
PO "I?m charging you with obstructing the police in their enquiries"
Quick easy and means we're not losing people in the system, and before people come on and say "it'll only be used on terrorists" that?s what its intended for, but who knows what it could be used for in the future.
There is no proof, evidence or reason to do this, it is an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, it?s a stupid dangerous idea.
Complain about this comment
What the voters 'instinctively' want and conscience are both important, of course, unlike specific MPs' electoral prospects.
However, it would be nice to see a bit more illumination of the logic by which people think this would actually help in the fight against terrorism.
It's not enough to argue, as Brown does in the Times today, that these cases are complicated and take a long time to sort out. The link to the need to keep people locked up needs to be made explicit.
That's something the BBC could help with: not to argue the Government's case for it (or counter thise arguments), but, for example, to lay out the background at a deeper level than 'he says - she says'.
Complain about this comment
Given the way that existing anti- terrorist legislation was (ab)used to shut people up and stop them making their views known at the Labour Party Conference its obvious that Brown needs at least 42 days.
Complain about this comment
"Watch those who will vote out of self interest". Well that will be around 650 of them I suppose. the very suggestion that any of these people have principles would be absolutely hysterical if it were not so serious.
Complain about this comment
Labour MP?s need to tell Brown that he is a lame duck until such time that he has secured a mandate following a general election. It is excruciating watching a stalled Government who are unable to implement any policies without a u-turn or series of concessions. Surely there is someone courageous in the Labour Party who can force Gordon to set out a time table for an election?
Complain about this comment
But this doesn't mean anything for in the eyes of New Labour nothing is a resigning matter. It never has been and that's why they are now the most unpopular government in living memory; nobody is ever held accountabe for anything. And they never will be until they call an election.
When an election is called - like the local elections; the London mayoralty; Crewe and Nantwich the great British publioc gives its verdict on this lack of accountability every time and kicks them out. Resoundingly.
So does it matter that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls don't think it's a resigning matter if he loses the vote? The real issue is when he calls an election people will give their verdict on this arrogance and dithering and incompetence once and for all.
This is far from the lowest point for New Labour as they have decided to pursue the 'carry on regardless' strategy when clearly 75% of the country loathes them. Ther's another 25% to go at who will be too ashamed to admit they have ever supported this bunch of losers.
Gordon Brown will have his place in the history books as the most spectacular failure of all time.
Complain about this comment
That was particularly stupid of Balls. If he'd left the "resigning" issue in doubt he might have shored up a few more waverers.
Now MPs in marginals can vote as they please knowing that they can present themselves as guardians of liberty for their constituents whilst not triggering a leadership election in their party.
I wonder how Gordon will take it when the voters boot him out? Will he refuse to go? Of course, that assumes that he's still in the job....
Complain about this comment
We have a government that is intent on doing the terrorists job for them. Every Act they pass and every statement they make reduces the freedom of the individual and allows the state to intrude into our lives.
Oh for Glasnost, this lot have lost it; not that they ever had it.
Complain about this comment
I doubt if Bottler will be displaced even if he loses this vote.
I hope he stays as Labour leader (- he's not the PM because he denied us the opportunity for an election when Blair left -) because he is the best person to ensure the Conservatives win the next general election.
Complain about this comment
This government deserves to fall and in my opinion will fall due to policies of this Ilk.
For a *Labour* administration to have validity it needs to appeal to peoples sense of fair play and decency.
Voting Labour at its best is a guilty pleasure, we know that it isnt really good for us financially but it feels good in the moment.
Labour have lost this and become a more intrusive version of the "nasty tories".
That regardless of the economy is why Labour are at a low watermark in my opinion.
They should ditch this policy immediately and instead look at how they can bring our communities together.
Complain about this comment
@12 - He'll lock up all those who voted against him for 48 days ;)
That was a joke btw before the NuLabour cheerleaders get all in a tiz - Brown is many things, but a dictator he is not.
Complain about this comment
This is just another example of Brown's authoritian leanings, as with ID cards. I hope he is defeated on it. It would be a great shame if Britain, who already locks up more people than any other Europe country, goes down this road.
I think people will be wondering why, with so many other pressing problems, Mr Brown is willing to put his already shaky premiership on the line over this. It just has to be political posturing. As with many of Labour's new laws it is not necessary anyway, can anyone seriously believe that police do not have enough powers already, and the wit to bring suspected terrorists to court?. And if all the powers of the state cannot find enough evidence to charge someone after a month in custody, many will think there is no real evidence anyway.
It's simply moving the goal posts - and why stop at 42 days? Why not indefinitely until they confirm the state's suspicions, as with Guantanamo Bay?
I hope the Labour rebels will have the courage to say no and not be manipulated into voting yes to save Brown's skin.
Complain about this comment
I read on the bbc somewhere that Ed Balls is Gorden's Choice to replace him.
I wouldnt put too much stock in what Ed Balls says, his political future is going to tainted with the infamous 'So What' remark.
I agree with the above posters gorden will attempt to hang on even if he is defeated.
He just better hope his own back benchers will let him hang on.
Complain about this comment
Gordon is sticking to 42 days not because of some deep-seated principle involving his beliefs, but because he thinks it makes him look tough, and because if he caved in yet again from something that he has repeatedly said he would not budge on, then he would lose whatever shred of credibility and authority he had left.
Incidentally, Charles, there are already powers in place to hold people for at least an extra 2 weeks on top of the 28 days. All they have to do is declare a state of emergency. Now I don't know about you, but a sizeable terrorist attack (to use your words) sounds like a state of emergency to me, so I don't see the need for this extension. Especially when they could utilise other things such as post-charge questioning and use of intercept evidence in court.
Complain about this comment
So, a government perceived as unpopular has its sails trimmed repeatedly by a cautious back bench. Which is a lot better for all concerned than the trauma of an overt leadership crisis. A doubtful bill is up for debate. If it ever does materialise on the order paper at all (Hmmm...) I see some desperate calulations by the whips, a narrow majority and a defeat in the Lords. And no stomach to do much about that.
It will go the way of the Identity card initiative, slowly down the plughole.
I mean has the Home Office (as was) really survived the Labour government as a force for anything?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Will the scale of any defeat affect whether Ed Balls' is right?
I for one hope Labour MPs do have the backbone to reject this nasty Bill.
That *might* also hasten a General Election, although GB wants to stay as PM so badly that one suspects he'll delay an election until almost the last possible date and have to be dragged out of No. 10 the day afterwards.
All this would be less scary if the Government and police didn't have lots of previous form on using legislation in a more Draconian way than they told Parliament and applying it to people other than those they said it was aimed at - eg Brian Haw, demonstrations near Parliament, Walter Wolfgang for heckling Conference, Mark Wallace of the Freedom Association for collecting signatures on ID cards, etc. etc.
The spin that this is just a precautionary measure in case of a major state of emergency would be laughable if it wasn't frightening. Let's all hope this won't arise, but if there is a real emergency Parliament should vote on this after debating all the circumstances (and be recalled if necessary).
My judgement is that the reality is that this is naked party politics of the worst order and has little or nothing to do with operational policing or security.
Complain about this comment
There is very little historical precedent of policies like this ever being successful. What there are historical precedents for, is poilicies like this being unsuccessful. In ireland at the turn of the century when thousands of catholics were detained, leading to massive civil disobediance, or perhaps to look at a more recent examply, Abu Graib, used by Saddam Hussein to torture civilians, and then reopened by the Americans to erm...well ... the pictures say it all.
These draconian measures have been asked for by a police department who shoot an ordinary citizen dead for no reason under these so called heightened circumstances and plays into terrorists hands as they want the Government and the ignorant racists who support these moves to be shown up for exactly what they are.
Why have the BNP when the Government are listening to an organisation that was, as pointed out by the Steven Lawrence inquiry, institutionally racist.
This was written over 50 years ago and is sad to see that it is just as relevent today.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
nuff said
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick, do you think that once the vote is won we will get a queue of cabinet ministers declaring they would have resigned had the vote gone the other way? I remember this happened when Tony Blair won the Iraq war vote in parliament and all the gang were falling over themselves to re-declare their loyalty.
Complain about this comment
This obsession with Gordon Brown is making Nick Robinson and his political coverage, look like jumped up celebrity gossip television. Perhaps he could start up a new channel with Andrew Neil. Instead of E! it could be called P!
I wonder if the RBS and Barclays banking scandal can be connected to labour? like Northern rock.
I will demonstrate the BBCs reporting tactic. Is Nick Robinson up to the job? Is Nick Robinson pro conservative and anti labour and is that a resigning matter?
I am against 42 days and not particularly pro labour.
Complain about this comment
I think GB is right using 42 days.
Remember, 42 was the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Maybe by using 42, GB has the answer to everything!
Somehow I doubt it!
Complain about this comment
42 is the answer the life, the universe and everything so Gordon must be a fan.
It is the only explanation that makes any sense.
People have mouldering away in places like Belmarsh for years anyway - despite the legal issues.
This NL Government and we must stagger on through the next couple of years to the GE in 2010.
By that stage, Labour should be more or less wiped off the face of the earth in England as 'Dave's' shower fill the boots.
Perfect timing for Alex Salmond to call the Scottish referendum and then the game changes completely.
A couple of examples from the weekend illustrate how Labour have lost their compass.
First, in Browns own constituency, a Post Office is being shut ... Post Offices are/were one decent piece of public space for the community, which you would think a Labour Government would try to protect .. instead they are cutting the PO network, whilst the Italians maintain and even open new PO's.
Secondly, and much more seriously, English people are dying of cancer because of Government NHS policy in England but not Scotland.
Alan Johnson is doing English people a huge dis-service by claiming that founding principles of the NHS must only apply in England.
This is truly outrageous and another nail in the coffin of the so-called Union.
Complain about this comment
I suppose I am being very silly if I suggest that actually Gordon Brown is rather dim and that he has been continuously manipulated by his great mentor, Balls (of the demob haircut, expenses skills and eye watering ambition) into the pretty pass he now finds himself.
Ridiculous! Can't possibly be, but hmmmmm......
Complain about this comment
Ed Balls sounds up there with Thatcher and "the Chancellors position is paramount!". He is a dead duck if Brown goes so he would say that Brown will not resign.
But three points.
One is I never believed that the 42 day mob believed in the 42 days. Too many officials don't back them. I believed that it was window dressing to out muscle the Tories. They are now in a corner and can't retreat.
Two is if he loses will he have much chance to be able to think about resigning. Even with their fixed constitution he would have zero credibility.
Three, I bore the other posters I am sure, as 2010 draws nearer then the fact that Brown is Scottish and the SNP may well win the independence referendum will become a factor. He would be gone then as I see it.
He can't "do a Crewe" without exciting Plaid Cymru and alienating the English. If they lose the referendum then what does the Party do as many top politicians would then be ineligible.
People tell me sometimes I am "out there". I wonder about the politicians and the media (no disrespect Nick) myself.
Complain about this comment
"Remember, 42 was the answer to life, the universe and everything"
The trouble was that, as Deep Thought pointed out, they never actually knew what the question was. Simple answers are rarey satisfactoy.
As a working thinker, I demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure which I find most alarming, a Conservative Party, memebrs, friends and bloggers all banging on about Human and Civil rights or:
A pack of hounds ripping a fox apart?
Both quite sickening to observe by this writer.
Tories talking about Human Rights and Civil Rights. Come on!
There is nothing decent about 20th Century Conservatives attempting to sway a weary public of how very 21st Century they all are and we are best served by their reason.
Conservatives hate Europe (the biggest Civil rights and Human Rights organisation in the world) and they hate the very thought of the British working class having any rights whatsoever.
Tories have no credibility on this issue with the working voter and try as they might, they will never have any either.
My honest opinion is that my Labour MP will vote against this bill. It will take a mountain to move his opinion. It will have to be a water-tight case that persuades him. So be it.
Is it a resigning issue?
For goodness sake, give us a break.
No. simple.
Complain about this comment
# 28
I would not worry about being in a gang-of-one.
I am myself.
It seems to me that the whole political establishment, including parts of the media, are in denial about the remorseless political timetable which is driving the political entity 'Britain' into its final days.
This Englishman will be very glad to get our England back again because it will bring much needed political clarity to our situation.
Complain about this comment
I must admit that like some other posters I feel very uneasy about potential abuse of the legislation. I also don't see this as a party political issue. I suspect that there are members on both sides of the House who are firmly pro or con the proposal so I tend to agree that it is not a resigning matter but more about our individual visions of a just society. Having said that I don't think it would be good news for GB if he lost by a substantial margin, not least because such a vote would demonstrate a lack of good judgement of the mood of the House. Ed Balls was right to say what he did and to be up front about it.
Complain about this comment
I really don't understand why someone can't be charged within 42 days.
I do worry that a government can't be defeated without it being seen by politicians and reporters as a vote of confidence. Why can't a defeat just mean the democratic will of parliament? Instead of part of some power game.
Labour people may feel the need to vote for this even though they don't believe in it and conservatives and maybe lib dems. may be forced to vote against it even though they think its the right thing to do.
This sort of political game and our voting system, that is only good for boffins on BBC Election coverage. Makes a mockery of democracy.
moderator: I withdraw dhwilkinson@24.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Please can you broadcast what a waste of time this whole process is and has been? How many hours have been spent discussing this issue when the country and our banking infrastructure is collapsing around us? If we had politicians who recognised that the magistrates and judges have the ability to detain if the evidence is presented and can be trusted to do their job then this is not required. It is also up to the police to present their findings, and not just circumspect evidence that is not enough to charge. Should they not have enough evidence in 28 days to charge someone with some misdemeanour then I fail to see how another 12 days is going to create such evidence.
As for the PM, he should resign if he fails in his bid. He has spun this to seem that he is tough on terror, he is doing the 'right' thing for the country. I suspect he is so far away from reality he has no idea which country he is trying to protect. Ultimately I believe the laws are in place to deal with any network of terrorists, and this is just a smoke screen. Shouldn't the MPs be debating Europe instead?
Complain about this comment
Am I imagining something, or was it not that long ago that GB wanted us all to know what a caring PM he is and how he is listening to everyone else's concerns? Doesn't seem to be doing much listening here, does he?
Complain about this comment
There's a lot of cliche and handwaving in here. From a Zen Buddhist perspective it's quite funny seeing people gnash their their over policy and perform to the partisan gallery, as if it means anything. It's like watching a baby cry over having a case of wind. People are just making an emotional mountain out of a policy pebble. It's just posturing and attention seeking.
As I've already commented, this is a halfway house between the normal and insufficient way of dealing with an outrage and something that might otherwise require a heavy handed state of emergency to be declared. Plus, it's got so many lock-outs that prevent it being used it's silly. Prisoners on remand stay in prison for longer and with less justification.
The problem with the prosecuters is they're not getting their heads around the real problem so can't appreciate how the new law is safe and proportionate. They're living in the past of a single car bomb or conventional wartime attack. A critical outrage is between the two and may require sweeping but targetted powers. This new law deliver exactly that.
Complain about this comment
27 greytiles
"I suppose I am being very silly if I suggest that actually Gordon Brown is rather dim and that he has been continuously manipulated by his great mentor, Balls (of the demob haircut, expenses skills and eye watering ambition) into the pretty pass he now finds himself."
I might think so but I couldn't possibly comment.
Complain about this comment
I think an important point to think about is that, in the US, the home of 9/11 and fear of terrorism, the equivilant legislation allows for prisoners to be held for 2 DAYS without charge!
Complain about this comment
Re item 6, while I agree 42 days detention is not required your scenario would not work. The suspected terrorist would be quite within their constituttional rights not to reply to the question and could not be charged with obstruction if he did not.
The only people who do not seem to have the right of silence in this country are registered keepers of motor vehicles who have to disclose who was driving their car at a given time and place, even, if themselves, or get fined and penalty points.
Obviously combatting speeding drivers is much higher up the Government's priorities than dealing with terrorist offences
Complain about this comment
Just because Ed Balls says it's not a resigning matter, that doesn't mean it's not. He's even more of an idiot than Gordon Brown is (and that's saying something), what he says is completely meaningless in most people's eyes; everyone else just laughs at the man, nobody takes him seriously. A similar message from someone like Hazel Blears would have the same "so what?" impact.
Obviously Gordon Brown doesn't see it as a resigning matter; he doesn't see anything as a resigning matter while he's the subject of the potential resignation. Even if Gordon Brown intentionally blew up parliament with a bomb he wouldn't resign over it; the man will try to cling onto power come what may, he's a dictator pure and simple.
Personally I hope he loses the vote because I don't like the idea of being locked up for 42 days just because the current PM doesn't like the look of you or just because you disagree with his policies.
Remember the labour conference, when they used the "only in extreme emergencies" anti-terrorist legislation to kick out a pensioner from their conference for heckling "rubbish"? That shows you how easy it is for them to abuse such laws. Rest assured, if this passes they *will* abuse it and they should not be given that chance.
Remember that a "suspect" is just that; a suspect, not proven guilty or even charged. You can be a suspect just because you're a certain race in the police's eyes. Being a "terrorist suspect" is not the same as being a terrorist; it just means that the powers that be don't personally like you but they haven't bothered to do their job well enough to gather any evidence, and that should never ever lead them to being able to lock you up for 42 days.
Anyway, just because the majority of the public would prefer something that doesn't mean it's right; "give £1million to everyone as a one-off gift" would be popular, but wouldn't be the right thing to do.
Gordon Brown's arguments are completely flawed; I hope the other labour MPs see this for what it is; it's Brown wanting to turn the country into a Stalinist state where the thought police can shoot you in the head 5 times for looking foreign.
Complain about this comment
# 39
That is not strictly true.
The Idris Francis case went to the EU Court which found against him but ... according to the write up in the Times, the only mistake he made was to refuse to co-operate in any way with the police.
If you show that you have made some efforts to assist the police with their enquiries but are ultimately unable to identify the driver, then this will count heavily in your favour at any court hearing.
However, it is only likes of Harry Redknapp who have the money to take on the police when they behave outrageously.
Most folk are cowed and simply pay up ... which is not this Englishman's idea of justice at all.
Complain about this comment
I think #14 is right.
A GE in 2010 with GB as the PM will be what the conservatives most want. They will campaign on how little he has been successful coupled with his broken promises. Think 10p tax, extra fuel duty, no referendum on Lisbon etc.
A referendum in Scotland could well produce a majority vote for separation such is the (political) loathing of all things English at the moment. That coupled with the disarray of the Labour pary in Scotland could well mean far less Scots Labour MPs, thus helping "Dave" to be the next PM.
GB's only hope is go long and not call the GE in 2010 hoping that the economic cycle has improved, helped by a giveaway Budget in April 2010. An improvement in the security situation would help, but 42 days imprisonment without being charged will not help that particular situation.
Complain about this comment
I have read in the papers that prisoners have the right to stay in their cells and do not have to turn up in Court these days. If we afford this priviledge to ordinary prisoners, we would be discriminatory if we did not afford it to possible terrorists.
How would that work then?
Complain about this comment
My previous posting was fairly general, so I thought I'd add something about the 42 day argument itself rather than just the false motives behind it etc...
The argument is "it's complex to find the evidence, so we need more time".
The counter argument to that is a simple and obvious one:
when the technology involved becomes more complex, 42 days will not be enough; it might end up taking 5 years to break an encryption key for example. Does that mean you should lock someone up for 5 years without charge?
Basically, if you don't have enough evidence for charging someone and taking them to court, then it's also true to say that you don't have enough evidence to consider them as being a valid suspect in the first place. For example, if your only evidence is on a computer as an encrypted file that you can't open, then how did you know they were a suspect in the first place if you didn't see that file? Was it just that someone that they didn't like told you they thought the person was a bit dodgy? If so, then you have no right to lock them up for 1 day, let alone 42.
All the arguments for 42 days are completely invalid/flawed and make no reasonable/logical sense.
Complain about this comment
Mr Robinson (Ex chairman of Young Consvatives) why no blog (or comment)about the potential revolt within the Conservative Party due to Mr Camerons stance against the 42 days detention without charge? Some, notabily those who have earlier served in government, and know the score, have allready said (publically or in private a phrase typically used by Mr Roninson) they will vote with the government.
A list of those against 42 days was provided in the blog so why no list of those in favour? It wouldn't be, would it, that as I have said, number of senior Conservatives backbenchers are in favour
Nr Robinson must know that it only becomes a resigning matter (for not only the Prime Minister but for the whole of the Government) if a specific vote of no confidence is passed by the House of Commons. So if Mr Robinson and the Conservative Party consider it such an important principle why has Mr Cameron not tabled one. Until they do its just playing politics.
What I fail to understand why people like Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti are quite happy for any old charge to be brought, the suspect held in jail for over twelve months, then for the case to be droped without a trial. This can be over year in custody deprivde of freedom not just 42 days.
As for myself, I would change the law to that of Italy where, a judge can detain a suspect for up to four years without charge
Complain about this comment
GaryElsby £):
Gary, now now, you're at it again aren't you? Look, forget about whether it's new Labour V Conservative, just ask yourself which party is in power, yes I know, pretty obvious really - new labour. Now, join the dots: New Labour ... identity Cards ... longer detention ... the determination to implement US criteria for passport information on UK flights. What about those naughty councils, doing, well, you know what, with New Labour's peeping tom legislation? Oh, did I forget the stated desire to, what was it? let me think ... ah yes, collect records of our phone calls, emails etc. etc.
Now, I know it's hard, but read it over and over till you've learnt it by rote, then take a long rest, freshen up, and have a cup of tea. It'll help you come to terms with it all.
Complain about this comment
When one considers that immediately after the 2005 election Brown, along with Blair, "stressed the need to listen more carefully to an electorate", surely the fact that he is still having to stress that point three years on is proof that he hasn't been listening?
And does he firmly believe that the main issue for most Britons is how long we can hold a terrorist? If so, I fear the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath is sorely mistaken, for the closest we in the South-West have come to terrorism is a Mr Nick Reilly, a man who succeeded only in injuring himself.
Such an incident does not concern my colleagues nearly as much as the rising fuel and food prices, and the threat of strikes and protests over Government policies. Brown would do well to remember why Callaghan lost the 1979 Election - it was not over terrorism, despite the threat of the IRA. It was a combination of the economy and growing dissatisfaction with Labour due to the Winter of Discontent.
A repeat of such a crisis thirty years on this winter could leave Labour out for as long as eighteen years again if Brown does not steady his ship. He needs to address the real issues that people are talking about, and he needs to do it quickly. If he has not turned it around within the next year than the chances are he never will.
He won't resign, and no-one in the Labour Party has the credentials to make him resign - they're either notorious or too inexperienced. It appears he may go the same way as John Major - unable to be brought down by his party, but categorically snubbed by the voters. I look forward to him proving me wrong, for it will represent the biggest turnaround in fortunes since Thatcher's reputation before and after the Falklands. He needs to start by not obsessing on how long he can hold an extreme majority under arrest, and start obsessing on how he can placate an angry British public.
As for Ed Balls' comment, "So what?" The man is about as effective in garnering support for Labour as "a cat flap in an elephant house." He will not be missed when he goes.
Complain about this comment
Just to clarify, in the penultimate paragraph, I meant "minority", not "majority". Also, on the subject of terrorism, isn't the anger over Guantanamo Bay proof that holding people without trial for a long period of time is unpopular?
Complain about this comment
Re post 41, you are right in what you say that if you try to cooperate but cannot identify the driver you will not commit an offence. But my point was that you should not have to cooperate at all in your own conviction, you should certainly not have to answer questions that can incriminate you. If you do decide to cooperate it should be your choice and it is for the police to prove the offence, not for you to prove it for them
Currently if you rely on the view that you have the right to remain silent you will commit an offence of failing to notify the name and address of the driver of the vehicle and get the same punishment as if you were driving the vehicle at that time. I also agree if you are rich enough to afford a good solicitor you are ojkely to get off this offence
Does seem surprising that this wide spread abuse is thought acceptable for motoring offences but there would be outrage if it was enforced for much more serious crime.
Complain about this comment
I believe that Labour are finished in England as a governing force.
In my lifetime, they have always, always, screwed up big-time in the end but of course, we the people end up paying for their mistakes and colossal wastage of taxpayer funds.
The inherent contradictions in the NL project must now plain for all English people to see, especially when different policies are being applied across the so-called Union.
It will be fascinating to see which political groups emerge from the primordial stew in England around 2010, once the Tories are, by default, back in power.
I'm sure English people will not be satisfied with "Dave" and his shower wielding practically unbridled power in England and that alternatives will rapidly emerge.
We English have been far too accommodating to these politicians and they have abused our trust.
Now the whole political system must be recast in our English image.
Nothing less will do.
Complain about this comment
But...but..but..Dr. Gloom, I have joined all the dots and lunatics the world over bounce off the walls at a full moon because of Conservative flip-flopping and sheer hard faced duplicity.
Ask any Tory to defend their invention of a European Union and no-one anywhere will cough up!
Asylum, Immigration, Euro's, the whole shooting match. Not a sausage will be admitted to, or defended by a rabid anti Civil rights, anti Union, anti European Conservative Party.
Today they stand shoulder to shoulder in the lobbies and can't wait to defend me from big bad Labour and a willingness to bang me up at a moments notice by 'Yates of the Yard and his SWAT team.
Laughable.
At this rate, Dave and Gideon will be announcing the 'freedom of the City of London' to Arthur Scargill as a champion of Liberty in the face of criminal oppression.
I'm not sold on this policy-less bunch of flip-flopping Punch and Judy's who won't even admit to their own real names.
What exactly, is a Conservative actually doing within an arena of 'rights'?
Behave!
Give me an honest Labour rebel, anyday.
Complain about this comment
Brown'll never resign - he'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming from Downing Street.
Complain about this comment
By the way; welcome back, Nick!
I'm guessing you won't get the same 84 day fully paid summer holiday that the MPs will get, so I hope you made the most of your recent time off!
It looks like you'll have some pretty heavy stuff to get stuck into over the next week or 2.
It's all blood-boiling stuff whichever side of the fence you're on; certainly makes for interesting reporting/politics.
(wow; 84 days paid holiday, and that's only one of the holidays they get; what a job, eh?)
Complain about this comment
So everyone with a real insight into the benefits of extended detention don?t want or fail to see any benefit, But the PM wants it. That?s this mans version of listening and leading for you.
Complain about this comment
How on earth anyone can call Brown's stance on this courageous is beyond me. Brown is a craven coward hoping that this will appease the populous and improve his flagging fortunes. But all he's doing in caving into the terrorists. They seek to change our country and they succeed with measures such as this.
If this is passed it will be a national disgrace.
The best way to defeat terrorists is to show them that whatever they do, they can't change us. Let them bomb us, but don't kowtow down to them by introducing measures such as this. It's shameful, truly shameful.
Welcome to the new Dark Age courtesy of the craven coward Brown.
Complain about this comment
When you are in a train heading for the unfinished bridge you have two options -
(1) Pull the breaks and pray that you stop in time
or
(2) Keep stoking the boiler hoping that your momentum will be enough to get you to the other side.
One will end up in a high fireball at the bottom of the revine and the other result in being able to walk away and start again.
Gordon seems determined that he knows best and has ignored all the warnings and chances to stop the train and keeps on stoking the flames so the fire gets hotter and hotter heading ever more quickly to oblivion.
Complain about this comment
Garyelsby 51:
You're at it again, look, let's go through this again. I take it you are against the erosion of our rights? Yes or no? If yes then be honest, hold your hand up and be counted. Believe me, if it'd been the conservatives doing what new labour are doing and intend to do, I'd be equally opposed to it. Capiche? This is not about point scoring it is about bad legislation which is eroding my (and dare I say) your rights. Now if you can't see that, or you don't want to, then OK. I admire your desire to see your party do well, but believe me, suspending your critical faculties in order to do this is pretty dangerous, especially given what is at stake with this abysmal legislation. All bad legislation should be apposed and sometimes some types of legislation are just bad regardless of who tries to introduce it.
Complain about this comment
He's drunk his last cup of rice wine.
He's tied the Glasgow Rangers scarf around his head.
He's sung the National Athem.
He boards the 42 day detention bill and sets off at top speed to crash it into the House of Commons.
Kamikaze Gordon goes down in flames as the least successful pilot of the New Labour flying machine.
I'd be laughing but this is our country he's making a laughing stock of. Get rid of him.
Complain about this comment
It is to be hoped all MPs vote on the six week maximum detention for suspect terrorists according to their own individual convictions. To make a political issue out of the voting could be described as irresponsible. Until we get a "fair" election system i.e. proportional representation (mentioned in her list of fair things by author Doris Lessing in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech at the Wallace collection) it would seem political squabbling and mud-slinging will continue to take centre stage and prevent proper debate about important issues... such as this one.
Complain about this comment
I'm not a lawyer, and it's clear from the postings so far that neither are the majority of my fellow posters. I would find it most enlightening if someone who does know what s/he is talking about could find the time to explain the powers already available to government under the Civil Contingencies Act. I have just read through that document and to my untutored eye it seems to provide much more sweeping powers including detention with no very apparent limit, and without the detailed judicial oversight contained in the so-called '42 day' proposals.
I have long experience of misunderstanding primary legislation, and no doubt I have done it again. But it would be interesting to know how and why.
Complain about this comment
I've been reading and participating in these blogs for a little while. Does anyone else agree that you get approximately 20 - 30 posts related to the topic before the usual suspects steamroller in to state the same set of opinions that they've already trotted out dozens of times elsewhere? Stand by for a selective history of UK politics over the last thirty years, plus a few personal spats and thinly veiled insults to nudge the whole thing over 200 posts. Happy reading...!
Complain about this comment
I wrote to my, then, Labour MP and commented on the Human Rights Act. A few weeks later Tony Blair redrew the understanding of guidelines to be properly in line with the act as I suggested, and Chakrabarti postured as if she'd never read the act or listened to what Tony Blair had actually said. She may be clever and concerned but that doesn't mean she's right. Given this, why is anyone paying any attention to the woman on this issue? She's not credible because she lets her ego get in the way of her reasoning.
Complain about this comment
Of course Brown should resign. He lacks any legitimacy and has done since Blair announced that he would serve a full term and failed to do so. He continues with our failed expedition into Iraq and as for the economy! He should have called an election as soon as he took over as a result of the coup. I know we are being told to move-on but some of us never will. Brown is a disgrace to democracy and as an intelligent person he knows it. I finish by the standard quote 'you can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time'. The emporer has no clothes and in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Only now we have regained our sight and we don't like what we see.
Complain about this comment
Isn't it long overdue that the epithet "Honourable" be removed from the description of politicians, especially the "Right"s - you can leave the "Right" but remove the 'Honourable'.
Complain about this comment
It won't change a thing. Like a lot of things in life, people reach for the next silver bullet but forget that you can't change the world. You can only change yourself. Until stakeholders develop a more enlightened view themselves the same old issues will keep cropping up regardless of the system.
Complain about this comment
Welcome back Nick!
Tell you what is of interest today -
Contrary to all expectations and predictions by the media, UK exports are still on the rise, manufacturing on the rise, and the order books are healthy.
Now why is this news nowhere to be seen on the BBC?
Is this not good news Nick, especially when most of our competitors have problems with orders and their exports are down?
One wonders why the BBC is very economical with news regarding the economy in other countries.
The other news which has not been heard on the BBC, is that China and India are going to have to reduce their growth predictions by more then 50% for this year and the next, due to higher oil and food prices.
There is more important stuff in our lives then Brown and the 42 day terrorists detention Nick. Have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
Will somebody up there please help!
Dr-Gloom: I don't know if you have realised it yet but almost the entire critical race of anti Labour Conservatives that infect the blogsphere have gained success due to a 24 hour digital news phenominon based upon inuendo and conjecture.
You yourself, condemn Labour to the dustbin of Politics based upon a falsehood of policies that form no basis in law in the United Kingdom.
You lose the football match 10 minutes before kick-off.
Ok, so you've won a couple of Council seats and a By-Election.
You won those on ID cards (what ID cards?), Gordon shoving petrol and food up (no he didn't) monitoring my phone calls and e-mails (no he isn't).
And you do this day after day, night after night, 24 hours a day!
Guess what? We are fighting back and guess what else?
Losing General Elections and dumping Leaders is not on our agenda.
You are attempting to make Non-Politics an acceptable form of Politics and it is nothing of the sort.
Facts are facts and those facts should be dealt with as and when they crop up.
Dr.-Gloom, you have yet to state a case for Conservatism and you should do the decent thing and yield to the superiority of Labour delivering Social Justice for the whole of this Country, with no exceptions.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, whats this to do with "principle"?
Nothing. Its all to do with Brown wanting to look strong, but unwilling to resign if Parliament goes against him.
So call it principle rather than policy so he look as if he is taking the higher moral ground. Pretty pathetic really.
Complain about this comment
61
"Does anyone else agree that you get approximately 20 - 30 posts related to the topic before the usual suspects steamroller in to state the same set of opinions that they've already trotted out dozens of times elsewhere?"
Yes it all gets a bit boring; I keep hoping that they disappear onto the Cbeebies website but it never happens !! They really do believe that they have a unique insight into the world of politics. In reality they spend all their time looking in their very own "black hole".
Complain about this comment
i must have been removed from making anyposts looking at the time displayed on the posts you have accepted to be moderated, thanks a lot BBC, ill remeber that when ull need my licence fees...
Complain about this comment
colinefb asked "Does anyone else agree ".
Yes, I do.
Complain about this comment
Quote "You won those on ID cards (what ID cards?), Gordon shoving petrol and food up (no he didn't) monitoring my phone calls and e-mails (no he isn't)"
Sorry http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/787637.stm
Im no Tory Fan but i see no difference between the 2 parties, Nasty Tory, Nasty Labour, I ask you why did Gordon Brown Invite Marg Thatcher for Tea and biscuits?
It wasnt to watch the latest Simpsons episode was it?
Dont beat about the BUSH, they are both just as bad as each other, but im afriad this Labour Govt have stepped to far.
Keep living inside that box Labour Supporters, because more and more of our people will live outside it!
Where is Bin Laden, Where are the WMDS?
Get real!
Complain about this comment
Should Brown resign/ YES
If only for his lack of sartorial elegance.
Did anyone see him this morning at his press briefing. Tie knot half way down his shirt front. Looked really scruffy, even in his expensive suit.
Add to this all the broken promises, U turns, on mandate other than having pushed Blair out and taken his place without an election, and total lack of credibility in the Country.
20% Gordon Brown approval rating - lowest in histoty
23% labour versus 47% conservatives poll rating
Even if I was a Labour voter (which I'm not) I would see lots of reasons for him to go.
Complain about this comment
42 days is probably the time is takes for the bruises and crack ribs to heal enough after interrogation ?
That cynical viewpoint aside, I still don't understand how the NeoLabours can't go with a change to be allowed to questions suspects after charge. This is the party that removed a right to silence and no-retrial - one more removal of suspects rights shouldn't matter ?
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7431640.stm
Man wearing a t-shirt with a transformer on it "a security risk"- prime candidate to be locked up for 6 weeks under these proposals.
Complain about this comment
GaryElsby #67.
Stay off the funny tobacco!
"You won those on ID cards (what ID cards?)" - I may misunderstand but they ARE proposed and nobody wants them. Nobody wants GM and Labour keep trying to slip that in. The carbon shortfall and inevitable current price rises has been on the cards for 15 years and we seem to be caught flat footed. Monitoring emails - well actually I would be fairly unusual but I am not a criminal, spy or terrorist and mine are. I would have a hard time proving it.
Nobody wants 42 days. Nobody believed the case for the Iraq war before or after. Food prices are related to population growth and again its been obvious that that growth is on an exponential curve for years. So where is the Great Leader when harder decisions have to be made? McCaffertys cat.
You can't claim that when the times are good Brown is the Iron Chancellor and then as soon as they get bad take no responsibility. Our economy and the world economy are LINKED all the time!! Surprise.
Losing elections is never on anyones agenda. But Labour might do well to remember the Major analysis - it might have been better if they had lost in 1992.
But I don't see you having the choice. Your comments are out of touch with reality and reflects the arrogance of the two party system that is failing so badly. Once Scotland wins the 2010 referendum will the UK break up? If so will Labour be thanked?
"Facts are facts and those facts should be dealt with as and when they crop up."
I think what you are trying to say very badly is that when you spin we should all play nicely and obey the spin-meisters. Fortunately this McCarthyism with a smile, all of the nice guy image and extraordinary renditions on the sly, is not going to cut it for much longer.
Will you lose the election - it will be a bloodbath!
Complain about this comment
There's little milage in taking on the BBC or getting sucked into arguments with other people. You'll only get a sore head and wear yourself down. Really, the best thing is just to make the best comment you can and stop worrying.
Nobody remembers anything if you argue against something plus getting sucked into competitive games with other people just lowers the tone. This generates a mountain of negativity and will be the only thing people remember.
If it's good enough for Gordon... *swoon*
Complain about this comment
Brown may have Balls, but he remains a political eunuch: he will make a lot of sound and fury, but as ever it signifies nothing but hot air expelled from an empty vessel.
Complain about this comment
Ed Balls is an incompetent, just like all the other overpromoted individuals that prosper in today's Labour Party.
I oppose 42 day detention as it is nothing but political posturing so Gordon Brown can appear to be "tough on terror".
A government's first duty is to protect the people. If Gordon Brown believes he requires 42 day detention to do that, and fails to convince his own MPs of the case; he should resign or call a general election (which would be tantamount to him resigning). Of course, if and when he does lose - he wont do either. After all he has never got a mandate from the public - outside his fife constituency - and never faced a challenge for Labour's leadership: he simply doesn't "do" elections.
Complain about this comment
spirite_uk exactly..
Our freedoms are going to be taken from us either party, i do not know the anser to our problems, but im sure it must be better than ANY Labour govt or Tory Govt. You should see how they view our politicans in America, they are nothing but puppies or poodles. This special "Interest" is nothing to do with our history is about money-making and authoritarianism. Which BOTH parties have been invovled in, look at Blair now, When was he the Faithful man of religion, Brown a man who submits too much, Thatcher who was truly authoritarian. But we still live in this BOX of control, and to be honest we Britsh have had enough!
Complain about this comment
#76 thegangofone "Nobody believed the case for the Iraq war "
Ever heard of Dr David Kelly? - he did, and persuaded members of his family to the view that the war was necessary. You can disagree, but don't go in for this gross hyperbole.
Complain about this comment
Charles_E_Hardwidge
What are you on about?
Negativity?
So its not good to be negative?
Thats our own human alarm bells ringing in our ears!, thats being HUMAN and thats what democracy is and should ALWAYS be about, im afriad it isnt right now is it?
Stop clouding judgement, let us speak and be spoken, stop the drivel.
Complain about this comment
Colinfb@61
"Does anyone else agree that you get approximately 20 - 30 posts related to the topic before the usual suspects steamroller in to state the same set of opinions that they've already trotted out dozens of times elsewhere?"
skynine@69
Yes it all gets a bit boring; I keep hoping that they disappear onto the Cbeebies website but it never happens !! They really do believe that they have a unique insight into the world of politics. In reality they spend all their time looking in their very own "black hole".
___________________________________
I feel most humble to be commenting amongst such superior intellects. CBeebies Ha ha! that was hilarious. I do however feel though Sir(s)/madam. that you should allow people with differing views than your own. It makes things more interesting.
Not wishing to offend you further here is my relevant submission:
I do not understand why they need 42 days but MPs should be allowed to vote for what they believe without political troublemakers using the vote of confidence card. This is a serious issue. Was that OK oh wise ones?
Complain about this comment
One thing about these blogs that really gets up my nose is how people express their oponions as if they are facts and also as if the whole of the uk supports their opinions (usualy by the sound of them influenced very much by too much time spent with the Daily Mail).
Could people at least have some humility to add "I think.." I believe.." In my opinion..."
I believe if the Government was currently Conservative and had to govern rather than oppose they would be tableing the same legislation. Perhaps if passed they will have a manifesto pledge to repeal, we'll see.
Complain about this comment
The science around communication suggests it's better to make a positive message and avoid being sucked into negativity. That doesn't mean someone has to overstate their case or gladhand their way through life, just focus on and stay within the limits of what's useful. Indeed, this is consistent with Doaism, Buddhism, and other sound strategy. 6000+ years of wisdom battle tested in all conditions around the world suggest this is true so I'm generally confident about it.
The sword is generally associated with killing, and most of us wonder how it can come into connection with Zen, which is a school of Buddhism that teaches the gospel of love and mercy. The fact is that the art of swordsmanship distinguishes between the sword that kills and the sword that gives life. The one that is used by a technician cannot go any further than killing, for he never appeals to the sword unless he intends to kill. The case is altogether different with the one who is compelled to lift the sword. For it is really not he but the sword itself that does the killing. He has no desire to do harm to anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is as though the sword performs automatically its function of justice, which is the function of mercy. This is the kind of sword that Christ is said to have brought among us. It is not meant just for bringing the peace mawkishly cherished by sentimentalists... [This sword] is no more a weapon of self-defense or an instrument of killing, and the swordsman turns into an artist of the first grade, engaged in producing a work of genuine originality.
-- D T Suzuki.
This comment gets to the heart of choosing between ways that give rise to life versus ways that give rise to death. Words and emotions, or policies and marketing, are mere tools. Better ways, or correctness, or the moral are all equivalent, and help solve problems and bring people together. By clearing the mind of junk one may more easily understand the issues and develop consensus instead of building a mountain of funk that will bite us in the ass.
The Prime Minister has identified a problem and is pressing a solution. If people aren't persuaded, nothing is lost. He merely drops the whole thing and bounds on to the next challenge instead of getting bogged down in egotistical wallowing. This is quite masterful and will leave the Tories greasy fingers slipping from the bumper of his political vehicle. Left with mere hate and envy the Tories will have nothing left to do but chew themselves up.
Complain about this comment
And again you CLOUD Judgement dont you?
What makes you so special, does the average joe public understand that? NO!
What cloud do you live on?
Dont you get it by now, people have had enough of lies, spin, WARS.
Our nation is desolving, not for power, just for green and manipulation.
ZEN
the Japanese translation for is a school of Mahayana Buddhism notable for its emphasis on mindful acceptance of the present moment, spontaneous action, and letting go of self-conscious and judgmental thinking.
You can LET go, ill keep my Negativity!
Complain about this comment
Brown is not fighting for survival a good many Tories agree with him regarding the 42 days. Cameron is playing fast and loose with the safety of the people of this Country.
If Brown has the security people asking for this, he has to pay attention to them, it is his beholden duty to listen to them as they are the people at the front line, or do bloggers on here know better than the security services or are they playing lip service to immature David Cameron?
Somebody ought to remind him a PM?s first duty is to the safety of the people of this Country, lest he forget
Not a question of what the ordinary voters wish it is what is right for our country, I doubt if any MP will vote out of self interest they will vote with their conscience.
I doubt if Brown will be a lame duck if he looses, he will have given it his best shot and failed, and if anything untoward does happen he can always say "I told you so clever clogs?", whats the beef about that?
And as for resigning because he was not elected by the people, how stupid can one get? Neither, was Major until he fought and won a GE. That is the norm in this Country not the exception, a party is elected not the PM,always has been and always will be.
Brown does not need to be authoritarian, common sense will suffice and prevail .
As for the Crew by election, I wonder what the Tories will think of their hero if Brown does win this 42 days saga and the fact that Cameron has played fast and loose with all of their safety, and not only of themselves but their children and their children?s children. After all the first and foremost duty of any PM is the safety of the people in this Country, do not forget that little matter. That means you and yours, are you all willing to risk your loved ones to appease Cameron?
I aint that?s for sure.
Food for thought!
Calculated guess, Brown will win
Complain about this comment
Charles E H wrote:
"Personally, I consider this time the lowest point for Labour, and the Tories high water mark."
After I picked myself up off the floor, I now truly believe that Charles is Ed Balls in disguise!
Next, you will be telling us that Alex Salmond is unionist.
Complain about this comment
Never appoint the Head of Accountany to the Chief Executive's job. A brilliant Treasurer he may have been, but Gordon Brown's shyness and gruffness will always hide his well meaning. He also made a mistake by not breaking with Blair and New Labour, who people were sick of long before current electoral troubles. In July last year he should have left Iraq (we are still there, spending millions but doing little) and scrapped ID cards (more millions). It is difficult doing this stuff now because he has been there a year and this just gets the U-turn label (incidentally, there is nothing wrong with a Uturn, it shows politicians listen). A new PM could do this kind of thing.
We elect governments not Prime Ministers. Besides Jim Callaghan in 1976, the Tories changed PMs in 1990, 1963 and 1957; each time without a genral election.
Its ironic that (once again) a Labour government could be kicked out for not being left wing enough over issues like ID, Iraq, the market in public services etc) and replaced with the kind of misery we went through in the 80s.
Complain about this comment
Have you changed your policy about displaying posts, but marking as them "awaiting moderation"?
Is there now some "pre-moderation" check before comments are allowed to get through?
My original comments were, roughly, these.
If having a discretionary extension of detention from 28 to 42 days is a matter of principle, then what has changed?
Not so long ago, Labour requested a period of 90 days. So have principles shrunk by 50% since then, or has there been a 50% increase in the government's desire to control people?
What exactly has changed?
Brown said that there are 30 plots. If they are known, I guess the people involved have been picked up, so they are no longer active.
I am absolutely on the side of those who wish to protect people and property against extremism (from whatever source). If there is a strong case to be made for extending detention, then tell us.
Remember, Sir Ian Blair who is supposed to represent the police in the UK, is a major advocate of proposed changes. This is the same Sir Ian who went before a Commons Committee and said that the security services had foiled "about a dozen" plots. Later he stated that it was actually six plots.
So either he was misleading the Commons or hadn't taken the trouble to find out the real facts from his staff. Either way it hardly shows a man with a grip on a vital aspect of his responsibilities.
So who can we trust?
If it is truly necessary to extend detention, what happens on day 42, when the Met is waiting for "new evidence" that is expected (e.g. from Pakistan) within the next two days?
There is always a worry that "work expands to occupy the available time". That is certainly not intended as disparaging to the security forces.
Brown supported and was pay-master general to the Iraq and Afghanistan forrays. They offered a great excuse for radicals to react against UK aggression.
For a decade, we've had a gradual growth of "home-made" dissidents. But plenty of incomers who should simply have been chucked out of the country for preaching extreme radicalism. A breech of their human rights? If you encourage terrorist activities, I see no reason to treat you as just another person with an opinion...
But the real problem is that this government seems to believe that just passing laws will make things better. Does the proposed bill add funding for more security staff? If not, where will they be found?
This government is creating a new QANGO (remember Brown's intent to have a bonfire of the QANGOs?) to have 11million citizens vetted and added to a new database if they have contact with children. And the individuals will have to pay £60+ for the privilege.
ID cards are still on the horizon, although the current legislation does not require people to actually carry a card. But, with or without a card, I don't see how it will stop a suicide bomber creating havoc. Can anyone explain?
If passing legislation were a panacea, I can suggest one. Brown should have a law that says "All British companies will produce 50% more goods and services, a half of which will be sold overseas". That would solve our catastrophic Balance of Trade deficit and offer more opportunities for taxes.
Would it work. Of course not. And even if it did, the tax income would be frittered away.
Get policemen back into the areas we need them? Change the surveillance laws, to allow covert information to be legally included in trials? Maybe there should be some changes there...
BUT stop the creep of general surveillance on citizens by any amount of government and local council staff.
Make it more possible for people to feel at ease with police and security services who are on OUR side - not directed by a bunch of ministerial twitchers.
Complain about this comment
Chuck Chuck Chuck @85, Methinks you'd better lay off this zen nonsense - it has stopped being funny (it was never profound) and it has degenerated into sub kung-fu territory: i.e. total [Ed] Balls.
As just one example of how wrong-headed can you get: You say "The Prime Minister has identified a problem and is pressing a solution. If people aren't persuaded, nothing is lost. He merely drops the whole thing and bounds on to the next challenge instead of getting bogged down in egotistical wallowing." when it precisely the opposite of Brown's actual behaviour.
Brown has known for many, many months about the deep, principled opposition across all parties to the unnecessary '42 days detention without charge' - and what does he do? Does he behave like a good 'Grasshopper' and "drop[s] the whole thing..."? No. He digs his heels in like the stubborn, blinkered and damaged individual that he is and ploughs on towards the cliff-edge regardless. Hopefully, he'll drag all his awful government with him as he plunges.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick hope you enjoyed your break? I did.
--------------------------
#87: Kiwilegs
If Brown has the security people asking for this, he has to pay attention to them, it is his beholden duty to listen to them as they are the people at the front line, or do bloggers on here know better than the security services or are they playing lip service to immature David Cameron?
---------------------------
Perhaps you should look at the header of this blog:
? that the director of public prosecutions, the former attorney general and former justice secretary did not support the need for change
? that MI5 would not back his arguments either privately or publicly - the spooks have let it be known that they are "neutral" on the issue
? and that many of his own ministers - not least the man he brought into government to deal with terrorism, Lord West - had had real doubts about whether this was the right priority.
Mr Bean has signalled that it is business as usual and that he is not listening - he knows best!
Complain about this comment
Nick
You continue to provide a fantastic forum for like minded people to let off steam and vent their political frustrations - long may this continue - without it being unduly moderated.
No I don't agree with colinetb - whilst specific views on the 42 day issue has in fact provoked a healthy exchange of comments - clearly many like myself will see the issue in a much broader context of a failing leader who is remote, unwanted and lacking the essential personal qualities for steering this country into calmer waters.
The very thought that he will likely continue in office until the next General Election is good reason to feel dejected !
Complain about this comment
89#I take a point that you make and I would dispute it. You say that quote" we are doing little in Iraq". I ask you, what do you wish Brown to do, cut and run and renegue on the commitment we have already made to the USA? That's not on. I cannot agree with that. We cannot do a U-turn there are too many allied lives at risk and believe me, I hated the Iraq war and unlike a good many I said so at the time, loud and clear. I was called a nut case by Tories that had more in common with Tony Benn than reality.
.......................................
Next 90#
It was Blair who requested 90 days not Brown and he lost the vote for the very first time ever since he had became PM.
I do not think principles have shrunk, I think people are taking a reality check and really listening to the security services. They must it is too dangerous out there to ignored.
ID cards are a white elephant at this stage, we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Excuse mefor reminding you, Brown has provided the money for the Police Force, it is then up to the Chief Constables to deploy Labour as they see fit, not for Brown to tell them how and where to do so ,as far as I am aware he does not. Perhaps you know otherwise?
Without surveillance how do you suppose quite a few bombers were found so swiftly and even practically carrying out the evil deeds?
Also how many murderers have been brought to book recently using the same method of surveillance?
I for one feel safer knowing that these cameras can and do protect me and mine.
And last but not least children should be protected at any price, they are our future just to name one positive thing.
Perhaps you think different.
Complain about this comment
92# I will use common sense thank you very much. I can make my own mind up, with or without a header.
I will leave the comedy and childish name calling to you.
Complain about this comment
This issue of 42 days, while being yet another example of this government's Orwellian tendencies, is difficult to imagine making much practical difference to most voters' minds (who just won't think of themselves as the sorts of people who'd end up being detained at all). But it does fit with other Orwellian policies of this government, such as the stuff about monitoring and logging everyone's internet use.
Stuff like that is even more likely to put people off this government (and it does), and yet Brown's focussing on this 42 days stuff instead. Perhaps it's because this is something that plenty of Labour MPs are prepared to rebel over? Labour as a party would be a lot more credible if they showed the same concern that some of these rebels show when it comes to other incursions into our civil liberties.
The government seems to keep making the mistake of thinking that each Orwellian policy will only adversely affect a tiny minority, and that they therefore won't lose much public support as a result. But us voters just keep joining the dots, and we can see the picture that's emerging. That's why we increasingly describe this government and its policies as Orwellian.
We simply do not want to live in the sort of police state that the government is already building.
Complain about this comment
Labour cannot go to a General Election because their party finances are near bankruptcy. Nothing will be a resigning matter until they can pay off their creditors.
Complain about this comment
The former attorney general did not even say at the time that he did not support the 90 days so where are you coming from?
As for Lord West, allow me to remind you, he had only just come into his job, he was in no position to dispute Brown's reasons, the same applies to most of his backbenchers.
So take a reality check as neither West nor the backbenchers would be privy to that sort of security information.
Last but not least come back when you address the PM by name and not by these stupid silly nicknames, given to him by an also ran, who will never achieve high office.
Complain about this comment
@ 50. John, I feel that you are completely correct.
What I see happening is as follows. That labour party continue lying about listening and do not change, do not do anything that the majority of the electorate actually are demanding (lower fuel taxes, EU referendum). They will lose the election by a massive margin to the Tories and rightly so in my humble opinion.
I hope that labour get totally slaughtered down to about 90 MPs. Then the tories will be in by a landslide.
I hope that labour are destroyed as a political force for their treachery in breaking up this once great nation and giving it away in peices to unelected oligarchs.
The problem for the tories is, will they actually have any power at all to make a difference when they are in power? IF the Lisbon Treaty is eventually ratified (please save us Ireland, please) How exactly would the tories have any power to change things?
I predict the English population becoming massively disenfranchised and then taking the only course of action left to a nation seeking self determination; revolt!
I am not talking flaming torches and pitch-forks, but a democratic revolution. I can see the English waking up over the next 7 years and then voting, UKIP or BNP or any party that pledges to withdraw us from the EU. Labour will be finished for a generation. Even IF they became an anti EU party, nobody will believe them.
There are already enough people put off by "politics as usual" to defeat all the mainstream parties. If these people agreed to unite on one day of protest, just once and vote for an anti EU party, then that party would win by a landslide.
Complain about this comment
#97: Mad_Mad_Max
Labour leaders have been told they will need to find £40 million over the next two years in order to keep the party from bankruptcy, continue to pay staff and fight the next election.
The figure has been produced during the auditing of the party?s accounts, which have to be signed off next month and also delivered to the Electoral Commission by June 30. It includes £21 million outstanding loans, the day-to-day running costs and the cost of mounting an election if no legislation on spending caps is in place by the time it is called.
Embattled Labour Party leader Gordon Brown today invited members to underwrite the Party's debts according to their means and pledged a major overhaul to re-establish a mass-membership organisation reaching out to every community in Britain to promote Labour values.
Every member of the NEC now faces the prospect of personal bankruptcy if Labour goes to the wall. These include the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman, Employment Minister Pat McFadden and Treasury Minister Angela Eagle.
So much for economic know how!
Complain about this comment
#99 purpledogzzz. Sounds interesting what were you smoking when you went sleep last night, did you dream also of the pink elephants fighting with green tigers in wembley stadium as well.
Complain about this comment
#94: Besides all the well rehearsed arguments against Iraq, British forces are sitting in Basra when the US would rather they were actively elsewhere in the country. Therefore, we are there (costing the UK taxpayer billions) but doing nothing. The worst of all worlds and an example of Brown trying to keep the US and the British electorate happy but pleasing no-one, least of all the latter who should be supreme.
Complain about this comment
So MI5 are neutral, the judiciary don't want it, and the police say they don't need it.
Obvious really.....
Max
Theerrorlog.blogspot.com
Complain about this comment
Back in the autumn of 2005 Tony Blair experienced his first ever Commons defeat. A healthy majority of 66 was turned into a 31 vote defeat on the key vote on the terrorism bill. Tony Blair, a prime minister who possessed impressive skills of persuasion, could not convince enough of his own MPs to back an increased limit of 90 days on the detention of terrorism suspects without charge, even with the vocal support of the chief constables. What chance Gordon?
The scene is now set for next week's battle with the government apparently pressing ahead with plans that would allow the police to hold terrorism suspects for up to 42 days before they are charged.
Some say such measures are a necessary evil but I cannot help feeling that they are a step too far?
Complain about this comment
Ref: #94 Kiwilegs
You commented that it was Blair who proposed the need for 90 day detention. Collective Cabinet responsibility is still assumed. Did Brown resign because he didn't agree with the idea? Thought not.
You say: "Brown has provided the money to the Police Forces, it is then up to the Chief Constables to deploy Labour (your spelling) as they see fit..."
That's the problem. Labour targets and emphases, rather than policing to ensure that real action is taken to control real crime.
We even had some police forces seen as actively endorsing a political party. That is simply wrong!
Until very recently, Police Forces were simply going along with rediculous targets and procedures. Do you wonder why people simply don't believe the claims that crime is down? Many crimes are simply not reported as it is a struggle to catch the attention of the police. (Not criticising the boys in blue. I'd be pretty pissed off if all the drunk and disorderlies and petty violence had to be recorded and followed up.)
I'm a father and want safety for children in the environment. But at any price? Does that mean that the government hires (but we pay for) individual minders to shadow children everywhere they go? If not, exactly what benefits will a new database offer? (Apart from being open to access by those who want to check on their neighbours...)
I regret that, when re-sending a comment, I omitted the word "electronic" from my thoughts about surveillance. Let's be honest, cameras are potentially useful, but police forces just don't have the time or inclination to check thousands of hours of film. Not my "fact", but their statement.
You say that neither West nor backbenchers would be privy to that sort of security information". What? The guy brought in to bolster security wouldn't actually be told what's going on?
I guess that, next, you'll say that neither the shallow Blair nor the hugely intellectual Brown thought to check whether the information about WMD were based on fact or speculation. I guess the data were accumulated by the security services. So what makes you think that the present lot have a better grasp of what's going on today?
It's a matter of trust, Kiwilegs. At the moment I trust the people more than I do this Government.
(Sad, really. I was really pleased and relieved when Labour came back in 1997. For a couple of weeks. Until Blair said he was "a pretty straight kind of guy" when trying to unravel the Ecclestone donation problem. Still hoped for the best. Never expected a full-scale credit-driven economy, with no basis in reality and with the old and the poor being punished.)
Complain about this comment
The 42 days detention is another piece of legislation the majority of the electorate do not want. Gordon is not listening again. It's typical of New Labour going against what the public want. In particular:
1) Did UK public want war in Iraq? No
2) Did we really believe there were any WMD? No
3) Did we want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Yes.
4) Was this a manifesto pledge? Yes
5) Did the low paid want a tax increase? No
6) Has GB compensated all low paid since the 10p tax U-turn? No (And what happens in April 2009?)
7) Do the majority of the public want ID cards? No
8) Will ID cards stop a suicide bomber? No
9) Did we vote for Gordon to kill off final salary pension schemes? No.
We all want our streets to be safe but after 11 years in power Labour are burnt out. When Scotland vote for independence Labour will be finished in England.
However, this is all irrelevant anyway as most of our laws now originate in Brussels. Parliament merely ratifies the various Directives and Regulations and if they do not, EU law prevails anyway.
The North/South divide is greater than ever but that won't stop the hard core voting Labour. This is why Labour are not interested in improving education. They need the staunch labour areas to be poor otherwise they might vote Tory. However, they shot themsleves in the foot big style with the 10p tax fiasco and with house prices continuing to plummet, food, petrol etc shooting up in price and pay increases averaging 2.5%, even the staunchest Labour supporter will question what New Labour actually stand for.
Complain about this comment
On 42 days I hope Brown is following his instinct. I believe trouble follows him when he tries to spin too heavily which is not instinctively his strong suit. He is not Tony Blair but that should be a positive point.
He has damaged his own reputation on the 10p rate introduction, on troop withdrawals from Iraq and the election that never was.
When he manages the detailed policy issues the man is instinctively correct and here I refer to foot and mouth, the 2007 floods, response to terrorist threat and even, dare I say it, Northern Rock.
The froth of politics is for the likes of Blair and Cameron. For them it was all about "communication" and "schmoozeing".
I genuinely believe Gordon Brown is the best person to manage the country in the current economic environment.
I maybe alone in that thought today - I wont be in 2 years time.
The PM must find his self-confidence again. Hopefully this issue (42 days) is the start of that process.
Complain about this comment
102#It is the military who deploys troops not the PM.
105#
1.Where did I say he either agreed or disagreed with the decision he and Blair made?
2. Now as for spelling I suggest you look to the last thread for that. I have also been known to hunt high and low around our house for my glasses only to find them on top of my head, it is called getting old, it happens to us all, none of us can escape it not even you, but I certainly am not going balmy. Are you Mr Pefection personified, who never gets anything wrong?
Is it Brown's fault now that any police force would actively endorse a political party?
We have had 6 children and we have umpteen grandchildren, do you suppose for one moment I would go along with anything that endangered their young lives?
The police force do not have to spend hours looking for anything, only that which is required at the time. Where have I said anything to the contrary?
Oh yes Admiral West, great service record, second to none I might add, brought in to bolster security would probably have been told on a need to know basis.
Does this mean he cannot form his own opinion until told otherwise the status quo. Is that what you are suggesting?
No I simply would not say anything about what the hugely intellectual Brown knew or did not know about weapons of mass destruction. For the simple reason I do not know and neither do you. Plus the fact I am not entirely convinced that Blair knew the entire score at that time of day. And you cannot be sure either!
As for the present lot if they did not know then, they certainly know now, but they still cannot renegued on the deal made with the Americans, that would not be right in any shape or form. Would it?
I too trust the people, I also trust Brown to do the honourable thing by the people of this Country and I have every confidence he will do so.
If you are allowing something as trivial as the Bernie Ecclestone affair to put you off you were never a Labour supporter in the first place.
Last but not least, we are old, both on pension and I am sorry I do not recognise your description of the old being punished. As for the poor as soon as I retired I got a phone call from the DHSS telling me that my pension was below what it should have been. The reason being when I worked I paid half stamp only, my husband paid for the remainder with his contributions. Now owing to him having an extremely good pension, I did not qualify in my own right.
Now if that has happened to me and help was offered at the time for me to claim, why are others not recieving the same treatment?
Could it be that they are too proud to ask?
Bear in mind I retired well over 10 years ago, never-the-less I was asked.
I cannot be alone in that. This I would not accept.
I think you need to look to a more in depth analysis of the true situation then comment. Certainly not until.
Complain about this comment
to #106 Nice list...
To add to your list
0. The Maastrict Treaty of 1992 - did the UK want it - no. (According to the pundits!)
(I will not go on to list the very many things that the last Tory government has given us ,and the governments before them, that we did not want.)
You make the point that the present government presents us with lots of things we don't want. My point is that every government presents us with lots of things we don't want.
The Tories are just as bad/good as Labour - why can this be? Well the answer to my own question is that it is the Permanent Government of the UK our Civil Service that has given us all of these things. Politicians come and go but over many things the Civil Service runs the place. Every so often the Civil Service changes the front men in case they actually manage to achieve anything. Mrs T. I recall was famous/infamous for the "Is he one of us" test for everyone including civil servants!
If you want real change flush out the senior echelons of the Civil Service - but be careful for what your wish!
Complain about this comment
What the government needs to do is become accountable, that if someone is held under these powers, that the government if proven later to be erroneous should be held so by lawsuit, that the government have legislation protecting a persons job if this turns out to be wrong, that the government be responsible for loss of earnings, compensation for loss of freedom.
At the moment it seems the government wish to have the rights to incarcarate people without charge or trial for indefinite periods and not be responsible for wrecking their lives as this would do if someone was held for 42 days incommunicado, they may lose their home, their job, even their family and livelihood and also suffer extreme defamation on top of that.
People would be more acceptable to this if guarantees were put in place, it is only dictatorships that seek to hold without trial or due process, democracies admit fault when they are wrong and reparate to those damaged by such actions.
So is New Labour going to continue down this path of quasi-fascism or are they going to begin reinstalling accepted and guaranteed human rights???
And what guarantee do we have that when Brown gets his way, that in two years down the line he is asking for extensions to 120 days? 240 days? Detention without a prescribed time limit?
Complain about this comment
This has nothing to do with the security of the nation and everything to do with politics.
The argument that circumstances might arise in future where the current limit is insufficient is impossible to disprove and could just as easily be employed to argue for 90 days - oops it was !- or 100 days or whatever.
Gordon knows that opinion polls and focus groups favour the proposed increase (nb Not so many years ago the same would have true of 'Bring back capital punishment') and his intention is to wrong foot the Opposition.
In an attempt to win the vote, he will make so many concessions that there will be little if any effective difference between the new situation and the current emergency powers. Ideally, he wants to win with the Opposition voting against.
However, not only would defeat not be a resigning matter for him, it will be a quite acceptable outcome. The great leader in tune with the public, thwarted by lesser mortals with the unspoken message 'Don't come crying to me if something awful happens"
A truly sad business.
Complain about this comment
With regard to "The Bean" resigning well I believe he won't or perhaps can't might be more accurate. The problem is of course is his own MP's may wish that to happen sooner rather than later to protect their own backsides (sorry seats).
As one poster very accurately pointed out earlier the labour party is virtually bankrupt if reports are to be believed so an election could not be effectively fought by them at this time anyway and with polls against them it would be suicide now rather than later anyway.
I am also not sure what precedence there is for a double replacement of the top man within a single parliament. I presume it could happen but the voters won't like it and any new blood will loose the GE anyway and they know it which is why they probably would not raise a challenge and opt to take opposition and 'keep the powder dry' so to speak for the next GE in 2015?
There is no doubt that we all need to be protected however as other posters have already pointed out the existing legislation which is already extensive should be more than sufficient and in can already be extended in certain circumstances. The other side of this is that the law has already been abused by the certain people such as the 'Bin Nazis', council Stazi trailing families wishing to get their children into good schools, Ejecting old age hecklers at Labour party conferences and at a stretch today even asking a man to change his tee shirt at an airport. Go figure that one.
In regard to the extension to the 42 days I am reminded of one other incident that in my humble opinion is worse than those already mentioned. A young lady stood in Whitehall a while ago and had the afront to read aloud the names of servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghnistan. Ok it could be considered by some as somewhat political I suppose and before she could finish she was very quickly arrested apparently under the prevention of terrorism laws.
This incident alone raises serious concerns with me anyway and after due consideration makes me think that the 42 days would be abused if not by the government to stifle any opposition then the police force who recently lost the trust of the middle classes.
When people cannot even stand and read the names of the fallen at a war memorial without it being perceived as some sort of political event then something bad, very bad has truly happened to this country and our society.
This is but one of the reasons amongst many where labour and Brown who breaks his manifesto promises have totally lost the trust of the people, never to be regained, as a result of which they will be totally decimated at the next election.
Kind Regards
Baron VonRipwinkle De Parkbench
Complain about this comment
When you give in to an authoritarian government then your rights are severely eroded . Remember the restrictions on protests outside Parliament or anywhere else without the proper permission ( in the name of counter terrorism ), the use of anti terrorism legislation to check if your child is in the right school catchment area ( Poole) , the denial of the right of silence - the list is endless under this - what appears to now be fascist - administration. Soon even blogs like this will be monitored and only the pro government views will be presented . All non acceptable bloggers will be electronically tracked down and have to spend 42 days proving their innocence - because we will be presumed guilty , the exact opposite of our present justice system.
Complain about this comment
It is at best crass and at worst downright sinister that GB is so attached to 42 days when almost everyone from the anti-terrorism and judicial communities seems to be against it.
Complain about this comment
I recall the people who threw purple flour at Blair were held on anti-terrorism laws. Giving the police more powers will result in their use. There is a big difference between mis-guided political dissent and terrorism. GB has made no attempt to demonstrate the new power wont be abused by an over-zealous police state.
Complain about this comment
#60
Reading the act literally, it gives carte blanche. To quote
"Emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency in respect of which the regulations are made."
And 'emergency' is defined in very vague terms (as I supposed it has to be - but it could certainly be misused e.g.
In particular, emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of?
(a) protecting human life, health or safety,
(b) treating human illness or injury,
(c) protecting or restoring property,
(d) protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(e) protecting or restoring a system of communication,
(f) protecting or restoring facilities for transport,
(g) protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health,
(h) protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions,
(i) preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or air,
(j) preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life,
(k) protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales, or
(l) protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.
The only good point is that the ubiquitous Huam rights Act cannot be circumvented.
Complain about this comment
105# Done a recheck, one letter out of place and you correct my spelling. I think this is impertinance taken to the extreme. Would you not agree?
Complain about this comment
Every time I think it's impossible for NR to get more salacious and tabloidy he proves me wrong.
Just how many more thinly veiled 'Surely this is something to resign over?' blogs can a former Chairman of the Young Conservative Party make before the BBC's journalistic impartiality policies kick in?
Rather than focusing on personality politics once again why can't the BBC actually use their publicly funded platform to facilitate a genuine debate about issues?
Complain about this comment
117#
have given you the bait we will see how long it takes for you to pick it up.
.......................................
118# It could be down to the company Nick keeps, after all he is best friends with a certain TV News Channel political editor, who detests Brown with a vengeance.
Nick is at least not quite so bad, but very nearly, I hope he can keep his mind on his own interests instead of being dominated by a stronger character with an axe to grind. Nick has the most to loose otherwise, after all the BEEB is paid for by the tax-payer and not from vested interests and adverts. Thinking cap on time!
Complain about this comment
I am totally against this legislation but for possibly a different reason.
The government seem to want parliament to have a say in wether some one is held for a further 12 days . Why !!!!
If they had said that it had to go to a panel of senior judges i would have listened.I know that many MP's do have a legal background but for them to vote on whether someone is held is in my opinion absurd.
It would require them to be both aquainted with the finer detail of the evidence of the case and also the time to read this evidence,not something i would like to take lightly at the best of times but MP's as we know already have heavy workloads(their words)and would they have to recall parliament everytime the police want to use this legislation,afterall the terrorists are hardly likely to fit in with parliamentry business,holidays.
If the legislation is in place you can be sure that the Police will use and abuse it.
Its time to say NO!!.
Can anyone give me an instance of where this added time would have been useful.I say would as against might.
I know it might just be coincidence but the timing of the trial at Woolwich Crown Court seems very helpful to the pro detention cause.
Wake up people our rights as citizens are in need of protecting and the people we elct to serve us aren't doing that !!!
Complain about this comment
Although it is true we face all sorts of threats from terrorists, Brown has not made any convincing case for extending detention without trial. It was only recently extended to 28 days (after Parliament rejected 90 days). Nothing has happened since to justify yet another extension.
As Nick points out, MI5 does not back Brown's claim that these new powers are needed. Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General is not persuaded and the head of the Crown Prosecution Service has said that he is satisfied 28 days is enough. The Council of Europe's human rights commissioner has said holding someone for 42 days without trial would be "excessive" (BBC report).
So, why does this country need greater powers of detention than other Western democracies?
In reality, this has nothing to do with the war on terror. It is all about Gordon Brown needing to save face.
We know that Draconian laws passed to assist on the war on terror can easily be misused. Even local Councils can now spy on innocent people. And remember the 82 year old man evicted from a Labour Party Conference for having the temerity to shout "nonsense" at Jack Straw! He was prevented from returning to the conference under the powers of the Terrorism Act.
Under this government, we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society.
Traditional freedoms being salami-sliced away.
As Tony Hancock famously once said:
"Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?"
Complain about this comment
It's been a legal requirement for chairs to maintain order in public meetings for years. Anyone who is disruptive or abusive runs the risk of being brought to order or ejected. This is nothing new. What about the right of the people making contributions or the other members of the audience?
It sounds like some people are in favour of "civil liberties" only if it's on their terms. More pointedly, they're only crying about it because they think it will buy them a partisan advantage. This is neither right nor fair. It is not the civilisation they claim to uphold but the politics of a Mugabe.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I disagree with the automatic locking up without charge, I think even 28 days is too long. So far the terrorists are winning the battle by slowly eroding our liberties and freedoms. Given that we now even have a banned book list and inoffensive T-shirts cannot be worn on aircraft, the country is pretty much a police state already.
Gordon should back down on this one and not try to force through something that is basically in violation of almost 800 years of progress dating back to the Magna Carta.
Complain about this comment
Come on now, Charles (#122)!
"It's been a legal requirement for chairs to maintain order in public meetings for years. Anyone who is disruptive or abusive runs the risk of being brought to order or ejected."
EH???
So why was Walter Wolfgang held and refused re-entry to the Labour Party conference in 2005 under the Terrorism Act 2000? And why was Labour forced to issue an apology to him? Even Austin Mitchell MP had his camera seized and the photos deleted.
The point we have all been making in resonse to Nick's blog about 42 days is that once governments and police forces have powers they will use them in an indiscriminate, heavy handed and sometimes illegal way.
This is not a party political point - Thatcher's government did the same sort of thing during the Miners Strike - but an observation based on events.
"All power tends to corrupt..."
Complain about this comment
Nick reading your blogger's comments on this issue surprises me as as most over the last few months they seem to be far right and throw away the key, but now a little bit undecided. What is the issue, is it they are not in love with Gordon any more and just want to see him go or is they do care about the reputation of our country and belive like me that the drip drip legislation is eroding our freedom.
We are the most watched (cctv) country in the world, instant number plate recognition, all able to know where we are most of the time, etc etc yet we still have crime.
Will David Cameron repeal any increase in time back not to 28 days but to 7 .
When the time comes for an election blogger's ask your candidate to commit to repeal this further erosion of what we fought wars over and are still fighting in Iraq
Complain about this comment
Kiwilegs @117, Surely impertinence.
Complain about this comment
@119 - .... as we wouldn't want to let a bait go by untouched....
Complain about this comment
Sorry everyone - got comment 61 wrong. This time it's taken a few more posts before the ranting, tellings-off and squabbles about spelling and grammar started!
Complain about this comment
They want to bring it in just to show they can bring it in. Parliament is operating at the level of gang mentality. Great!
Complain about this comment
Could someone remind me how the voting went when the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Northern Ireland) was passed and its 'temporary' powers, had to be renewed each year between the mid 70's and 1997?
Complain about this comment
Surely I am not the only one to say that we are advised by the Home Secretary that we should trust her. Is that the same sort of trust we put into Tony Blair. The same sort of trust we put into Gordon when he was chancellor and paid for the war against Iraq. The same sort of trust that includes a manifesto promise over the Treaty of Lisbon.
My problem is that Ms Smith is the current Home Secretary but who will take her place. That laws which seemed like at a good idea at the time are passed but then are misapplied. Germany in the thirties passed all sorts of laws which seemed alright at the time, and then look what happened there. Couldn't happen here, of course not. I mean back in the year 2000 who would have thought that we have have taken part in an illegal war, occupied a sovereign country, took part in illegal activities, extra-ordinary rendition, and have done nothing about torture camps in Cuba run by the Americans.
Of corse we sould not allow this to go forward because of Gordon Brown and his principles.
Complain about this comment
If, as now predicted by some pundits, Brown manages to push this oppressive measure through, it will demonstrate to all that New Labour members are more concerned about keeping their seats after the thrashing of Crewe and Nantwich, rather than about any principles they may once have had.
Complain about this comment
126#
The jokes on you sceptic Max, read again what I wrote.
What is the bait?
Well you took it and fell hook line and sinker into it pal!
I double checked at the time about spelling,
after being pulled up once by another who like you was so petty minded that he thought that by adding an "S" to a word was more important than the terrorist bill.
Shame you never read the original post, that way you would have known what you were really commenting on.
Not think you knew, there is a world of difference between knowing for sure and thinking you know. This is what happens when people jump in with both feet first ,then think later.
Such petty minds.
Whose a clever boy then?
Read it again and put thinking cap on!!
Complain about this comment
The law has become a mess and any new piece of legislation that has people's attention that solves a problem tends to be used like a new toy. Mistakes happen but this was corrected and all necessary apoligies given. This is prefereable to the Tory's deliberate agenda of taking down the miners.
People may misunderstand and complain but where communities were a potential hot-spot the government moved swiftly to calm things down and bring people together. Today, the Muslim Council is generally supportive of the government's efforts and Muslim immigrants are much safer and happier as a result.
Labour have conclusively operated in a rational and sensitive way in spite of the alarming visions and hysteria that they could be driven by. The Tory's scheme to whip up fear and drag discussion to the lowest common denomintator isn't because they love you. It's just marketing tactics to win back power.
Complain about this comment
Mr Bean wants to be Stalin again.
Complain about this comment
#117 Kiwilegs
Forgive me if you felt I was being impertinent in an earlier posting. I make spelling mistakes when writing in haste.
I was simply drawing attention to your use of "Labour", rather than "labour" in relation to police staff.
Maybe it was an instinctive reaction on your part.
I was drawing attention to the increasing influence that government has on policing. The constabulary should be politically neutral. They should respond to any genuine concerns reflected by the Home Office. But they are responsible for upholding the law and, in a consensual society, getting a grip on crime that affects the citizen at large.
Target setting has been one of the biggest areas of concern across many areas of public service delivery. I do understand that, if you can't measure it, you can't manage it" (as management consultants will tell you). But choosing the targets is the most difficult aspect. And ensuring that the time and effort taken by measurement agains those targets is minimal - if it takes too much resource, it simply clogs up the real delivery.
(It is arguable that some target setting has been useful in some Departments. But a number of Constabularies are now saying they will pay more attention to their "real" jobs and take any consequences if they don't appear to do as well in the target tables...)
There have been comments about Ministers wanting to appoint all Chief Constables. That is a worry. There should continue to be an element of local control over who is selected to run the various forces.
Complain about this comment
Chuck @134 says: "Today, the Muslim Council is generally supportive of the government's efforts".
Who give's a tinkers cuss as to what the self-appointed 'Muslim Council' think? Who elected them anyway?
Complain about this comment
Thank heavens for one Conservative at least who has openly stated that she will support the Government on 42 days. But then Anne Widdecombe always did have a cartload of common sense which is not quite so common in this day and age.
I think there are a few more Conservatives who will put the safety of the people of this country first and foremost and ignore a naive, inexperienced leader who is playing party politics with such a serious issue.
Terrorism is a real threat and the safety of me and mine are of more importance to me than the rights of some would be terrorist.
If this is a marketing tactic Charles, it could backfire big time, with horrendous consequences for the Conservatives.
Playing party political games with the safety of the people in this Country is not on.
This is what happens when we see a shallow PR man at the healm of an opposition party and not a future PM.
Complain about this comment
#133, I think the person at #105 was commenting on your use of a capital "L" in your sentence in post #94, nothing else.
Whilst I totally agree with the general sentiment that resorting to pointing out spelling and/or grammar errors does nothing to take the debate forward, the use of a capital "L" in this context completely changed the meaning of the sentence to one which, I assume, was not intended (unless you believe that Chief Constables really do control the movements of members of the Labour party).
Therefore, in quoting you, the person at #105 possibly felt the need to point this out so that you could either confirm that it was an error, and that your intention was to use the word "labour" (with reference to the police officers under the control of the Chief Constables) or that it was not an error. To be fair, the difference in meaning is pretty significant.
As for that bloke at #128, he just needs to butt out...
Complain about this comment
136#No hard feelings Chris.
Since coming onto this site it has become quite apparent to me that when one wished to have a serious debate, there were others who could not rise to debating pure politics and concentrated more on any silly grammar and spelling errors that they could latch onto .
Some really seemed hell bent on being destructive for the sake of being destructive. Others just ridiculed because they were taken out of their political depths. I just got fed up with it and snapped back. I love political debates, I thrive on them, I will analyse each and every point. I will challenge anybody where I disagree. with my reasons for doing so. What I do not need is to be corrected on stupid things which has happened all too frequently to me and another on this site. I would much rather be corrected on where bloggers feel my reasoning is wrong. I will however bite back if I feel I am being made a fool of which I certainly am not.
As a newcomer to this site I still find it hard to sort out the woods from the trees, but I will learn. it is still a learning curve for me to sort out those who wish to take debate seriously and those who wish to only ridicule and insult because they cannot rise to the same level.
I will get there in the end.
Once again no hard feelings. Just have a political go at me with your thoughts and reasoning. I do realise it was the "L" you were on about not the word chiefs which should have read chief.
Still the person who has never made a mistake in the life has never made anything, as the old adage goes.
What say you?
Complain about this comment
139#
Yes I got that loud and clear Colin. However I do wish people would remember that this is a political blog-site and not a school, which I left over 55+years ago.
If I wish to have grammar and spelling corrected I will go on the appropriate site for it.
On this occasion I got it wrong, the person did not intend any offence , so none has been taken. I have had the good grace as he did so say so.
Unfortunately that has not been my experience as the norm on this site.
There are a few very destructive individuals who by trying to hide there lack of knowledge about politics, they stoop to ridicule.
Which is very sad.
I do believe I am on the appropriate sit for politics, until some wiser being informs me other-wise
I am more interested in pure politics these days than either spelling or grammar.
Complain about this comment
The Tories have bullied their way in the door and are now trying to hawk their policies around the media. The real issue of substance they're keeping well buried is that attitudes take an ice age to change. As I've commented here before, it takes a minimum of 5 years to make a significant personal change, 10 for an organisation, and 20 for a community. The science just isn't on the side of the nasty party being deep cleaned yet. They're faking it.
Complain about this comment
#141 Agreed, this is a political blog site, and Chriskingfleet's response was both gracious and appropriate (and was written while I was writing mine at #139 - if it had appeared a little earlier I wouldn't have bothered).
Also tend to agree with your view of Anne Widdecome. It is a shame she will be standing down, I think the Conservatives have some real election winners in their ranks, unfortunately that's where they remain - in the ranks!
Complain about this comment
I doubt whether this would lead to a successful vote of no confidence so Brown is safe for now, whatever the result, even if he did send the Children's Minister out to talk for him.
But he deserves to go simply because this is his priority when there are many other much more pressing matters that need his attention.
Complain about this comment
Dear Fellow Posters,
I regret that, by trying to keep a posting reasonably short, I seem to have started a debate about whether proper spelling, or grammar, is an important part of any comment. That was not the intention.
My own posting at #136 contains a spelling error. (Hang head in shame.)
#139 got it absolutely right.
I picked up on what was no doubt an instinctive use of "Labour" rather than "labour" to point out that there has been a degree of political imposition on the police forces that I can never recall from the past.
I don't care which way Chief Constables vote at election time.
I always hope they follow an instinct to do the "right thing", rather than trying to bend with the political wind.
I do care that they focus on doing a job for the people they serve, not following the sometimes odd emphasis that the Home Office places on specific aspects of policing.
I can confirm to Kiwilegs that I am not a real Labour supporter. I have no affiliation to any political party, having voted for candidates from all 3 major parties - and even Independent candidates at a local level - over a long voting career.
I always hope for the best whenever a new government is formed.
My concerns about the "42 days" debate are primarily about the lack of cohesive evidence that longer detention is necessarily the right way forward. Civil liberties are hard-won, but easily eroded.
As I implied earlier, it is possible to make a case for virtually indefinite detention (while waiting for just another bit of information from a remote source) as long as you have absolute trust in the integrity of the security forces and the quality of their information.
That trust was severely eroded when New Labour (yes - the whole Cabinet) issued the "Dodgy Dossier". Even the Security Services later admitted that significant aspects of the contents were "not proven". Yet we, the people, were presented with a series of "facts".
Sir Ian Blair either misled Parliament, or was incompetent, when talking about the number of terrorist plots foiled.
Like Kiwilegs, I would prefer that my children are safe rather than worry too much about the wellbeing of a terrorist. The problem is that we are talking about "suspected" terrorists, possible plotters, possibly fantasists, who - until evidence can be produced in quantities to support prosecution - retain the same rights as other people in the UK.
Once convicted, I'd be happy to see perpetrators of any heinous crime put into an old-fashioned cell and accidentally lose the key. (Compare and contrast with the case of Huntley.)
It is not "playing politics" to challenge why any new law or regulation should be introduced. That is simply what all politicians should - must - do. That's why we elect them.
Was Blair playing politics when he said Labour would be "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime"? Was he playing politics when he said that offenders should be marched to the nearest cash-point, so they could pay instant fines for their behaviour?
Was Brown "playing politics" when he increased tax on the lowest earners from 10p to 20p, in order to drop the "standard" banding rate?
Let's just get honest about our assessment of politicians and the constant stream of laws they cough up.
And question why it is that we need so many new restrictions and regulations.
For God's sake, there are now to be "targets" for the children of 4 or 5 years old. Introduced by a Minister who was forced to admit she misled the Commons.
The problem is that concentrating on "improved outcome" can produce real distortions. It is just not true to say that pupils are now more intelligent than they were 20 years ago. Waving a piece of paper to show there are more "passes" at better grades is not necessarily a reflection of improvement. Rather a sad focus on the "outcome", while Universities have to run remedial courses for those who can't cope with the reality of intellectual challenge.
Protect all our citizens, visitors and temporary inhabitants - absolutely. Erode civil liberties that have taken a thousand years to develop - well, only if you really believe that the justification is based on real evidence.
Complain about this comment
And a small voice said:
"Mr Bean wants to be Stalin again."
Complain about this comment
134: "People may misunderstand and complain but where communities were a potential hot-spot the government moved swiftly to calm things down and bring people together. Today, the Muslim Council is generally supportive of the government's efforts and Muslim immigrants are much safer and happier as a result."
They ay well be, but to the detriment of everyone else.
Complain about this comment
#116
Interesting in what the Act actually says - open ended charter for increased State Control during an emergency - as defined by a Minister - by all accounts.
And yet the debate centres on terror and 42 days right or wrong? The concessions will flow to ensure 42 days is heavily caveated to the point of being symbolic. So called rebels will toe the party line and vote in a Trojan Horse package of yet more Ministerial and State power.
So predictable and yet another example of our rights being salami sliced away.
It is bad law based on headline issues alone but what else lies buried in the wide legal drafting? I plan to read it - can we trust our MP's to do the same?
Complain about this comment
Just a couple of points: the abuse being hurled at Cameron for his view on the 42 day detention bill can be hurled at a good few Labour MPs as well, currently. so they're all shallow PR merchants are they?
Secondly, the Tories need no lessons on terrorism from Labour. It was Labour who voted consistently when in opposition against the renewal of anti-Terror legislation - since they said, it broke human rights - and this when the IRA were bombing their way around London. Furthermore, the protective gates around Downing Street were once ridiculed by Labour at the time of their construction, not forgetting the subsequent mortar bombing of Downing Street. And now, there's obstacles being placed everywhere to protect against terrorism - you couldn't make it up.
The Tories point is not that no legislation is required (and any suggestion of this is an absurdity), only that current legislation in place has not been proven - either in fact or argument - to be inadequate and thus requiring change.
No-one, I should hope, needs reminding of the Tories who have suffered at the hands of terrorism, including those Tories who perished or were injured in Brighton and elsewhere, and very the idea that Labour and its supporters on this blog should be accusing and lecturing the Tories on their bona fides in this respect is, quite frankly, beneath contempt. Ok - I've had my blast. Have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile Tony Blair is taking refuge in religion and wants to be The People's Pope. God help us.
I hope he's praying for Gordon - he needs all the help he can get.
bryanjames
The Campaign for Shorter Posts
Complain about this comment
I love the BBC's new I-Player and being able to watch all the political programs online.
Complain about this comment
#140 Kiwilegs
It's an odd fact that life gets in the way of blogging (or v.v.)...
A response to a posting may take much longer than planned (i.e. an intention to get this stuff out of the PC as soon as possible is interrupted for a while, as other things take preference). During that interval, other postings occur.
I agree that we all make mistakes. I wish I could spread my own around ten other people, to diminish their effect...
I have some sympathy with both Brown and Blair regarding their intentions. But little for the effective delivery of our money at the right targets.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. But a bit of financial discipline in government makes the difference between a really good outcome and a basket case economy.
I had great hopes that Brown (supported by Blair) would control public spending in a disciplined manner. Wrong.
It is not enough to say that you have increased spending. That's easy if you use other people's (our) money. Managing the effective use of resources is how you measure a company - and Labour have tried to project themselves as the guardians of UK plc.
I had hoped for a fairer society within which people would personally control more of the income they scraped together. Wrong.
It just seems so unjust that Brown would introduce a lower level of tax break (in the interest of a long-term outlook which I applauded) and pull it away, in favour of what exactly? A citizen grovelling to the State in order to retrieve his own money?
That can't be right.
Security of the citizen must be the prime concern of any government. But making sure it is fair and reasonable is a fundamental issue.
Frankly, I wouldn't be too bothered if absolutely every (absolutely proven) killer was eliminated. If that protected my children - or other citizens - against future harm.
But that's not how we work.
My concerns are about how we trust government to decide about which potential suspects should be treated differently, to protect us.
And the worries extend much farther.
(For goodness sake, Blair played head football with Kevin Keagan to show how committed to sports New Labour would be. How many school playing fields have been sold off since he and Brown came to power?
On a sports field, it makes no difference what race or religion you happen to be - if you're good, you are good. But we have managed to limit "competitiveness" as it could "harm" young people. How many children realise that they are competing for their future with Indians, Chinese etc., whose educational standards are far higher than our own?)
The Met killed a guy they "thought" was a potential terrorist. Bad policing or bad luck? Hard to tell.
I don't even know whether it is relevant.
I do feel that we have to consider every piece of evidence about anyone within the UK before deciding that they should be held pending possible trial. (And I would be happey to eject any non-national even on suspicion of being an accomplice to any sort of crime!)
I wanted to suggest that, since there is so much electronic evidence (telephone, e-mail, etc.) already captured by government agencies, that if it were appropriate it should be submissible in court. IF it helped to make a true conviction a realistic end result.
At present this is not permisible.
Do I trust the political establishment? Not really. I'd like to, but when you compare statements to the facts that eventually emerge, it is hard to find a point of contact.
"Trust me" is (sadly) not a significant comment from ministers nowadays.
"Prove to me" is much more of a requirement.
How many could do that?
Complain about this comment
#112 baron von ripwinkle I thought your Mr bean joke was hillarious we've never heard that one be fore you must have thought that one up yourself, the trouble is you've started Bryanjames off again, he loved your joke so much that he's used it twice on this blog already 135/134.
Complain about this comment
# 112 C.E.H I amamazed that you have been allowed to mention Wolfgang. I refered to him a couple of blogs ago and the moderater threw it out, the man had to be thrown out. Just because he's old does'nt make an atom of difference being old does'nt give you the right to be offensive as some of us find out on these blogs, there were thousands of people wanting to hear Jack Straw's speech and this silly gentleman bellowing out nonsense every other minute was absurd so he had to be removed. 124 badgercourage I wonder how you would have felt sitting next to him shouting incessantly, nonsense, at every thing during a Cameron speech. Go on tell us you would say leave him there he has the right to shout anything he likes it does'nt matter that I came all this way to listen to Cameron, I can wait until next years conference.
Complain about this comment
this is for grandantidote: (to by sung in a George Formby style)
"Oh Mr Bean, what do you mean?
You slip and slide, just like the tide.
You huff and puff, when things get rough.
I think we all have had enough.
As Joseph S, you were a mess.
You killed the Blair and I confess
I wish 'twas me that held the key
to solving your... stupidity
Then we could all just have a rest
And we could put you to the test
And see if you could do the job
you're paid to, by the mob.
But so far, it's not so good
Your head is made of wood..."
etc
bryanjames
Campaign for slightly longer posts with rhyming attributes,
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
grandantidote @154 mentions: " ...this silly gentleman bellowing out nonsense every other minute..."
Pot. Kettle. Black?
Complain about this comment
Kiwilegs I see the super intelligent have been having a go at you today about your grammar and spelling. I suppose thats because I have'nt been around, if we were as childish as they are we could scrutinise their posts for grammatical and spelling mistakes and you know that there are quite a few, but you and I are not that stupid, every time their posed a question they try desprately to change the subject, but your like my Jack Russel you dont let go, they panic and go into name calling and insulting mode exactly in the same way as Dave, so they end up being the only ones that are stupid. I'm still waiting to hear what happened to the money that the Tories had when they sold the nations assetts, I am also waiting for the referendum supporters to tell me if the have read the constitutional treaty and,or the Lisbon treaty.now for some name calling again.
Complain about this comment
157 scepticmax, As the Americans say"right back at you".
Complain about this comment
re: problems with spelling pedants.
I recommend Firefox 2 web browser available free on the internet. Its comment boxes have spell checking. American spellings though so watch out for colour(color) etc.
Complain about this comment
grandantidote wrote:
#155 bryanjames.Bryan its almost as banal as most of you posts. you must try to keep taking the tablets.
That's pretty hostile - for no reason. That makes anything you say of no interest to me. It's people like you who spoil this blog for others. I'll resist descending to your level by making personal comments about your posts. Have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
#161 bryan james. Oh! you are a sensitve soul are'nt you, so sensitive that you had my little post removed, goodness knows why, your so called poem was directed at me and intended to offend me. which incidentally it did'nt, I'm made of sterner stuff than that. but its OK beacause you were silly enough to repeat in your post 161 so there it is for all to see, by your doing.
My friend if you get offended to that degree over two sentences then how would you cope under the same abuse being dished out by your Tory bretheren to kiwilegs and myself. Your mate Dave has shouted worse than that across the house.
The last thing I will say is that If I really did offend you as much as you seem to claim, then I apologize but you kmow the old saying "If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen".
Complain about this comment
grandantidote - Actually, my little limerick was not 'directed' at you - I 'offered' it to you, as you mentioned me, in a friendly light-hearted manner.
I am not a 'sensitive soul' but to read your comment "its almost as banal as most of your posts" is downright rude and offensive.
I've written many posts on this blog, most of them serious (I assume you've read them all in order to be able to make that comment).
I am not a Tory, I used to be a member of the Labour Party - long since disillusioned, and I don't see why the comment "Mr Bean wants to be Stalin again", which I think has some original thought in it, should provoke you into insulting me, as agreed by the moderators on here in their reply email to me:
"Further to your complaint about some of the content on a BBC blog (reference number P20572108), we have decided that it does indeed contravene the House Rules and have removed the offending material.
Thank you for pointing this out to us."
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick
If weejonnie post 116 is correct about the Emergencies Legislation in that it can be invoked to "protect or restore banking services" (approx).
Does this mean that all the members of a unioncalling a banking strike get 42 days to prove they are not terrorist?
In fact by association the whole TUC?
or will it be striking Train Drivers who get us all locked up for a Bean Break at Belmarsh?
Complain about this comment
# 163 bryan james, As iI say a sensitive soul you proudly boast about my post being removed, on a pevious blog very recently I had a unbelievable amount of insults because I had a offensive post removed, but there you are. Your Mr bean remarks were not in the slightest bit original, if you belief that, you cant of been reading the posts even your own, there have been a number of exchanges on the subject. For you to mention Mr bean three times one in post135, again exactly the same wording146 and then because I mentioned that you had already used that expression twice on this blog you then as an act of retaliation dedicated a poem to me begining ," Mr Bean" dont attempt to fool anyone that it was in a friendly and lighthearted manner. I am not sure whether you know the meaning of the word banal so I will tell you"so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring" now if using the same expression twice in ten posts nothing else just that one sentence, and then writing what you call a limerick starting Mr Bean eight posts later,is not repetative and boring,[ banal] then I dont know what is, I have read many of your posts and am aware that you have used the expression Mr Bean on a number of occasions. On that note I think that I am the one who should havebeen offended when my post was removed. but as I say I am made of sterner stuff.
You dont seem to get it do you you have rewritten my apparently offending post on your post 161 its still there.
Its strange that whenever a obvious Tory thinker is challenged in any way on these posts they always claim to have been a member of the Labour party previously,why do they have to admit that, is it because their embarrassed to admit their Tories. Finally where is scepticmax and mighty angela the doyens of free speech.
Complain about this comment
grandantidote@165, I've said repeatedly that I don't approve of censorship - whatever the source.
I can only assume that # 163 bryanjames learned about censorship during the time he was a member of the Labour Party.
Complain about this comment
166Sceptic max were you one of the tories that said they used to be Labour if you were it would have been about the same time as Bryanjames, but I could be wrong , I guess.
Complain about this comment
grandantidote - I've never been Labour. Not even when I was young and idealistic. I was never that stupid.
Complain about this comment
#168 sceptic max. Well I did say I could be wrong, it gets a bit confusing when so many tories claim they used to be Labour. What puzzles me is why are you not so vociferous about free speech regarding Bryan james as you were against me is it just when your free speech is being curtailed.
take a look on the other blog if you want to see curtailment of free speech.
Complain about this comment
grandantodote.
Have you not learned yet that as a Labour supporter if you were to have the nerve to say to any Tory.
I have never been Conservative, not even when I was young and idealistic, I was never that stupid. You will be reffered to the regulators. Only the Conservatives can get away with things such as this.
Look up above and you will see that @ 168 Sceptic Max has got away with it. Thast is because YOU have not asked for it to go to the regulators.
This is a Tory tactic used by the Tory bloggers to have your your post reffered. It took me ages to rumble that one. I too kept wondering why my post kept being reffered when there was nothing insulting in them, yes, they may have been off thread, but then so were a good many others . Pay attention and you will notice it happens to Labour supporting people only on a regular basis.
Complain about this comment
longer detention equals greater resentment at the grassroots. there has to be a different approach.
Complain about this comment
dhwilkinson wrote:
re: problems with spelling pedants.
I recommend Firefox 2 web browser available free on the internet. Its comment boxes have spell checking. American spellings though so watch out for colour(color) etc.
A good suggestion on your part but this won't prevent grammatical errors and it won't correct of errors of judgement.
Complain about this comment
172:
Correction - 'won't correct (of) errors of judgement'.
Complain about this comment
Where is the proof that the public want detention for 42 days. I don't and I think that my views are shared by millions. Nazi Germany passed many laws which were wanted by the public! Look what happened to millions of Germans. After WMD I do not trust this government. The people apparently wanted war against Iraq, where are these people now. The politicians agreed with the war against Iraq, does anybody care now about the occupation of Iraq. What I want is reaper and Predator roaming our skys and when anybody acts suspiciously they should be zapped, save on expensive lawyers and trials (for any foreigners that was ironic).
Come on Nick, tell the true story, we the public do not want 42 days, I say bring out the body.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS