So as some of you will be aware, next week MPs will vote on whether or not to extend from 28 to 42 days the time police can detain suspects without charge.
Essentially this would mean the police can 'imprison' for questioning anyone they suspect of terrorism for 42 days, but not have to give a reason why.
For many, this is an attack on our fundamental liberties and is a rather abhorent idea. It is, in the eyes of some, a further increment toward the ever-feared 'police state'.
Indeed, the Conservatives are strongly opposed to the proposals, with the Shadow Home Secretary David Davis arguing that it would serve as "a recruiting sergeant for terror" by driving young Muslim men into the arms of extremists, and would alienate local communities, hampering counter-terrorism efforts.
In a rare move, I am in agreeance with the Government on this one.
I strongly believe that the powers would be used sparingly and legitimately. Indeed, you have to ask yourself: 'would the new measures effect me personally?' The answer, in the case of everyone on this website, is no. And why not? Because the police have no reason to suspect we are involved in terrorist activity.
It is easy to get carried away with the the idea that police will be breaking into houses in the dead of night and carting people away for interrogation without giving any reason for having done so; but this idea has no basis in reality I feel.
So the fundamental question in all this is 'do you trust the police?' Personally, I trust them implicitly. I truly believe they would only use these powers if they due reason to be suspicious of someone's activities. Indeed, the media (and political) scrutiny of this policy should it come into force will be so accute that I don't believe they would risk using these powers unless they truly believed it was necessary and well-grounded.
So, what do you think? Is it a good idea? Is it worth trading in our freedom for supposed safety? Does the old addage 'if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear' bear any relevance here?
"The axiom
'honest men have nothing to fear from the police' is currently under review by the Axiom Appeals Board."
hope i quoted that right
the Conservatives are strongly opposed to it because it'll help them win voters.
Were they in power they probably wouldn't be.
Simply, no.
The concept of personal liberty is at the heart of the Conservative philosophy, especially under the notably liberal Cameron regime.
It's what the whole idea of limited government is built upon, the idea that state shouldn't mess in your business.
Banning booze on the tube anyone?
I'm not saying that was necessarily the wrong decision but it shows that personal liberty isn't "at the heart of the Conservative philosophy" when it comes to social issues. You can't appeal to the idea that "the state shouldn't mess in your business" if you condone that kind of intervention.
Is the arguement not
that drunks on the tube infringes on others liberty not to be harassed on the tube.
That'll be the same idea of personal liberty that led Boris
to his utterly non-sensical ban of alcohol on buses and tubes?
^5
^5
:D
To both the above points;
Boris Johnson introduced this change, rather than the Conservative Party. Much like Livingstone introduced policies that New Labour weren't fully onboard. Find new examples.
That doesn't stop Sam's answer to the point being silly
it actually reinforces it. If Boris isn't able to hold fast to these points, why should we imagine the Tory party members will hold to what is allegedly the Tory Party policy.
In reality the Tories have always been hot on personal liberties until it comes to policing, where it's all about stopping the criminals hard, which is why this 42 day thing is really up their alley, and why all the Tories seem to be fully supporting Boris' strange alcohol ban.
Except Theo, the 42 days thing
isn't up their alley, because they aren't backing it at all.
The point is the Mayor of London doesn't have to toe a party line (neither of the two Mayors have really) so using Johnson's policies in an argument about Conservative philosophy is a tad silly.
If the Tories were in power they would be pushing the 42 days thing
because (as I understand) this is actually a request from the Police or the security services or something not just an idea that Gordon Brown had.
The thing is, they would have a lot more support if they did it because people tend to trust the Conservatives on such matters and assume they have good reason for doing it. They are (regardless of what Cameron may want to say now) the 'party of law and order'.
As it is, they are fine to object to it because it's good for their position which is one of barraking Brown.
That is a possibility, yes
I really don't see why you can think it with such certainity though. It is equally possible that a Conservative government would refuse to change the law because, as any good lefty who presumes he is more intelligent than the right and has a robust understanding of their secret motives knows, Tories don't like changing things.
Tories love changing things
They changed the utility companies from being really quite simple to being a horribly complex behemoth of different brands.
They changed trains from being sensibly centrally controlled to a fucking joke.
;-)
I just don't think anyone
can accurately postulate what stance a Conservative government would take on an issue like this. We'll never know if they have rebranded themselves more liberally (รก la New Labour's move its from traditional politics) until they are actually in power
Oh come off it.
What about the proposed Responsibility Agenda, which is promising state interventions to strengthen neighbourhood / community / family / the environment etc? Those will all require erosions of personal freedom, regardless of the legitimacy of the goals that they pursue.
Come off what?
I'm against the 42 days rule, and haven't even really disputed what you've said about Tory ethics and philosophy. I've just said that a Mayor's policies don't have to toe a party line and on mnay occassions over the previous 5 years, haven't done so.
Fair enough
if you weren't implying that no other examples of party policy could be found (which I assumed that you were). I just get annoyed by the tendency of the Tory party to appeal to freedom in such a rhetorical (and even hypocritical) way - a la CG above.
I'm not so sure.
But i do agree with your points above. I think it's all a bit of an overeaction. I doubt the police would detain someone without serious evidence of them having links to terrorism. The last sentence sums it up for me really, and probably most people; if you've nothing to hide then how would it affect you personally? If the police are wrongly arrresting and detaining people then lets hear about it.
There have been several cases
of people arrested and locked up for weeks and then released with out charge or explanation.
In a rare move, I am in agreeance with the tories on this one.
Frankly I'm dubious about 28 days...
hi! with regards to -
'It is easy to get carried away with the the idea that police will be breaking into houses in the dead of night and carting people away for interrogation without giving any reason for having done so; but this idea has no basis in reality I feel.'
this happened to my dad in the 70s. he was in bed in my mums flat, and a team of SAS or Special forces, etc whatever, broke into the flat, with guns, and interned him. i'm not sure how long they kept him for however.
* this was in London
Hmm, interesting.
Had he done anything wrong? And, if he had not, on what grounds did this happen?
He was rude to me
So I went back in time and framed him
He's Irish. This was the 70s.
northern irish, 20s, in london, in the 70s
was the basis i think. he was over working on a building site or something (STEREOTYPE ALERT)
Some stuck up reactionary neighbour
probably complained about him. I know this happened to members of my family
to be fair, it might have been my grandad.
as apparently he had my dad followed. so, he could have pulled strings. i'm assuming. i wish he was alive, i'd ask him now.
You ignorant shit.
"Had he done anything wrong?"
HOW BLINDED ARE YOU??? YOU IMMEDIATELY EXPECT HER DAD TO BE AT FAULT NOT OUR SHINNING GOVERNMENT THAT NEVER MAKES MISTAKES OR COULD EVER IMPLEMENT A MISSCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE!
^MY DAD ALERT^
The 28 days rule has never been used
I can't help but think this would make an upgrade as it were a tad too alarmist.
a possible infringement on civil liberty, yes
But i fully support it if it helps with trrrsm. Cos trrrsms bad. Its not a particularly pleasant development, but the people its designed to apply to are clearly some of the worst people on earth, so i think its justified. I'm one of those people who believes that the spec forces are constantly foiling trrrr plots all the time, so the more help the better!
satire, nice
Oh, I forgot to add.
The recent debacle surrounding the De Menezes case is why the police would only use these new powers sparingly and if they had well founded suspicion.
They can't afford another PR disaster on that scale.
What, they should have detained him for 42 days before shooting him in the head without evidence?
I lol'd. I'm going to hell.
:(
^ A silly response.
^interesting point
the (ruling) Party is more interested in preserving itself than civil liberties, but a fear of repeating incidents like this (which ironically are more damaging than the erosion of liberty as a whole) may mean they would regulate the exercising of this power stringently, if they had it.
that doesnt mean i'm not 100% against it though. the police cant do their jobs because of govt restructuring (2 policemen have specifically said this to me), not because they can't legally hold them long enough.
i don't see any need to increase the already worrying length of time
what ever the political incentive for the tory stance, i agree with them. i would also love to see Gordon defeated, so that the labour party fell into turmoil, that would be madLOLZ!
I agree with you.
^Ban this filth.
I used to be against it
but have now decided that I am for it. I ask myself whether if it were me being detained without charge for that long, how would I feel about it? The answer is that I'd be prepared to undergo imprisonment for 42 days with no reason if it makes our world safer so it's okay with me.
I totally agree with this.
I would give up 42 days of my time if it meant the next person they hold for that amount of time turns out to be up to no good.
Essentially if they incorrectly hold 10 people that have done nothing wrong, but they stop number 11 and he was planning to put a bomb on the tube, then it's worth. Surely?
i absolutely do not believe either of you.
so if you were hauled up tomorrow and stuck in a jail for 42 days, you'd not have ANY issues when you came out? not one at all? and if you complained, you'd have this legislation thrown in your face and a 'tough shit', and you wouldn't feel outraged? lies.
Lying in part, but not fully.
As I said in the initial I WOULDN'T be held for 42 days in the first place, so the whole thing is hypothetical anyway.
And of course, even if I was held wrongly, it wouldn't take 42 days to work out I was innocent. It would take about 12 minutes.
12 seconds
COS YOU'RE WHITE YEAH (y)
Hmm
actually I really wouldn't. I think it's pretty unlikely that it would happen to me since I have no links (as far as I know) with terrorists or their activities.
Yeah it wouldn't be ideal and I'd be pissed off about it but if I'd been hanging out with dodgy characters I reckon I'd understand.
Anyway I said "I'd be prepared to" - implying reluctance in this situation. So yeah, of course I'd have issues but I believe in due process and I trust the police.
Yes indeed.
Plus I could catch up on all the sleep and reading I keep meaning to do....
Sad to say but the normally hang 'em and flog 'em brigade are correct on this one.
It would be counterproductive.
I, personally, cannot see the point in going through with it when whatever the result the government loses so much of its credibility either by losing or giving so many concessions as to appear weak.
I think in the iRA days we had more to fear and there was never a perceived need for such abuse of power and perversion of justice.
Its strange
Despite being caucasian, the Irish didn't bring the same fear of the 'enemy within'. You can't become Irish.
i think a lot of Americans on St. Patrick's Day would disagree with you
but they're silly anyway
I was under the impression that every year 60 million Britons became Irish for a day and then 50m of
i dunno.
i mean, the IRA bombed with more frequency - but they always phoned them in.
The difference between them and islamic terrorists is that the suicide bombers have no fear. they will kill themselves for their cause, which is something i don't think the IRA would have done.
Bobby Sands?
hunger striker is SLIGHTLY different to a suicide bomber
Hmm
but what about the case of Guantanamo Bay where this sort of legislation has had people waiting to be charged for ages, in horrible conditions and with no idea what's going on.
Okay, so it's a different country's system, but police shouldn't be able to arrest people on a whim.
Can you name one historical situation where this sort of legislation has been a positive and productive step for civil liberty as well as security?
That is ok, it isn't in America so it doesn't have to follow any
codes of decency or respect whatsoever.
See, this is the kind of thing that annoys me
Guantanamo Bay has NOTHING to do with this. This is talking about 42 (FORTY-TWO) days. Not months, not years. And why does it means police will be arresting people on 'a whim'. No, they'll be arresting people they suspect of being involved with terrorism. That's not 'a whim'.
How many days are in a month?
42 days, not 42 MONTHS, or 42 YEARS
stupid
he meant that 42 days IS a month.
a month and a half. pretty much.
REALLY?
Wow, no wonder I sucked so bad at maths.
If I could insert one of those rolling-eye things here, I would btw.
well, you do come out with some awful tripe on here
so i think it's fair that i assumed you hadn't cottoned on to what he meant.
It isn't my fault
your sentence and argument were incoherent. Sarky understood
Okay, but it's not 'months' plural
and you'd round it down to one month not up to two if you took it as a decimal month value.
As an argument to her argument it was just as incoherent and the sort of thing you have a go at me for doing.
You are clearly my disciple. :D
Either that or I was just asking a question
:P
It's the sort of thing I would do
:D
I was just making a point
of how 42 days isn't a trivial amount really. Its a big deal.
it actually is months plural
it could only be singular if it was specified as 28-31 days depending on the month in question. in this case it is roughly 1.5 months, which is quite clearly not a singular month!
There goes my hero...
He's wrong, though.
A month is on average just over 30 days, even accounting for February.
Hence 42 days is a month and 12 days and 12 is 0.4 of a month, meaning it's 1.4 months which rounds to 1 month.
I made that quite clear above.
suspicion can only ever amount to a whim
So what constitutes suspicion?
You can guarantee people totally innocent of any wrong-doing will be arrested under this act and held for over a month with no evidence.
No, I can't, and frankly, I don't care if they do
I don't know how stupid you have to be to think that the police would waste their time arresting someone for the fun of it.
Maybe they'll arrest the occasional person who just has a passing interest in terror groups, and isn't actively involved in one.
Yeah, think I'll still sleep at night.
Well that's OK then
And there's a difference between arresting someone 'for fun' and arresting someone 'for convenience'. Both are unnacceptable to me.
The British prison system isn't Guantanamo Bay though.
And there is simply no evidence (that i'm aware of) that would lead to terror suspects in this country being held in similar conditions. So your comparison is non-sensical.
The British prison