±«Óãtv

Well I am the public, Nick, and I don't agree with the 42 days detention. There are too many countries in the world with less than desirable standards of freedom and rights of the individual, and to let our hard won laws of freedom be eroded in this way is sending the wrong message to less scrupulous governments, and letting down all those lost individuals incarcerated in foreign jails without trial.

Gordon Brown is right, in general terms, to suggest that Cameron is but a 'shallow salesman', but the hypocrisy of bringing it up with regards to this issue is breathtaking. It seems clear to me (and to the Tories, Lib Dems, many and increasing numbers of Labour MPs and most reasonable people) that the issue of extended detention without charge is, primarily, a stick with which to beat the Tories over security, rather than a demonstrably useful instrument in the nebulous 'war on terror'.

Political posturing over what amounts to internment, invoking an argument as flimsy as the precautionary principle on a matter so profound and serious and an unwillingness to accept the legitimate concerns of those (from whatever part of the political spectrum they might come) who object bring considerably more shame on Brown than on Cameron.

I think you are wrong to narrow this down to part of a struggle between Brown and Cameron, though; it is, in essence, rather a battle between we the people and the present government.

The stakes for Gordon might be high, but the stakes for Joe Public are higher. Let's get shot - and quickly!

The public might support Brown on this but I am not so sure. I am sure that this is not a doorstep issue like 10p tax.

When Brown keeps insisting that he takes the right long term decision for Britain, I am afraid I am very cynical and believe that actually he is taking short term political calculations. Much of what Brown has done so far - non-doms, inheritance tax etc - demonstrate this.

Cameron is therefore right to pursue this line. Why he is doing it now is a mystery though.

I'm not so sure that the public is with Brown on 42 days. Just having his name attached to the idea is likely to make people think twice. I hope for all our sakes the Labour rebels show a little more backbone on this issue and vote it down.

I can’t help falling asleep over this story but two interesting issues it kicks up are the alleged stigmatisation of Muslims, and David Cameron’s inability to go the distance with respect to helping form a more consensual approach to politics. My view from a Zen Buddhist perspective is that both these difficulties are delusions. People can jump to scary conclusions and become tired with trying but this is just self generated phantoms getting in the way. The sage is mindful, drops all these things as they arise, and just rolls with the moment.

Be pure. Be vigilant. Behave!

Nick,

I'd be interested to know why you think the public are largely in favour of this increased detention ability. Given that we have recently been living through a period of enacting the most draconian legislation in our modern peacetime history, much of which has then been used to target non-terrorist suspects, from extradition of British executives, hecklers of Labour politicians, through to council surveilance of householders, we should all be resisting further errosion of our hard-won liberties. If we have learnt anything from the last few years, it is that we all lose by not defending them, and we cannot trust that such legislation will not be misused. Lest anyone think from this post that I am some tree-hugging liberal, I am in fact a retired senior police officer, but I have no wish to live in a police-state. Yes, we live in dangerous times, but until I am shown clear evidence that such increased detention has actually hampered a terrorist investigation, rather than alarmist suggestions that it may do one day, then I see no justification for further reducing one of the most precious safeguards of civil liberty. The opposition is the only defence that the citizen has against an executive which seems hell bent on unravelling our ancient constitutional framework. More power to their elbow!

Ah, yes, the precautionary principle; if every citizen in the country was locked up in prison and nobody was allowed to read books then we'd all be a lot "safer".
Somewhere you need to draw the line though; being locked up for 28 days without charge is already way over the line in my book. Lengthening it even more just highlights exactly what Brown is really after (ie he's gone back to his stalin roots again)

"...the PM knows that the public is, largely, on his side on this one"

No they're not. A poll conducted by Yougov has shown that just 13% support the extended 42 day detention period, whilst 70% would rather post-charge detention be introduced:

"Unlike on the 10p tax, the PM knows that the public is, largely, on his side on this one" - where does the ±«Óãtv get it's information from?
Don't try and be the propaganda tool for this regime. I'm sure the general public are as comfortable as the man who heckled Jack Straw at the labour conference - and got arrested under the prevention of terrorism act, or possibly the chap who took a photo in the street the other day and was warned that this was against 'new terror laws'. Not forgetting the 2 mile zone around westminster preventing protestors - under the prevention of terrorism act. I would not have an issue with the principle, it's the muppets who will enforce it that scare me to death. Q. What is a terrorist? A. Whatever the government defines it as. This whole proposal is based on these cases being 'complicated' - the real issue is that the government don't want to pay for the extra officers and specialists required to complete investigations in the current allowable period of detention. Is the ±«Óãtv aware that Hitler arranged the burning down of the Reichstag in order to justify implementing a stricter regime - this government isn't clever enough to be original - the whole thing stinks of rat.

If the 'public' is largely on the Government's side then we truly do deserve the politicians we end up with.

Interested to know why you think the majority of the public are on the PM's side Nick. I'm not entirely sure they are.

While there are the people who believe the Daily Mail's constant fear mongering, I honestly hope that the majority of people in this country are capable of realising that the terrorist threat is largely overstated.

Given that Microsoft have just released COFEE, the police will not need a longer time to de-encrypt the majority of PCs that they take from suspects, so there's no real argument for the extension.

My main concern is that the detention without trial will see the same function creep as the RIP Act and end up being used for purposes other than that it was intended. Such as removing people from the streets who disagree with Government policy, for example.

To quote you Nick 'Put aside the insults for a second - Cameron attacking Brown for putting political calculations ahead of the national interest' .........you could well have added 'and getting the calculations wrong !'

I must admit my gut feeling was to allow an extension of the detention without trial limit, but I remember that the first use of some new bit of terror legislation about 18 months (?) ago was to arrest an aged heckler at the labour party conference.

I also note the story in The Times today about road tax which will hit the users of older medium sized cars at the lower ends of the earnings spectrum, probably the traditional labour voter. I also bet that the extension of the higher road tax bands to older cars will not be extended to older cars which are low emitters, and if new, would qualify for a zero or £25 rate

Nick

You missed out the first, and very important, part of Brown's argument. That is that since all the political parties accept that it is possible that more than 28 days detention will be necessary at some time in the future, THEREFORE ............. it is preferable to legislate calmly now rather than wait to do so in a panic when the problem hits us. And of course in that context it really doesn't matter a jot whether the Public Prosecutor or the Lord High Panjandrum hasn't YET seen a case where >28 days would have been necessary. The people who see the cases that may be coming up in the future (the Independent Reviewer and the Police) do see the need for legislation now, and if Cameron was in office and responsible for public safety now he would be arguing for the new legislation.

I think of great interest is the Nick Clegg part of the PMQ's discusion.

Recently I have compared Nick Clegg to Neil Kinnock. Why?

The two leaders made very bad impacts on the general population in their first tantative steps in projecting a politcal image to the public.

Neil Kinnock can be remebered for falling into the sea and then misjudging the politics of the miners strike (Politics of the Labour party. Nick Clegg on the other hand misjudged the EU treaty vote and then made a real mistake in advising how many women he had slept with.

On other websites, i pointed out the similarities in Clegg / Kinnock and was met with nasty putdowns and now banned for mentioning Clegg / Kinnock.

The interesing point in the Clegg / Kinnock relationship is Nick Clegg is now actively engaging in PMQ's impersonating Neil Kinnock and recycling a Kinnock speech. I think this was very poorly judged as i am afraid Kinnock has always been seen a loser. Gordon Brown has been seen as a recurring accident but even Brown has not made mistakes like Clegg - it could soon all be over for Clegg!

What is your evidence for saying "the public are largely on his side" please? I would be highly surprised if that were the case. This government becomes more totalitarian by the day, and many people are gtting sick of it.

New Labour's implication that you are either for an increase in detention without trial or you are "soft on terror" would be laughable in a 6th form debating society. As a serious case for a large erosion of liberties is it appalling. And let me assure you I am FAR from a bleeding-hearts liberal!

Nick

On what basis do you say that the public are largely in favour of 42 days?

This is certainly not my experience, or that of anyone I have spoken to about it.

Seeing an OAP manhandled out of the Labour conference, and held under 'terrorist' legislation in brighton has stuck in many peoples minds.

The idea of "legislating at leisure" is just dangerous.

Look at Bill Clinton's use of rendition in the 1990's. In the autumn of 1995, Clinton, his national security adviser Sandy Berger, and his terrorism adviser Richard Clark ordered the CIA to destroy Al Qaeda. Michael Scheuer headed the CIA unit that tracked bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, developed and led the "renditions" program.

Scheuer: "We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said 'That's up to you'."

So, look what happened when a right-wing government came into power and a terrorist emergency happened.

The PM is in a difficult position with the 42 day proposal, since most people are unaware of the full isses regarding counter-terrorism. This is unfortunate since it allows each side to spin the facts.

But do I detect frustration from out Prime Minister? He appears to be reacting to David Cameron. I think he is under a lot of pressure from backbench MPs, many of whom realise that they are out of a job regardless of what happens now.

Considering this government is working against democracy, allowing torture and increasingly losing touch with Voter support i think it is appalling they are trying to further extend their powers over anyone they suspect of being a terrorist.
If they havent figured it out within 1 week of holding someone waiting an extra 35 days keeping them in prison is only going to exaserbate the prison cell shortages!

These powers are not neccessarry and can easily be used against anyone who they accuse of terrorism, which this government takes 52 pages to define, Link below:



Could this include organisations such as Greenpeace or Justice for Fathers?

Furthermore if we are talking about acts that involve serious violence against a person or attempt to influence government should we also view Illegal wars such as Iraq war as terrorism?

I think our human rights and democratic rights have been attacked enough.

Nick,

A quick straw poll.

Out of 8 people in the office only 1 was in favour of the 42 days.

Please could you show us where you get the stats for such wild assumptions.

Surprised how wrong you are about the public perception of 42 days. For example:

An overwhelming majority of Labour members, supporters and left-leaning voters oppose the government's plans for detention of terrorist suspects for up to 42 days, according to a survey conducted by Compass.

The survey of 800 people found that:

39.89% of respondents favour retention of the current 28 day limit, however a further 45.29% support a return to the pre-2005 limit of 14 days. Only 9.15% support the government's position for a maximum period of 42 days detention.
Furthermore 60.22% of respondents do not believe that the additional safeguards of requiring agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and ±«Óãtv Secretary - with the need for a report to Parliament and vote make extending the detention period any more acceptable.
76.28% would support the use of intercept evidence in court and 69.38% would support post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects.
51.56% of those who responded say they think the Counter-Terrorism Bill will increase the chances of a further terrorist attack on the UK. A mere 9.28% said they thought the legislation would make such an attack less likely.

That's from February 2008.

Have things changed? Where is the polling info?

The current legislation is more than adequate. Maybe the government and the Police would like more, but the problem is they cannot be trusted to use it properly and responsibly. Already with what they've got they warp so that they can use it to justify what they want to do as opposed to what they should do.

Examples of misuse are already legendary:

Walter what's-his-name, the pensioner who heckled at a Labour conference.

The young woman who read out the names of the dead british soldiers at the Cenotaph. She was actually succesfully prosecuted and now has a criminal record.

The two women who were arrested sitting on the grass near the Commons eating a birthday cake. The cake had a CND symbol on it and the police classed that as an illegal demonstration.

The tourist gentleman wearing a 'Bush - World's number 1 terrorist' T-Shirt - legally on sale in this country - arrested for wearing it in Parliament Square.

There's loads more. All of it disgusting abuse of power and law by a police force and political class who are starting to deserve little more than contempt.

This 42 days without charge is simply indefensible - anyone who supports it simply doesn't understand this issues or is being leant on by HMG. We already have the longest detention without charge in the OECD. You can charge people if there is "reasonable suspicion". So the proposal is that people should be detained past 28 days even if there is no reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence. This is outrageous.

It does make me wonder where this government is going on this. The issue here is that do we really need 42 days? The answer is a resounding NO!

Recent matters such as the recent cases in Bristol did not require the current 28 days. Nor has some of the other cases. The issue comes down to electronic records, either mobile phone or computer and the length of time to examine these. Well rather that use excessive powers, the Conservative suggestion of questioning after charge is the most legitimate methods around this, not detaining for a period of time.

There is also the comments from the MPS/MI5/MI6 that there are over 40 plus matters under investigation. So what of these?

Do we go back to the 70's where hundreds of Irishmen and women were detained under interment. Unfortunately, this can be only the way that this is going. Allowing the government 42 days is placing us on the road a very unreasonable state? Was Cameron right to bring this up? Yes. Will it cause a change or another U-Turn from Gordon - probably!

"People who are willing to give up their Freedom for Security will soon find that they neither have nor deserve Freedom Nor Security." Benjamin Franklin

I think this should be brought to the knowledge of the PM and the Labour Party. We have given away too many of our civil liberties for the sake of terrorists.

Yes - the terrorists want to kill us, but we want to be able to live as well and know that our police are on our side and not going to abuse these laws they are requesting. At the moment that belief and trust is not evident as we have councils abusing terrorism laws to catch dogs fouling. Secondly, the terrorists appear to lack the required ability, but when they have been successful the British people bounced back resiliently.

We often hear the argument of right decisions and the right way. This sounds more and more fundamental by our decision makers. They need to see what sort of society they are creating that may not be too bad yet but in a few years we will be in real trouble.

The laws in this area are very tricky to balance but you cannot health and safety terrorism, as they have tried to with every other facet of life in this country. Nor can you let the police have powers simply because they think they may need them. If there is sufficient evidence after 28 days then appealing to the courts would be the appropriate route, via the ±«Óãtv Office. If the terrorists succeed in their wish to do us harm, we will show them again that the British people will not back down but we will keep the elements of our lives that deferentiate between them, the terrorists, and us.

Mr Robinson - I'm back, and I thought I was a minority who wasn't in favour of the extended detention. Does this now mean that the next interview the ±«Óãtv get with the government on this subject the question will be 'As the majority of the public are against the extension - why are you implementing a policy which you have no mandate to implement?' - I think it's time the ±«Óãtv portrayed the 'public opinion' slightly more accurately.

P.s. To sign up to this blog we're all forced to give our personal details - lets hope this isn't 'shared information' with the government or the majority of the people involved in the posts above will receive a dawn raid and a 45 day detention without trial under the prevention of terrorism act!

Nick for a political commentator you do fall a little short when it comes to asking the real questions sometimes. Me thinks due to your political leaning you are afraid of being accused of bias. EVERY left leaning political commentator (=99.9% of them) shows not the slightest embarrassment in their support for Labour (so much for ±«Óãtv neutrality). Gordon McTurpin-Brown has a huge majority on his side of keep my seat at any cost screw my principles MP's. He could propose child slavery and make it a vote of confidence and it would be voted in. This Parliament cannot keep the Government in check because for the last 11 year it has not had sufficient opposition votes to defeat the Government. The accusations of weak opposition has been lashed about for years truth is no matter how strong the opposition is or was due to the size of Labours majority they can and do as they like. 10p tax ring any bells nothing is being done to compensate except for a few pensioners and it then deemed nuff dun comrades lets pass the bill now.

Having something to hide and not wanting to be spied upon are two entirely different positions.

Wanting to be protected and giving up one's civil liberties are two equally opposite positions.

the problem with this government is its utter lack of sophistication about such matters; they are too ignorant ot undestand the difference between positions an the subtleties involved.

The danger in allowing such incompetents to continue is we are ending up with a country nobody recognises where no-one takes responsiblity for anything and the state persistently spies on everyone.

In the name of God, go! Nothing the government now attempts remotely represents any of the ides we grew up with. They have completely lost the argument for why they should continue to govern which is why the 'public' completely disagree with this 42 detention rule.

It is a gross infringement of civil liberties and must be stopped just like the doomed Blair 90 day detention before it.

This issue is not a doorstep issue, as it doesn't touch Joe Public's pocket. And hell, it's only them alienated muslims who will get banged up, and if the police, and they wouldn't have been nicked if they'd been pure as the driven snow, and if the police and the govt, and the experts say they need these powers there MUST be something in it, and better we are all safe, and someone temporarily deprived of their libertty, than a busful of people murdered, right?
No.
It is precisely BECAUSE those worrying arguments are being advanced - without a shred of hard, factual, supporting evidence that holds water to support them - to encroach YET again on our fundamental liberties, that this is a far, far more important issue th

This issue is not a doorstep issue, as it doesn't touch Joe Public's pocket. And hell, it's only them alienated muslims who will get banged up, and if the police, and they wouldn't have been nicked if they'd been pure as the driven snow, and if the police and the govt, and the experts say they need these powers there MUST be something in it, and better we are all safe, and someone temporarily deprived of their libertty, than a busful of people murdered, right?
No.
It is precisely BECAUSE those worrying arguments are being advanced - without a shred of hard, factual, supporting evidence that holds water to support them - to encroach YET again on our fundamental liberties, that this is a far, far more important issue than the tax one.

The sort of people who want to have and exercise these powers are precisely the last sort of people who should be given them. This is a HUGE step towards the death of habeas corpus, towards tyranny. It could be any of us who a copper decides to nick using these powers.
To my amazement, I'm cheering on a Tory defender of human rights.

These powers of detention are vital in the "War against Terror" now all we have to do is wait for the terrorists to overfill their dustbins and we can lock them up.

Mind you since Gordon "The Debt" Brown has stolen my pension and squandered it, I might need somewhere lo live when i am older. So maybe I will overfill my dustbin on purpose once I get to 67 or whatever age I will have to carry on working to so that government employees can retire at 55.

Mr Robinson - you have been caned for that statement about the majority of people being in favour - don't do "a government", be a man and withdraw it with an apology please....

If we have 42 days detention without charge then what recourse would we have
against any British citizen being held likewise in any country in the world?

I wouldn't be so sure about the support for 42 days detention... I'd class the media, certainly newspaper columnist, generally against the idea and quite vocal about their opposition.... from what I've heard the so called safe guards are very flawed due to the time delay of the debate about the person in parliament... I also thinks it's a tenuous arguement as well... just in case we ever need it is a poor excuse in my book...

Nick, you've made a big boo-boo. The majority of the public are not in favour of extending detention without trial to 42 days.

If Brown, like you, is so sure of public support, let him put it to the public - ideally in a General Election.

Nick

I am very surprised that you have missed a simple point here. For many years ministers of all colours have been refusing to answer a question that is based on a hypothetical situation, i.e. it has not happened. GB has used this answer a number of times and so has the current ±«Óãtv Secretary.

However, now they are prepared not to answer a hypothetical question, but to legislate on the basis of a hypothetical situation and further reduction of the rights of the individual. The removal of these rights will be used by the terrorists to point to the evil society that exists in this country; that is not a hypothetical result.

Why not try and ask GB or the ±«Óãtv Secretary a hypothetical question and see if you get an answer?

How about 42 days detention for fouling the streets with doggy poo?
I say hang all these doggy terrorists and so make room for all those pensioners going to gaol because they can not afford to live in their own homes under New Improved Labour (Subject to means testing)!

Re No.25- Do we go back to the 70's where hundreds of Irishmen and women were detained under interment.

Now there is a really bright idea.

Interment works if you really do have the polictical will to see it through. Detention centres in the middle of no-where (Scotland, Londonstan or France?), terrorist locked away with absolutely no form of communication to the outside world, even less (Mamby-pamby, Leftist wing, human) rights and no movenment out of the cells.

Interment works but British polical will doesn't, so I guess here comes the Airstrip One.

To quote Ben Franklin;
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.

or another attributed to him;
A Democracy will vote away its rights.

The White Rat.

It's relatively easy for the Government to scare us into believing that we should implement the 42 day detention without trial.

If he thinks we're not entirely convinced, something will happen somewhere in the country and the public will fall into line.

I know this seems far-fetched to some, but I believe this government will go to any lengths to protect its own agenda. Remember David Kelly?

42 days. Isn't that about the length of an MP's summer holiday?

Looking back on some of the comments I’m wondering if you’ve done enough to explain this issue, Nick. The earlier government plan was for a rolling period of holding overseen by a judge. The 42 days is actually a compromise the government brought in to square the circle. Then there’s technical and investigatory time and resources during a severe crises. The press hasn’t done much to explain that.

If the government was derelict with creating emergency plans to save lives or reconstruct areas people would be kicking up a stink because they hadn’t done it. People need to understand what the problems are and have a clearer understanding of the solutions. I don’t think the gesture politics from left or right, or the scrutiny and protest from the media to the point of losing the message in the signal has helped much.

But Charles, the current 28 day detention limit is already the compromise figure agreed after Mr Blair's earlier attempt to introduce 90 days.

I'm sure an educated and erudite man such as yourself would realise that only a Del Boy style market trader would try to re-open negotiations and split the difference again after a compromise is reached?

If this ploy was successful to introduce 42 days, how long before Del Boy was back again saying that wasn't long enough and another increase was required?

"David Cameron cannot, even if he wanted to, back off so the stakes are high - not just in terms of our national security but in the political positioning of these two men. "


How many times have the police had to release someone because of the detention time limit who has then gone on to threaten our national security?

Well, Nick, how many? Because unless you can start showing me some examples then you shouldn't be implying that this will affect our "national security" at all.


The fact that a vocal minority will cheer everytime a politician shouts "I'll lock up the scary people!" is no indication of widespread public support.

Charles E Hartwidge and others.

It's quite simple. We don't want to further stretch the rules over "no detention without charge" just so politicians can say they're tough.

Charge the suspect if you have evidence, and let a judge see this (in camera if necessary). Let them go if you don't.

If you can't find enough evidence even to charge them with supporting terrorist activity so some suchlike in 28 days, so be it.

Only a few zealots like Ian Blair think 42 days will make a difference and I'd count my fingers after shaking hands with him...

Charges can always be dropped later and suitable apologies made if further enquiries show there is no case.

It's quite simple. We don't want to further stretch the rules over "no detention without charge" just so politicians can say they're tough.

Who said anything about "tough"? Does planning for medical care during an emergency have everyone rushing around saying how "caring" they are? I'm as keen as anyone for hearing the case for the best approach. If a proposed solution is appropriate that's fine. Anything else is ego.

Charles_E_Hardwidge.

If charges were dropped later and suitable apologies made, do you really think it would stop there? They'd be sued - and we would have to fork out again.

If charges were dropped later and suitable apologies made, do you really think it would stop there? They'd be sued - and we would have to fork out again.

Life is suffering.

Smile and pretend you enjoy it.

Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:

Life is suffering.

Smile and pretend you enjoy it.

That is a perfect summary of my emotions whenever I read when of Charles' posts!

I've been smiling and pretending I'm enjoying being taken for a ride for the last 11 years. No smiles or enjoyment left I'm afraid.

If ever evidence were needed as to the failings of the popular vote, and ‘democracy’, then this government is the very essence of them all, of which the 42 days detention proposal is but the most egregious, so far.

I couldn't disagree more Nick. The British public couldn't really give a monkey's whether terror suspects are held for 28, 42 or 142 days without charge. These are police procedural matters which should have been worked out a long time ago, in-house, so to speak.
What the British public really cares about is the appalling prospect that their children have a worse education than they did, suffer worse public transport than they used to, have little chance of getting treated by an NHS dentist once they leave school and haven't a snowballs chance in Hell of ever owning their own homes ... things which Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg dont seem to have a single sensible idea about solving ... thats where the next election will be fought ... with an increasing number of voters electing to stay away from the battle altogether !

I don't think the public want a 42 day limit.

It is true that Cameron is policy light at the moment, and so the "salesman" claim may have some resonance.

However as Brown appears to pinch the Conservatives policies as soon as they announce them it is hardly surprising that Cameron does not wish to show his hand too far before an election.

Once he shows his hand, when the election is called, he may be able to brush aside the "Salesman" claim in one swoop.

In the meantime he should remind the public why he is not announcing the policies now...

Because Brown will implement them in a blind panic and do it poorly - causing confusion and damage, such as with the Non Doms. Waiting until they can be announced and implemented properly is in the National interests!