42 Days?

[bigc]

Well, with the big vote less than an hour or so away, how would you vote if you were an MP and do you agree with it being extended to 42 days?

I know there was a poll on this a little while back but because it is topical I thought I'd bring it up again. I haven't included a poll because I'm more interesting in comments than votes...

 

[Da Man Clay]

I think it should be extended to 42 days.

 

[beorhthelm]

against it in principle, but the way things seem to have gone with concessions its a damp squib of legislation anyway, that will probably never be invoked. the only principle now involved is the authority of Brown. I'd vote against.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Do we not have the longest official detention period? Ignoring things like Camp X-Ray, obviously.

I am not sure it is really necessary is it? Have we ever come close to losing a terrorist suspect, who has gone on to be convicted?

I guess it should boil down to how the men in the field view this motion (Police), rather than MPs. Do they feel they need more breathing space to work with?

 

[algie]

Do we not have the longest official detention period? Ignoring things like Camp X-Ray, obviously.

I am not sure it is really necessary is it? Have we ever come close to losing a terrorist suspect, who has gone on to be convicted?

I guess it should boil down to how the men in the field view this motion (Police), rather than MPs. Do they feel they need more breathing space to work with?

You obviously haven't been reading the chief of police views then

 

[Barrel of Fun]

You obviously haven't been reading the chief of police views then

If you mean the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, then yes I have. I was saying that it should boil down to what the police think and my opinion is not entirely relevant, which is what I said.

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

It's become one of those ridiculous things that don't matter hugely (because of the Civil Contingencies Act, mostly) but MPs think is vital, because it makes them seem important.

Like foxhunting. I couldn't have given a stuff either way whether it was banned. Neither could 80pc of the population.

 

[beorhthelm]

the basic problem is this: it doesnt prevent anyone from commiting an attack. it only means the police have more time to bring a case, but if you since you need suspicion to make an arrest they should have the grounds for some chargable offence in a few days. The act of arrest will stop an imminent attack, i hardly think a terrorist is going to continue their plans if released without charge, and if they did then MI5/Police arent do the follow up job properly.

 

[Beach Hut]

Anyway he won the vote.......................

 

[vulture]

Anyway he won the vote.......................

he made a deal with the dup to get there 9 votes....37 labour voted against him...

Brown is such a clueless twat

 

[bigc]

Indeed. I will be interested to see who voted for and against.

Whats the odds that the self proclaimed "hero" of the Muslim world George Galloway didn't even turn up for the vote..

 

[algie]

he made a deal with the dup to get there 9 votes....37 labour voted against him...

Brown is such a clueless twat

Why is he a clueless twat? He feels very strong about this issue and it's hes rebel MP'S who are destroying labour by not supporting him.For once Brown has got this right.When it comes to terrorism you can't f*** about with peoples lives.That is the bottom line.I personally back Brown on this.

 

[vulture]

Why is he a clueless twat? He feels very strong about this issue and it's hes MP'S who are destroying labour by not supporting him.For once Brown has got this right.When it comes to terrorism you can't f*** about with peoples lives.That is the bottom line.I personally back Brown on this.

Algie....i agree 42 days is correct...but yet again Brown has given in so much the new law is worthless....he should be sticking to his guns not at every turn changing to suit other people and making himself look weak..

 

[parks]

I'd vote no just so that toss pot loses!!

 

[beorhthelm]

...When it comes to terrorism you can't f*** about with peoples lives.That is the bottom line.

unless you suspect them of the offense, in which case suspend all their rights? again, this wont stop any terroist attack from actually happening, only deal with charging those already stopped from doing so.

 

[Meade's Ball]

It's a nasty must-win situ for Brown, who has looked to persuade the leftists displeased at this human rights stretch of acceptability with talk of a losing vote being a failure for the party, that Labour would be willing to lift Cuban sanctions in order to get their support and fart in the face of the visiting Bush, and that people wrongly imprisoned for 42 days without charges would get some form of compensation.
But this is just for Brown to maintain his power rather than fight gruesomely for something he kind of believes is right.
It's an ugly business, and what i read today suggests there is no real evidence for needing those extra days, and the claims made were as bent and deceitful as weapons of mass destruction documents.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

HM Govt wins by 9 votes. Funny that. Same number as Dup members !!

 

[portslade seagull]

42-day yes def ...you would all moan if they had some-one detained for 28-days let him go and then they killed innocent people with a bomb...

 

[beorhthelm]

42-day yes def ...you would all moan if they had some-one detained for 28-days let him go and then they killed innocent people with a bomb...

so what happens if after 42 days they are released and then went off and killed some people with a bomb? the arguement is invalid unless you want to see arbitary detention on nothing but suspicion.

nevermind, its done now. a little more of our freedom and justice has been eroded. Magna Carta will be turning in her grave.

 

[clapham_gull]

42-day yes def ...you would all moan if they had some-one detained for 28-days let him go and then they killed innocent people with a bomb...

Well you've fallen for that then. The security services would be following someone 24 hours a day in that case.

In the cold light of day, I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this legislation is - and that doesn't come from any political viewpoint of mine.

There is already legislation is place where people can be detained beyond the norm in special circumstances.

Currently you can't be questioned about an offence being charged. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I also wouldn't have a problem with phone tapping evidence being used in court. Even organisations like Liberty would like to happen, which makes you ask the question why we are the only Western democracy that doesn't allow it.