NationStates Jolt Archive

From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7450627.stm

I find this interesting. What does his resignation say about how others may feel over the state of freedom and liberty in the UK?

To Brits: Is the UK losing or has lost too many freedoms and liberties? Is the Labour government going too far (as usual)?

This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand.42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.

David Davis

From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7450627.stm

I find this interesting. What does his resignation say about how others may feel over the state of freedom and liberty in the UK?

To Brits: Is the UK losing or has lost too many freedoms and liberties? Is the Labour government going too far (as usual)?


Nope.

From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7450627.stm

I find this interesting. What does his resignation say about how others may feel over the state of freedom and liberty in the UK?

To Brits: Is the UK losing or has lost too many freedoms and liberties? Is the Labour government going too far (as usual)?

Well since now we have the longest detention limit of any democracy in the world (Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/11/civilliberties.terrorism1)) I'd say yes Brown and all of New Labour are going to far. Neither Labour or Conservatives are getting my vote however. The only truly mainstream leftist party that I would vote for are the Liberal Democrats.

All this War on Terror crap has lead to a continued erosion of people's rights. Before if people were suspected of a crime they would be questioned and let go within 24 hours unless a judge gave permission for the police to hold the person longer. I don't see why people have to be held for 42 days while evidence is collected against them when the police didn't have trouble doing so why the person was still out.

Another way to find out is to see how much everyone gets into the spirit of the next Guy Fawkes Day.

Although I'm a Yankee, a good Guy Fawkes day from Washington to Westminister to Beijing this year would be smashing! (Literally)

I'd probably vote for the Greens or the Lib Dems myself too. New Labour is too IngSoc for me.

Reminded of a George Harrison song, Brainwashed:
Brainwashed in our childhood
Brainwashed by the school
Brainwashed by our teachers
and brainwashed by their rules

Brainwashed by our leaders
By our Kings and Queens
Brainwashed in the open and brainwashed
behind the scenes
Brainwashed by the Nikkei
Brainwashed by Dow Jones
Brainwashed by the FTSE
Nasdaq and secure loans
Brainwashed us from Brussels
Brainwashing us in Bonn
Brainwashing us in Washington
Westminster in London


Of course the song is about religion and Krishna, but it's still got a good point.

Spin and bluster, I'm afraid. Cameron hasn't yet said he will repeal 42 day deterntion if elected at the next election. If he were going to, now would be a good time to say it, but he hasn't. Which leaves me to believe that 42 day detention will stay on the statute books.

Which makes this quite a cynical and disengenuous move. Daives isn't going to lose this by-election. He isn't risking anything at all. All this does is paint the Tories as the good party of civil liberties (which I'm sceptical about anyway as much as I am of Labour) and Labour as the party of evil authoritarianism, when either knowingly or unknowingly, they're happy labour are passing it and not them.

I hope I'm wrong. Daives might be able to commit the Tories to repeal, and he does seem a lot better than a great many politicians I can think of. But if there's one think British politics has taught me: you can't be too cynical and bitter.

Spin and bluster, I'm afraid. Cameron hasn't yet said he will repeal 42 day deterntion if elected at the next election. If he were going to, now would be a good time to say it, but he hasn't. Which leaves me to believe that 42 day detention will stay on the statute books.

It isn't going to get anywhere near the statute book anyway. The Lords will reject it, or gut it through amendments, it will come back to the Commons, and it will get defeated there the second time. Even if somehow the Commons passes it again, the Lords can still reject it a second time without fear of the government using the Parliament Acts to force it through.

It will never come into force. Mark my words.

Well since now we have the longest detention limit of any democracy in the world (Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/11/civilliberties.terrorism1)) I'd say yes Brown and all of New Labour are going to far. Neither Labour or Conservatives are getting my vote however. The only truly mainstream leftist party that I would vote for are the Liberal Democrats.

All this War on Terror crap has lead to a continued erosion of people's rights. Before if people were suspected of a crime they would be questioned and let go within 24 hours unless a judge gave permission for the police to hold the person longer. I don't see why people have to be held for 42 days while evidence is collected against them when the police didn't have trouble doing so why the person was still out.
The most absurd part is, it isn't like terrorism just popped out of nowhere. It's been around for a while and if I'm mistaken, the UK has already dealt with terrorism in the past. Why the sudden inclination to start raping everyone's rights because America has declared itself at war with the intangible idea of "terrorism"

It isn't going to get anywhere near the statute book anyway. The Lords will reject it, or gut it through amendments, it will come back to the Commons, and it will get defeated there the second time. Even if somehow the Commons passes it again, the Lords can still reject it a second time without fear of the government using the Parliament Acts to force it through.

It will never come into force. Mark my words.
I agree (and said this in a different thread).

The most absurd part is, it isn't like terrorism just popped out of nowhere. It's been around for a while and if I'm mistaken, the UK has already dealt with terrorism in the past. Why the sudden inclination to start raping everyone's rights because America has declared itself at war with the intangible idea of "terrorism"
We've not just dealt with terrorism, we've still got the legislation to deal with it. Hell, this government actually consolidated all our previous emergency powers legislation into one new statute a few years back so they could suspend civil liberties in an emergency.

The most absurd part is, it isn't like terrorism just popped out of nowhere. It's been around for a while and if I'm mistaken, the UK has already dealt with terrorism in the past. Why the sudden inclination to start raping everyone's rights because America has declared itself at war with the intangible idea of "terrorism"

Let's see.

Up until now, we haven't had a terrorist organization that wanted to acquire nuclear and biological weapons and have as their stated goal the utter destruction of Western Civilization.

It changes the math a bit.

If they're merely conventional terrorists, we can go about our daily lives and treat it solely as a police matter.

But, with something bigger (and I do believe that it's feasible for a terrorist organization to fashion biological weapons), there is a tiny, but finite chance that they could succeed.

This changes everything. Because if they manage to destroy Western Civilization, or massacre most of the people on Earth, we're done here.

Such a tiny, but finite chance is politically intolerable, because the first function of government is to guarantee the perpetual presence and power of the government.

So even though the threat is tiny, to the government itself, it is a very real, large, and tangible threat.

However, you do not have to worry about this sort of thing - just go back to the mall, or your room at uni, and smoke some more of that good stuff you're smoking.

*Sniggers*

"Top MP"? David Davies?

*Sniggers again*

It will never come into force. Mark my words.
I'm with Nadkor on this one; I don't see it going through the Lords twice.

Up until now, we haven't had a terrorist organization that wanted to acquire nuclear and biological weapons and have as their stated goal the utter destruction of Western Civilization.
And when would 'now' be?

I mean, are we going to ignore groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who've been around since 1928? I suppose rhetoric about 'nuclear and biological weapons' doesn't really work on groups that have been around since before nuclear weaponry...

This changes everything. Because if they manage to destroy Western Civilization, or massacre most of the people on Earth, we're done here.
Yes, but Jack Ryan will save us before then!

Seriously, get a grip, then educate yourself about the possible abilities and reaches of so-called 'International Terrorist' groups. Do you honestly believe there is a group of men hiding somewhere in the Pakistani mountains with the capability to destroy the entirety of 'Western Civilization'?

"Top MP"? David Davies?
Top-ish, for the Tories.

And when would 'now' be?

1993, al-Qaida


I mean, are we going to ignore groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who've been around since 1928? I suppose rhetoric about 'nuclear and biological weapons' doesn't really work on groups that have been around since before nuclear weaponry...


No, they'll get lumped in there.

42 Days is too long for me.
I have doubts as to whether this MP is protesting out of feeling of altruism or because he needs some publicity to go up the ranks.
the whole, "terrorists could potentially kill millions of people so we must put stronger limitations on those suspected of terrorism" is a poor argument to use to justify detaining anyone for 42 days. Because there is no guarantee that there's loads of people who wish to undermine the country, just for some flimsy justification of "evil Western Democracy must be annihilated! uh because then i get a shiny medal in my cult."

Would this legislation only make people who might consider terrorist acts of aggression to increase in number?
The more authoritarian a government becomes the less support it has from it's people, when it has less support from it's people terrorist acts will increase.
Sure we need safety, and people need to know the government are doing something. I feel that this measure is not the way to do it.
Isn't 28 days enough?

Even considering past bombings in London or other terrorist attacks, most of them are arguably quite simple. It's just using paranoia to work up the masses to they say yes to government control.

1993, al-Qaida
That would be the same 'al-Qaida' who didn't bomb London in 2007?

The same 'al-Qaida' who didn't bomb Madrid in 2004?

The same 'al-Qaida' who didn't bomb Bali in 2002 nor 2005?

No, they'll get lumped in there.
So all terrorist groups prior to the invention of nuclear weaponry, who might have wanted nuclear weaponry if it was available, are lumped into the group of terrorist groups attacking 'us' 'now'?

Rational, I'd say...

42 Days is too long for me.
I have doubts as to whether this MP is protesting out of feeling of altruism or because he needs some publicity to go up the ranks.
the whole, "terrorists could potentially kill millions of people so we must put stronger limitations on those suspected of terrorism" is a poor argument to use to justify detaining anyone for 42 days. Because there is no guarantee that there's loads of people who wish to undermine the country, just for some flimsy justification of "evil Western Democracy must be annihilated! uh because then i get a shiny medal in my cult."

Would this legislation only make people who might consider terrorist acts of aggression to increase in number?
The more authoritarian a government becomes the less support it has from it's people, when it has less support from it's people terrorist acts will increase.
Sure we need safety, and people need to know the government are doing something. I feel that this measure is not the way to do it.
Isn't 28 days enough?

Even considering past bombings in London or other terrorist attacks, most of them are arguably quite simple. It's just using paranoia to work up the masses to they say yes to government control.

The public in the UK is wildly in support of this. So, it's not going to cause more terrorism.

Your reasoning sounds much like, "well, if we only give them what they want, they won't commit terrorism".

Very well then. Invoke the strictest form of Sharia in the UK, dissolve the current government and replace it with an imam, put all the women in blue beekeeper outfits, outlaw pork, make all the men grow beards, and everyone convert to Wahhabism.

Is the UK losing or has lost too many freedoms and liberties?
Is losing, but this is a downwards trend which won't be fixed until this generation of Muslims grows to be integrated adults in, ooh, 15 to 20 years. At that point, things will probably change back to being more liberal.
Is the Labour government going too far (as usual)?
The Labour government doesn't usually go too far, it's just all gone a bit Sàlo. Hopefully they'll fall in a couple of years.

The public in the UK is wildly in support of this. So, it's not going to cause more terrorism.
Let's see some backing for these two assertions, please.

Your reasoning sounds much like, "well, if we only give them what they want, they won't commit terrorism".

<snip mad hyperbole>
How does a critical questioning of whether the legislation will be useful translate, in any way whatsoever, to 'giving in' to terrorism.

You might have made you job easier and just asked why we all hate freedom so much.

The public in the UK is wildly in support of this. So, it's not going to cause more terrorism.
Uhu, the general public isn't the problem.
Your reasoning sounds much like, "well, if we only give them what they want, they won't commit terrorism".

Very well then. Invoke the strictest form of Sharia in the UK, dissolve the current government and replace it with an imam, put all the women in blue beekeeper outfits, outlaw pork, make all the men grow beards, and everyone convert to Wahhabism.
... don't be stupid. What we need is to reiterate that respect goes both ways, and if they want to be respected themselves, then they need to sort their community out and make it generally less backwards compared to the rest of us.

Won't happen for a while, but within the next 20 years we'll probably see a general shift away from extremism, as the young adults are fully integrated into society, and the next wave will have passed through British schools for their educational career.

The public in the UK is wildly in support of this. So, it's not going to cause more terrorism.

Your reasoning sounds much like, "well, if we only give them what they want, they won't commit terrorism".

Very well then. Invoke the strictest form of Sharia in the UK, dissolve the current government and replace it with an imam, put all the women in blue beekeeper outfits, outlaw pork, make all the men grow beards, and everyone convert to Wahhabism.

no, that's a false dilemma.
(for example, either you support the government in passing legislation X to stop terrorism, or you're a beer swilling anarchist who wants to blow up the houses of Parliament) that is a false dilemma.

All we need is to not have a 42 day detention limit for suspects, then there will be less folks who would consider terrorism.

I'm sceptical about the public in the UK in support of this, i've read a few of the 'have your say' comments and most of them applaud this MP for his actions. I also think this legislation would reduce any support from the voting public to vote for the government. so politically speaking it's also a bad move.
Conclusion this legislation will not stop terrorism, it will not bring faith in the government and must be opposed.

*Sniggers*

"Top MP"? David Davies?

*Sniggers again*

Shaddow Home Secretary in the party that's most likely to form the next government? Yeah, I'd say he was a "top MP".

Why not just type "oOoooOOO|" NOES!!!!!" and a picture of somebody doing something bad....It'd be quicker for you, have the same amount of substantive content, and we'd get a laugh making up captions for the pic. Win-win.

All of the pics of them doing bad things would violate the NS TOS. Why don't you post them?

Let's see.

Up until now, (....)m at uni, and smoke some more of that good stuff you're smoking.

Why not just type "oOoooOOO|" NOES!!!!!" and a picture of somebody doing something bad....It'd be quicker for you, have the same amount of substantive content, and we'd get a laugh making up captions for the pic. Win-win.

All of the pics of them doing bad things would violate the NS TOS. Why don't you post them?

Well, you're the serial liar, flame-bait merchant and troll...Thats just not my area.

Shaddow Home Secretary in the party that's most likely to form the next government? Yeah, I'd say he was a "top MP".

It seems a bit pointless to me. If he was labour it would be significant, but it doesnt strike me as even a good publicity stunt.

I hope I'm wrong. Daives might be able to commit the Tories to repeal, and he does seem a lot better than a great many politicians I can think of. But if there's one think British politics has taught me: you can't be too cynical and bitter.
Actually, I've changed my mind. He's a cock, now that I've looked at his voting record.

And Cameron's been trying to talk him out of it. Who bets that Cameron doesn't want to look like an arse because he knows we know he supports this legislation?

Personally, I find Children Of Men to be an excellent portrayl of where Britain, and the World is heading. I never saw V for Vendetta. However, I voted for that option.

Personally, I find Children Of Men to be an excellent portrayl of where Britain, and the World is heading. I never saw V for Vendetta. However, I voted for that option.

Unless we all suddenly go infertile I can't see that being too much of a worry.

Totally a stunt by a total, er, stunt.

A desperate attempt to use a gimmick to give himself credibility. This is shallow and disingenuous and I can't believe that he's not really been properly called on it.

It'd be funny if he lost his seat but since there's no way that's going to happen, I hope no one contests it which would both show him up and ensure he achieves nothing but a waste of his own time.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3484/nowaimp1.jpg

Sorry, it was stronger than me.

Unless we all suddenly go infertile I can't see that being too much of a worry.

That would only happen if someone actually went through with creating and dropping Kimchi's Muslim Sterilizing Virus. No amount of microbiology and genetic engineering is going to make an organism read a host's religious bent.

:D

That would only happen if someone actually went through with creating and dropping Kimchi's Muslim Sterilizing Virus. No amount of microbiology and genetic engineering is going to make an organism read a host's religious bent.

:D

That was the single most hilariously retarded thing ever posted on this forum. It even beat TRA's "Bush's ancestors killed all the dinosaurs with a giant space laser" thing.

That was the single most hilariously retarded thing ever posted on this forum. It even beat TRA's "Bush's ancestors killed all the dinosaurs with a giant space laser" thing.

I vaguely remember that TRA once suggested that Bush was directly responsible for the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, too.

And as an update: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7452117.stm

The most relevant bits of that story I found was

The BNP, which came fourth in the seat in the 2005 general election, says it will not stand against Mr Davis as it agrees with his stance on terror detention.

Now that's just silly. When the far right fascist party thinks your going too far, you may need to stop and think about your policies.

And also:

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve, who has been appointed as the new shadow home secretary, rubbished reports the Tory leadership was split on the issue of 42 days and pledged to repeal the measure if the party gained power.

Although I'd like to see that from Cameron before it really holds any weight.

Shaddow Home Secretary in the party that's most likely to form the next government? Yeah, I'd say he was a "top MP".

That arguably makes him a 'senior' MP. It doesn't make him a 'top' one.

Good man. I suspect the resignation is a political gesture, rather than an issue of conscience, however, I agree with the general thrust of his point. Our civil rights have been despicably and unnecessarily circumscribed under Labour.

If the authorities need 42 days to get evidence then they're pretty clueless anyway. I don't blame David Davis for resigning at all. This country has more CCTV cameras than any country on this planet and if the Governement get their way we'll be having a fucking ID card with all our details on it which really is Big Brother. Next thing the Government will want chips put under our skin to track us and that's without them having the capability to record our telephone calls and emails. It's none of their business as to who I call and who I email.

Nosey bastard Government. They're far more extreme than the old Eastern Bloc.

:sniper:

Although I'd like to see that from Cameron before it really holds any weight.
I'd like to see Cameron come out and say he'd repeal the measure. From what I've seen from the Tories so far, if it gets on the statute books, I'd bet it will still be there in five years time.

I'd like to see Cameron come out and say he'd repeal the measure. From what I've seen from the Tories so far, if it gets on the statute books, I'd bet it will still be there in five years time.

In truth, no electorally viable party will campaign to actively repeal and reduce Labour's authoritarian provisions; Rupert Murdoch's opinions upon Mr. Davis' resgination evidence this perfectly, given the Sun and Times seem inclined to support the Labour numpty running against him.

If the British electorate were rather more enlightened, and valued anything more than disposable income, this would not be an issue, but since it is, and the electorate at large frankly don't deserve a vote, I see little scope for greater political freedoms.

Can somebody please explain this one to me coz I just don't get it.

How is this 42 day limit an errosion of our civil liberties then?

In truth, no electorally viable party will campaign to actively repeal and reduce Labour's authoritarian provisions.
No, but two might. If we can set it up so that the Tories and Lib Dems need to coalition in order to dethrone Labour, repealing the law could well be part of the condition for forming government.

Can somebody please explain this one to me coz I just don't get it.

How is this 42 day limit an errosion of our civil liberties then?

Its detention without charge, without trial, for a month and a half....There are other parts of the bill even more dubious.....Seizure of materials to determine whether they are woth seizing....The right to close Coroners inquiries to the public for "national security" reasons.....

In truth, no electorally viable party will campaign to actively repeal and reduce Labour's authoritarian provisions; Rupert Murdoch's opinions upon Mr. Davis' resgination evidence this perfectly, given the Sun and Times seem inclined to support the Labour numpty running against him.
The Lib Dems announced (before 42 days was brought before Parliament) that they want an omnibus bill to repeal legislation over protests in Parlaiment Square, house arrest and ID cards (or the database behind it, as the cards themselves aren't up and running). We all know that politicians break promises, but it's far better than the Tories beeling embarassed that one of their members is trying to pressure them into getting then to take a firmer stance on 42 days.

And they're kind of electorally visible.;)

Oh lord. If even the BNP blanches at this and supports the side against it, then you know there must be something dodgy with it.

The Lib Dems announced (before 42 days was brought before Parliament) that they want an omnibus bill to repeal legislation over protests in Parlaiment Square, house arrest and ID cards (or the database behind it, as the cards themselves aren't up and running). We all know that politicians break promises, but it's far better than the Tories beeling embarassed that one of their members is trying to pressure them into getting then to take a firmer stance on 42 days.

And they're kind of electorally visible.;)

The Liberal Democrats suffer for two reasons. Firstly, the don't get reported as much in the press, so people tend to believe they don't say much/have no policies. The second is that their support is spread out geographically, so they rarely get enough votes to gain a seat in any one area despite having about a quarter of the country-wide vote.

Its detention without charge, without trial, for a month and a half....There are other parts of the bill even more dubious.....Seizure of materials to determine whether they are woth seizing....The right to close Coroners inquiries to the public for "national security" reasons.....

I really don't think this affects the general status of rights or freedoms since the general population is not involved in terrorism. If your arrested as a suspected terrorist, there's a reason...

I really don't think this affects the general status of rights or freedoms since the general population is not involved in terrorism. If your arrested as a suspected terrorist, there's a reason...

Really? It would be nice to make them prove the reason. The problem with the bill is not only are the definitions very vague as to what presents a "grave and exceptional threat" the decision is made by parliament not a judge.

You're protesting against a government policy? That's clearly a "grave and exceptional threat" to the stability of the country, better lock you up! This government may not use that excuse, they may have brought this in with the best intentions, but who's to say the next government won't? Or the one after that? We are handing the government the perfect tools to start making a dictatorship, all in the name of gaining a few political points and protecting the very "freedoms" they're stripping away from us a bit at a time.

Can somebody please explain this one to me coz I just don't get it.

How is this 42 day limit an errosion of our civil liberties then?
Not only is it just as bad as the 28 days without charge issue, they're now putting people under review by parliament. This is a Not Good thing.

The Liberal Democrats suffer for two reasons. Firstly, the don't get reported as much in the press, so people tend to believe they don't say much/have no policies. The second is that their support is spread out geographically, so they rarely get enough votes to gain a seat in any one area despite having about a quarter of the country-wide vote.
Yep. I'd have PR to solve that but that would be threadjack.

The Liberal Democrats suffer for two reasons. Firstly, the don't get reported as much in the press, so people tend to believe they don't say much/have no policies. The second is that their support is spread out geographically, so they rarely get enough votes to gain a seat in any one area despite having about a quarter of the country-wide vote.

We also get squeezed a lot, especially in General Elections, a quarter of our vote goes Labour to keep the Tories out and another quarter goes Tory to keep Labour out. If we make it into second place, even a distant one, then we get huge jumps as tactical voting goes down.

And we're also the poorest of the three by a very long way. Tories get big business, Labour get Union money, we're a long way short of that.

/political activist moaning

And we're also the poorest of the three by a very long way. Tories get big business, Labour get Union money, we're a long way short of that.

/political activist moaning

All true, unfortunatly.

Of course Labour is starting to loose it's Union money, with several big Unions decided to use Labour's "performance related pay" against them rather than just giving the party blanket support.

The Lib Dems announced (before 42 days was brought before Parliament) that they want an omnibus bill to repeal legislation over protests in Parlaiment Square, house arrest and ID cards (or the database behind it, as the cards themselves aren't up and running). We all know that politicians break promises, but it's far better than the Tories beeling embarassed that one of their members is trying to pressure them into getting then to take a firmer stance on 42 days.

And they're kind of electorally visible.;)

For you. I can't see myself voting Lib Dem, despite the evident merits of the above.

Oh lord. If even the BNP blanches at this and supports the side against it, then you know there must be something dodgy with it.

Because even they know that the term 'Terrorist' isn't exclusive to 'Dark-skinned foreigners who are probably Muslim'. It'll apply to the Enemy of the State du Jour.