NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2112553/Gordon-Brown-wins-crucial-42-day-vote-thanks-to-Ulster-MPs.html

I think this is ridiculous. Since the 7/7 bombings, no-one's died due to a terrorist attack , but literally thousands have been killed by knives and guns. Why isn't isn't Gordon Brown doing anything about this? Why do you need 42 days to question someone? The police have 36 hours and can extend it to 72 if they need to, why would you need 28 days, let alone 42? Tell me what you think.

Democracy went down the drain in this country long ago.

This isn't undemocratic, it is however a breech of Habeas Corpus.

Anyway, we have 2 other topics on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2112553/Gordon-Brown-wins-crucial-42-day-vote-thanks-to-Ulster-MPs.html

I think this is ridiculous. Since the 7/7 bombings, no-one's died due to a terrorist attack , but literally thousands have been killed by knives and guns. Why isn't isn't Gordon Brown doing anything about this? Why do you need 42 days to question someone? The police have 36 hours and can extend it to 72 if they need to, why would you need 28 days, let alone 42? Tell me what you think.

Because the US told them too.

That's not democracy down the drain, it in no way affects the democratic process that elects the Commons.

It's not even contrary to the principles Habeas Corpus, in the strictest sense. Habeas Corpus is a writ that demands a prisoner be brought before a judge in order to determine whether or not his detention is legal. This does not suspend Habeas Corpus, nor does it breach it; what it does is extend the period in which a judge, were a Writ of Habeas Corpus brought, would find the detention lawful. On the 43rd day, were a writ brought, the detention would be found unlawful and the prisoner ordered released.

And, just as a side issue, would people please stop going on about Magna Carta? It's really of no relevance to this issue. Habeas Corpus, in its modern sense, was established by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, which moved on from the principles of Habeas Corpus established by Magna Carta (and, interestingly, probably shouldn't have passed, although the enrolled bill doctrine stops us caring about that). Magna Carta has, I think, three provisions still in force, one of which concerns the liberties of the City of London. Of the other two, neither are remotely related to Habeas Corpus. Emotional rhetoric appealing to Magna Carta is so nineteenth-century.

That's not democracy down the drain, it in no way affects the democratic process that elects the Commons.

It's not even contrary to the principles Habeas Corpus, in the strictest sense. Habeas Corpus is a writ that demands a prisoner be brought before a judge in order to determine whether or not his detention is legal. This does not suspend Habeas Corpus, nor does it breach it; what it does is extend the period in which a judge, were a Writ of Habeas Corpus brought, would find the detention lawful. On the 43rd day, were a writ brought, the detention would be found unlawful and the prisoner ordered released.

And, just as a side issue, would people please stop going on about Magna Carta? It's really of no relevance to this issue. Habeas Corpus, in its modern sense, was established by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, which moved on from the principles of Habeas Corpus established by Magna Carta (and, interestingly, probably shouldn't have passed, although the enrolled bill doctrine stops us caring about that). Magna Carta has, I think, three provisions still in force, one of which concerns the liberties of the City of London. Of the other two, neither are remotely related to Habeas Corpus. Emotional rhetoric appealing to Magna Carta is so nineteenth-century.

Clause 29 of the 1297 Magna Carta (there was more than one)

XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right

Clause 29 of the 1297 Magna Carta (there was more than one)

Yes, my degree in history, specialising in medieval England, brought that to my attention. :p

Clause 29 guarantees that any punishment will come in accordance with the law, and that the law will be followed. Due process, I believe the Americans call it. It's vaguely related to Habeas Corpus (i.e. the government would abide by a granted Writ of Habeas Corpus as part of due process), but it's not Habeas Corpus (it doesn't grant the ability to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus)

Yes, my degree in history, specialising in medieval England,


Hey! Look at that! You found a use for it! :D :p

Hey! Look at that! You found a use for it! :D :p

First one I've managed to stumble across in almost a year :p

That's not democracy down the drain, it in no way affects the democratic process that elects the Commons.

It's not even contrary to the principles Habeas Corpus, in the strictest sense. Habeas Corpus is a writ that demands a prisoner be brought before a judge in order to determine whether or not his detention is legal. This does not suspend Habeas Corpus, nor does it breach it; what it does is extend the period in which a judge, were a Writ of Habeas Corpus brought, would find the detention lawful. On the 43rd day, were a writ brought, the detention would be found unlawful and the prisoner ordered released.

And, just as a side issue, would people please stop going on about Magna Carta? It's really of no relevance to this issue. Habeas Corpus, in its modern sense, was established by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, which moved on from the principles of Habeas Corpus established by Magna Carta (and, interestingly, probably shouldn't have passed, although the enrolled bill doctrine stops us caring about that). Magna Carta has, I think, three provisions still in force, one of which concerns the liberties of the City of London. Of the other two, neither are remotely related to Habeas Corpus. Emotional rhetoric appealing to Magna Carta is so nineteenth-century.

What I've been saying all along, albeit you've put it more eloquently. What this measure proposes is not a violation of habeas corpus, as much as it is a breach of the right to be charged in an expedited time frame.

However, many posters have brought up that the Crown Prosecutor Service, whom the MI5 publicly said they deferred to on this issue, has said that there is no need for this extension. Indeed, no suspect detained in relation to terrorism has been held for more than 28 days (the current time limit). [Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2091947/QandampA-Terror-detention-law.html] Therefore, I don't see much of a need for this extension. Indeed, even if a suspect needed to be held longer than the 28 days due to a grave threat -- something that has never happened before -- I'm sure that the Home Secretary could make an emergency approval to extend his or her detainment, and would not be reprimanded for acting in the country's best interests.

Yes, my degree in history, specialising in medieval England, brought that to my attention. :p

Clause 29 guarantees that any punishment will come in accordance with the law, and that the law will be followed. Due process, I believe the Americans call it. It's vaguely related to Habeas Corpus (i.e. the government would abide by a granted Writ of Habeas Corpus as part of due process), but it's not Habeas Corpus (it doesn't grant the ability to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus)

Hmm, since Law is capitalised I was reading that as no punishment unless a man judged by his peers or a judge/court. Which is the basis of Habeas Corpus.

I'm surprised that no one has invoked Orwell yet, so I am going to.

Orwellian state.

With respect, there probably isn't much Brown, Parliament, or Queen Victoria could do about your murder problem. You've banned guns, and you've all but banned knives. You can't do much else unless you want to totally ban firearms and register/RFID tag all your knives.

and you've all but banned knives

Crickey, you mean the set of carving knives I have downstairs, not to mention all my cutlery, is illegal? Why wasn't I told?

There is no ban on knives. There is a ban on carrying certain types of knife in public, but that is all.

The government is leaching/exploiting the bombings to reach there own aims.

I wanna be Anrachy! Its the only way to be...

With respect, there probably isn't much Brown, Parliament, or Queen Victoria could do about your murder problem.
A problem which is not, in fact, a particularly large one. Indeed it's lower than in the US. Also, Queen Victoria? Wtf, squire?
You've banned guns
No, we haven't. We restrict gun ownership extremely heavily, but you can own them.
and you've all but banned knives.
Err nope. You can't carry a knife without a decent reason to (totally fair tbqh) and you can't buy certain kinds of knives, IIRC. That's about it. You go down to your local supermarket, and you can buy knives.
You can't do much else unless you want to totally ban firearms and register/RFID tag all your knives.
Guuhh... the situation at the moment is fine...

Crickey, you mean the set of carving knives I have downstairs, not to mention all my cutlery, is illegal? Why wasn't I told?

There is no ban on knives. There is a ban on carrying certain types of knife in public, but that is all.

That's what I was referring to. I don't believe I phrased my statement correctly. My apologies.

A problem which is not, in fact, a particularly large one. Indeed it's lower than in the US. Also, Queen Victoria? Wtf, squire?


Queen Victoria was hot. I'd hit that.

Queen Victoria was hot. I'd hit that.
Early time in power yes, after that, no ta.

Queen Victoria was hot. I'd hit that.

I'd hit this harder (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/554395/queen_elizabeth_ii/) (well okay in her early days as Queen and mostly because I saw this rather...ehem picture that I should of stolen)

Pathetic. Merely the latest provision in an unnecessary, sustained, inexplicable and despicable circumscription of British civil liberties.

On this note; Nick Clegg has pledged his support for David Davis, both in the coming by-election, and upon the reason for his resignation, deeming it more significant than party politics. It thus seems that Clegg, tacitly, is proposing a Tory/Lib Dem combined platform to restore civil liberties and freedoms stolen by the tosser and bumbling scot. I can only hope Cameron has the resolve and moral rectitude to take Clegg up on his offer.

I can only hope Cameron has the resolve and moral rectitude to take Clegg up on his offer.

As if... Cameron's already said he won't revoke it when he gets into power...

As if... Cameron's already said he won't revoke it when he gets into power...

Source?

Not that I doubt it, I'd just be interested to see the terms in which Cameron has couched this latest betrayal of Tory principle and reason in favour of indulging the ignorance of the masses.

You've banned guns
Nope.

you've all but banned knives
Nope.


It thus seems that Clegg, tacitly, is proposing a Tory/Lib Dem combined platform to restore civil liberties and freedoms stolen by the tosser and bumbling scot.
How?

Clegg's saying that the Lib Dems won't oppose David Davies in one by-election. That's hardly a clarion call for a Tory-Lib Dem alliance.

Clegg's saying that the Lib Dems won't oppose David Davies in one by-election. That's hardly a clarion call for a Tory-Lib Dem alliance.

The action itself, no. The terminology in which Clegg phrased his explanation not to contest the by-election, and his plaintive statement that he considers civil liberties above party politics, can only be interpreted as a statement of policy.

The terminology in which Clegg phrased his explanation not to contest the by-election, and his plaintive statement that he considers civil liberties above party politics, can only be interpreted as a statement of policy.
Maybe, but the can't "only be interpreted" as going back on Lib Dem policy for ages and form an alliance with the Tories. Working together, I can see, but proposing a Tory-Lib Dem platform?

Hardly.

Maybe, but the can't "only be interpreted" as going back on Lib Dem policy for ages and form an alliance with the Tories. Working together, I can see, but proposing a Tory-Lib Dem platform?

Hardly.

Purely on civil liberties? I see no reason why the two shouldn't share policies.

Purely on civil liberties? I see no reason why the two shouldn't share policies.
Because they don't agree with one another, IIRC, on a number of civil liberty policies.

[QUOTE=The blessed Chris;13770556]Source?[QUOTE]


Hmm quick googling does not reveal one to me. Only that Cameron refused to commit to it. Apparently Grieve has commited them to it anyway now, so who knows (unless something about a state of emergency is put into it)...

Sure I heard someone say something about it on the radio... *mutters something about inaccurate by the bbc*

Still, why would the Tories repeal the most conservative peice of legislation to pass the Commons for years? I betting the majority of their members are chuffed to bits over the passing of this bill...
Plus the Tories:-

a) Now is starting to appeal to liberals who perceive them as defenders of freedom.
b) Gets to twist the knife a little deeper into Brown by forcing him to rely on smaller parties.

I honestly wouldn't trust Cameron as far as I could throw him. He strikes me as just like Blair was 11 years ago...

Just to note that Davis is hardly a closet Liberal.

David Davis Backs Death Penalty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3274245.stm)

As for the Lib Dems, tbh I doubt we're being overly choosy these days, beggars can't be choosers and all that. And just being a part of any government would do a lot for the public perception of us in terms of viability etc.

Just to note that Davis is hardly a closet Liberal.

David Davis Backs Death Penalty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3274245.stm)

As for the Lib Dems, tbh I doubt we're being overly choosy these days, beggars can't be choosers and all that. And just being a part of any government would do a lot for the public perception of us in terms of viability etc.

How are support for capital punishment, and fundamental freedom of speech, expression, protest and though contingent upon each other?

I support both, as, I imagine, do the better part of the Tory right. Endorsing capital punishment does not necessarily preclude support for political freedome.

democracy is dying in this country because voters know more about whats going on in eastenders than they do about whats going on in the house of commons.

At least it's not giving anyone the power to detain suspects for 5-6 years etc.

*Glares at Guantanamo*

How are support for capital punishment, and fundamental freedom of speech, expression, protest and though contingent upon each other?

I support both, as, I imagine, do the better part of the Tory right. Endorsing capital punishment does not necessarily preclude support for political freedome.

In the modern understanding of the word and in common parlance Liberals tend to oppose capital punishment.

How are support for capital punishment, and fundamental freedom of speech, expression, protest and though contingent upon each other?
I agree that they're not contingent, and I'm not suggesting you'd argue for the following, but capital punishment has often been used to dissuade freedom of speech, expression, protest and thought.