David Davis what a plonker?

[Tomo3090]

Maggy, not wishing to make your bus journey any more stressful but the bloke who tried to blow up a bomb in Plymouth last month was actually WHITE! So where does that leave us, because I'm sure if we're honest, sadly, we have all started to look closely at people from different cultures.

 

But to get back on thread.

 

Imagine going for an interview, carrying your briefcase or shoulder bag, you are nervous and fidgetty to start with. Your bus/train is late so you rush to get on when it arrives but your anxietyis now heightened. You keep looking at your watch. Someone notices and calls the police on their mobile. You get off the bus and are met with a phalanx of police officers, some carrying guns, police dogs barking and them shouting at you. Assuming one of the armed police doesn't shoot you 7 times in the head just on the off chance you are carrying a bomb, they take you into custody and start asking you questions. They are unhappy with your answers and they hold you under Provention of Terrorism Act. You can now be held for 42 days without charge.

 

Your home and family will now be scrutinised and all of your personal friends and contacts checked. How many of us know exactly what their political leanings are?

 

Your college course happened to be about the politics of the Middle East, so there is stuff on your computer that could be seen as suspect.

 

You are not allowed contact with your family or to explain your side. Do you think your boss would hold your job open? Would you college give you another chance to sit your exams? Would people who know you ever trust you again? Wouldn't people say "They must know something otherwise they'ed let you go!"

 

And then to cap it all, to avoid the embarassment factor the police drag up some spurious charge, just to justify their actions.

 

Your life would be ruined and you would have no comeback and this is all done in the name of democracy.

 

These things have happened NOW to people in the UK and not one of them was charged with any terrorist offence.

 

Internment didn't help during the war or during the troubles in N. Ireland, so why should they help now?

 

It's just wrong. And despite thinking the worst of David Davis at first I'm now coming to the conclusion he is right to bring this to the attention of a sleepwalking public.

[malc d]

I think that most commentators are not questioning what David Davis stands for - they just don't understand why he resigned.

He resigned from a party that ( mostly ) agrees with him.

Within a couple of years it seems likely there will be a Tory government

so they can reverse any policy they don't like.

 

There are unlikely to be many people affected by the 42 day law as it will be some time before in comes into effect - held up by the House of Lords.

 

M.P.s normally only resign when they disagree with THEIR OWN party's policies.

 

At least it should be an interesting by-election.

 

 

[Syd]

It may just come about that this plonker has a hidden agenda, ie getting his snout into another, different, trough as well as being a MP.

Probably from some industry that can use a high profile "Principled" politician.

Have you forgotten already that there is no such thing as a "principled" MP

 

Has he been investigated for his "Second house" expences fiddles yet because he will be now and there may be a little suprise awaiting us all

 

 

[davenewellhome]

Tomo3090 - 2008-06-15 11:06 AM

 

Maggy, not wishing to make your bus journey any more stressful but the bloke who tried to blow up a bomb in Plymouth last month was actually WHITE! So where does that leave us, because I'm sure if we're honest, sadly, we have all started to look closely at people from different cultures.

 

But to get back on thread.

 

Imagine going for an interview, carrying your briefcase or shoulder bag, you are nervous and fidgetty to start with. Your bus/train is late so you rush to get on when it arrives but your anxietyis now heightened. You keep looking at your watch. Someone notices and calls the police on their mobile. You get off the bus and are met with a phalanx of police officers, some carrying guns, police dogs barking and them shouting at you. Assuming one of the armed police doesn't shoot you 7 times in the head just on the off chance you are carrying a bomb, they take you into custody and start asking you questions. They are unhappy with your answers and they hold you under Provention of Terrorism Act. You can now be held for 42 days without charge.

 

Your home and family will now be scrutinised and all of your personal friends and contacts checked. How many of us know exactly what their political leanings are?

 

Your college course happened to be about the politics of the Middle East, so there is stuff on your computer that could be seen as suspect.

 

You are not allowed contact with your family or to explain your side. Do you think your boss would hold your job open? Would you college give you another chance to sit your exams? Would people who know you ever trust you again? Wouldn't people say "They must know something otherwise they'ed let you go!"

 

And then to cap it all, to avoid the embarassment factor the police drag up some spurious charge, just to justify their actions.

 

Your life would be ruined and you would have no comeback and this is all done in the name of democracy.

 

These things have happened NOW to people in the UK and not one of them was charged with any terrorist offence.

 

Internment didn't help during the war or during the troubles in N. Ireland, so why should they help now?

 

It's just wrong. And despite thinking the worst of David Davis at first I'm now coming to the conclusion he is right to bring this to the attention of a sleepwalking public.

 

I'll give you an alternative scenario, one that actually happened to me. In 1987 I was contracting in London along with five other reprobates. We were staying in west Ealing which was (is?) a very strong Irish area. Fantastic people and very friendly.

 

Anyway on about our third evening in the town we had settled in the local boozer (as was our custom) when in walked this shifty looking dude with a large holdall, he put the holdall down on the floor at the bar and looked at his watch then the clock on the wall then his watch again. After about thirty seconds he left the pub just a little too quickly for my liking considering he'd left the holdall at the bar!

 

I spoke to the landlord about it and he checked (very carefully) the holdall then went outside. He returned a fe minutes later with the chap in question. turned out he was a bricky who had arranged to meet up with his mate at eight o clock (hence the clock watching). He was new to the job in question which was why he had his holdall of tools with him!

 

My mates laughed at me until the landlord bought us all a drink for being "on the ball" but that guy could easily have been detained in today's society for nothing more than meeting his mate!

 

D.

[Guest JudgeMental]

I am against the new law because it will be used against innocent people...

 

Why do I think that? because that is what always happens.....

 

all the intrusive cctv technology was introduced to "protect us" but what actually happens it is turned against us and used to prosecute a massive number of law abidding people for minor traffic infringements etc...

 

So the precedent is set, the bean counters need to make arrests to justify their expenditure/salaries etc....

 

By the way, has any one seen Bin Laden? No? ah well, you will have to do then - for having a pee in the high street because there are no public toilets........

 

And I don't need some menopausal tory to tell me whats happening*-)

[parkmoy]

Assuming one of the armed police doesn't shoot you 7 times in the head just on the off chance you are carrying a bomb, they take you into custody and start asking you questions. They are unhappy with your answers and they hold you under Provention of Terrorism Act. You can now be held for 42 days without charge.

 

Your home and family will now be scrutinised and all of your personal friends and contacts checked. How many of us know exactly what their political leanings are?

 

Your college course happened to be about the politics of the Middle East, so there is stuff on your computer that could be seen as suspect.

 

You are not allowed contact with your family or to explain your side. Do you think your boss would hold your job open? Would you college give you another chance to sit your exams? Would people who know you ever trust you again? Wouldn't people say "They must know something otherwise they'ed let you go!"

 

And then to cap it all, to avoid the embarassment factor the police drag up some spurious charge, just to justify their actions.

 

Your life would be ruined and you would have no comeback and this is all done in the name of democracy.

 

I have never read such a load of old claptrap in my life. You don't believe in spoiling a good story by providing silly little things like hard facts do you?

 

Remember it's this democracy whose name you seem to dislike which allows you to post a tissue of unconnected suppositions, lies and nonsense such as that above.

 

Of course if there was one grain of truth in it we'd not hear from you again. You'd be detained, fitted up and probably deported because, of course, they're watching you now and they'll surely get you >:-)

[Tomo3090]

So a completley innocent man didn't get shot 7 times in the head by the police following mistakaken Identity, (not to mention the total load of lies told about him and the character assasination), on the London Underground?

 

So a man from Nottingham Univercity wasn't arrested, held for several days, questioned released without charge wasn't arrested because he was studying Middle Eastern politics?

 

So a man wasn't arrested and held on terrorism charges before being released, but was then falsely accused by the police of having child porn on his computer?

 

And weren't we told by HMG of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so terrible we needed to go to war immediately?

 

All matters of public fact and record and not figments of my imagination.

 

And those are only the ones I can recall without doing a media search!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[parkmoy]

Tomo3090 - 2008-06-17 3:19 PM

 

So a completley innocent man didn't get shot 7 times in the head by the police following mistakaken Identity, (not to mention the total load of lies told about him and the character assasination), on the London Underground?

 

So a man from Nottingham Univercity wasn't arrested, held for several days, questioned released without charge wasn't arrested because he was studying Middle Eastern politics?

 

So a man wasn't arrested and held on terrorism charges before being released, but was then falsely accused by the police of having child porn on his computer?

 

And weren't we told by HMG of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so terrible we needed to go to war immediately?

 

All matters of public fact and record and not figments of my imagination.

 

And those are only the ones I can recall without doing a media search!

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's very easy to take the 'headline' story and make it appear to prove anything you want. If you were to properly research those stories rather than media search for sensational headlines you would be able to take a more balanced view. Do you believe everything you read in the papers or online?

 

I don't deny that mistakes are sometimes made but that will happen in any system involving human beings. You have the benefit of hindsight and don't have to take any responsibility for your opinions or conclusions. What I take issue with is your apparent belief that such mistakes are made with malicious intent.

 

I'm quite sure that if the Police were to arrest and release terrorists for lack of evidence you would be one of the first to condemn them if another incident occurred or one of your own was involved How do you expect them to get that evidence? Do you think the terrorists sit there and say "It's a fair cop guv"?

 

Enquiries into terrorist acts can take many weeks and involve police forces in other countries. Scientific evidence can take a long time and may not be conclusive. The investigating officers have no control over this. Witnesses have to be traced and interviewed. In many cases bodies have to be collected in bits and pieced together then post mortem examined. All of this has to be meticulously recorded and procedures followed so that months, or sometimes years later, a clever barrister cannot stand up in court and convince gullible souls such as yourself that the Police only want to ruin innocent lives.

 

The British Police may not be perfect but I suggest you try some of the others before you write them off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tomo3090]

I am absolutely not writing off the UK police service. My Dad was one and I have friends who are in it. My point was that it is NOT the police that want 42 hrs, it isn't the judges or even Atourney General that wants it. It is just political posturing.

 

The police have said on record that they have never needed 42 hrs to charge someone with terrorist offences. And once they have been charged they can then start the evidence gathering process. The question of whether a suspect is bailed or remanded in custody is then taken by the courts, independent from the police.

 

Of course police officers make mistakes, as do we all, but to start dismantling our centuries old legal system, removing our basic rights and allowing the state to start meddling in the justice system at a time when we should be showing just what a democratic political system that respects and protects its' citizens rights as well as their security is a better system than one based on religeous intolerance and hatred.

[parkmoy]

Tomo3090 - 2008-06-18 9:58 AM

 

I am absolutely not writing off the UK police service.

 

I'm glad to hear that, your previous posts seemed to indicate differently.

 

The police have said on record that they have never needed 42 hrs to charge someone with terrorist offences. And once they have been charged they can then start the evidence gathering process. The question of whether a suspect is bailed or remanded in custody is then taken by the courts, independent from the police.

 

The problem is that someone cannot be charged without evidence. Courts take a very dim view of withdrawing charges which were preferred with insufficient evidence. Once charged the decision is made re bail/custody by the Court and again evidence to connect with the offence is needed to obtain a custodial remand.

 

Some Police officers have said 42 days is not necessary but others have said the opposite. In any event it is designed as a port of last resort with built in safeguards, the Police won't be able to authorise it themselves. In the vast majority of cases it won't be needed but for the more complex and difficult it could mean the difference between terrorists being locked up or being free to commit further crimes.

 

but to start dismantling our centuries old legal system, removing our basic rights and allowing the state to start meddling in the justice system

 

I think you will find that this centuries old justice system has been 'meddled' with by the State since Habeus Corpus and probably before. Not surprising really since the State (by which I mean Parliament in the present day) is the one which drafts the laws which become the justice system. Again, if you check, you will find that we have more basic rights now than at any other time in our history. Have a look at basic rights in Victorian times for example.

 

at a time when we should be showing just what a democratic political system that respects and protects its' citizens rights as well as their security is a better system than one based on religeous intolerance and hatred

 

I couldn't agree more. Where we differ here is that I believe our democratic system does respect and protect the rights of all citizens. You obviously don't, fair enough that's your opinion, but I really cannot see how you can suggest that it might be no better than one based on religious intolerance and hatred?

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Interesting stuff.

 

My take on it is that if we want freedom then that makes us vulnerable to those that do not.

 

The religious fanatics were are up against now believe that they as individuals are better than us. And as such they will swat us "unbelievers" as we would swat a fly.

 

We mean nothing to them.

 

The chilling words of the Heathrow Bomber (stopped thank God (obviously mine not theirs)) indoctrinating his five year old child to hate Westerners and non-believers will stay with me for a long time.

 

And yet this was a man who had lived in the UK for some time and came here using the freedom we take for granted.

 

What I find laughable is the fact that we do not deport known terror suspects to some countries (often their country of origin) if we feel they may get hurt in jail. Abu Hansa is a classic case in the news today.

 

(Incidentally – has anyone else seen that cartoon of Abu Hansa telling a kid off for breaking a window and saying to him “You have got a lot of blowing up to do”)

 

And yet we are debating having Terror Suspects held for 42 days and for which the police must obtain extensions up to that 42 day limit or then charge the individual.

 

When you saw what the police had to deal with, with many encrypted hardrives - difficult languages and behind it all a fanatics mind that thinks we should all be killed anyway!

 

I genuinely ask - what is 42 days but a reasonable time scale to deal with the complex threat and fanaticism that we now face?

 

[twooks]

Don't you think that we've already sacrificed enough of our individual rights and freedoms because of this 'war'?

We very rarely fly anywhere - preferring the freedom of the 'van, but recently flew to New Zealand - used 4 airports 3 flights each way.

The hassle is beyond belief - and we didn't go anywhere near the US.

 

We have more surveillance cameras than anywhere else - we have more interference in our daily lives than ever before -

certainly worse than when the IRA were at their peak threat, and I am told worse than the situation in WWII - at least the media were less politically controlled.

 

We are run by 'jobsworth' nit picking officials, we have a media and politicians who prefer a good sound bite to the truth

we have charisma based elections - David Cameron is identikit with Tony Blair, a pity David Davies didn't win the Tory leadership election.

 

and - to come back OT - interesting to speculate what his actions would be now if that were the case??

 

and No Clive - I don't think our democracy and culture is saved by the current reactions and by the introduction of myriad laws curtailing those freedoms that have been hard won over many many year.

 

We have a secular culture because people fought the power of the church - science prevailed over superstition and brain-washing - but for how much longer - and at what price?

 

 

B-)

[CliveH]

I certainly agree with David Davis on the CCTV front - far too many - but my Mother in law aged 84 feels safer because of them.

 

So bit of a quandary here.

 

Are we saying that individual freedom is so important that we have to allow an 84 year old to feel unsafe on the street?

 

Of are we saying that the CCTV provides the 84 year old with sufficient feeling of security that she has more "Freedom"

 

So is freedom for the "feral" children of our society or the elderly.

 

I do not know the answer - just posing the question because in conversation with my mother in law I was surprised at how important CCTV was to her.

 

And that made me re-appraise my viewpoint.

 

But as regards to the 42 days detention - for terror suspects! - this is not for your average wrongdoer please note.

 

The complexity of modern communication does in my view mean that our techies within the Police and Counter terrorist agencies do need sufficient time to gain all the evidence.

 

And as for flying Twooks - let's face it it was a total PITA long before 911 - that is why we bought a caravan and started using ferries.

 

If people want to sit in a cigar can breathing recycled farts and engine fumes then I have no objection. Last year I flew to Canada with Air Canada and it was a very pleasant experience - even Heathrow was good.

 

But the time before that (three years before) the service on a BA flight was just so bad that I swore I would never fly again!

 

But seriously - I cannot praise Air Canada enough as we were bring a friend back who had been injured in a car crash. Not only did they pull out all the stops but the fair was a fraction of what BA wanted to charge.

 

But caravanning or flight? No contest.

 

But to get back OT

 

Surely the issue is "Do we provide total freedom and let others potentially blow us to bits?"

 

"Or do we have sensible restrictions that will constrain some freedoms to allow society to control a rogue dangerous faction?"

 

If the later - all we then have to do then is to define sensible.

 

And my comment then is exactly how different is a 28 day period different from a 42 day period - (apart from the blindingly obvious!) - the only difference as I see it is the ability to deal with those who speak in another language.

 

Just think of how slow interviews must be if every word has to be translated.

 

Then you have the modern complexity of multiple encrypted hard drives in another language.

 

I believe with the review of 42 days being written into the legislation I see nothing wrong with 42 days if the genuine suspicion is that these individuals are planning to attack the population indiscriminately.

 

[parkmoy]

twooks - 2008-06-18 4:11 PM

 

Don't you think that we've already sacrificed enough of our individual rights and freedoms because of this 'war'?

 

I don't think our democracy and culture is saved by the current reactions and by the introduction of myriad laws curtailing those freedoms that have been hard won over many many year.

 

OK, I can understand why you take that viewpoint but what would you do? How would YOU deal with the terrorist threat?

 

We very rarely fly anywhere - preferring the freedom of the 'van, but recently flew to New Zealand - used 4 airports 3 flights each way.

The hassle is beyond belief - and we didn't go anywhere near the US.

 

It's even worse when you do go to/through the US. I can't see any alternative to the security checks though, but the method and implementation often leaves a lot to be desired. Poorly trained jobsworths and insufficient and/or outdated equipment don't help but perhaps the worst thing is the variation of rules between different UK airports. For example, you can fly out from one with hand luggage plus computer bag but coming back you can only have the one piece of hand luggage.

 

 

Getting back to the 42 day discussion, what I find very interesting is that it is a Labour government introducing the 42 day policy and the party you would expect to support it, the Conservatives, opposing it. Political opportunism and an attempt to deal a death blow to Brown perhaps?

[Tomo3090]

"I couldn't agree more. Where we differ here is that I believe our democratic system does respect and protect the rights of all citizens. You obviously don't, fair enough that's your opinion, but I really cannot see how you can suggest that it might be no better than one based on religious intolerance and hatred? " (I don't know how to do the dotted line bit!)

 

I didn't say a democratic society isn't better than one based on religeous intolerance and hatred! It is infinitely better, obviously. But the system we have isn't perfect and the point is, we are discussing here what some people think are ways in which it can be made better/worse, (delete as req!)

 

I don't know the answers to the problems anymore than you do, or anyone else in the country come to that, including the politicians running the show! But I do believe that if we are not careful we, as citizens, will stand by and allow the state to become more powerful and less answerable to us if we don't question and scrutinise just what "They" are doing.

 

And I can't believe for the first time in my life I am agreeing with and defending the actions of a TORY >:-(

[twooks]

I don't know the answer -

[i suppose my sort of let out there - would in part be that I wouldn't've gone into Iraq - and thus increased the tensions in the UK]

 

I think civil liberty is important - even worth dying for - but .. .. not worth killing for ?? because that brings me to the same level as the religious fundamentalists [of whatever hue] - and if they can drag me down to their level then I see that as being a victory for them.

 

Don't know the answer to CCTV - only that is the thin edge of the wedge,

 

what really worries me - is that civil liberties - human rights issues have found more protection in the Lords than the Commons for - at least the last 10 years

 

42 days [back on thread :D ] is just another creeping erosion -

the longer you keep someone in custody - then the more pressure you're under to actually find something to justify your actions.

 

going back to CCTV - don't you think people would feel even safer if the media [especially murdoch's bit] did less to hoik up the ante,

it's like the Python sketch - everyone trying to out bid the claims of the others -

I'm tougher on crime / terrorism / immigration / than you

 

scares me witless -

 

so much so I'm off for a glass of red

 

ciao

 

B-)

[michele]

God am I glad I dont understand it all :D

[twooks]

now then 'chele - don't sell yourself short

 

 

I'll bet anything you care to name that you understood the last but 1 line of my post :D :D :D :D :D

 

B-)

[colin]

Well Plonker Davies is back in parlement, even with support of libdems his vote dropped by 25%, meanwhile house of lords effectively stopped 42 days with no peers feeling need to resign

[MandyAndy]

I'm with Michelle on this one, all totally over my head.

 

But I just loved the thread heading as its the same name as my Brother in law and I couldn't agree more, and just to add to it all he was a tax inspector too :-D

 

Very interesting thread though, I learn more about the outside world on here than I ever would in papers if I read them.

 

Mandy

[Guest JudgeMental]

michele - 2008-06-18 8:36 PM

 

God am I glad I dont understand it all :D

 

Babe......

[Basil]

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but does not the 42 days revolve around the fact that a suspect (any suspect) can only be held for a given period of time, with court sanction, before being charged, also once a person is charged the police can no longer legally question the suspect.

Therefore in complicated cases such as terrorism, particularly in the aftermath of an 'event', the time that it takes to unravel the plot and locate and check/ test forensic evidence can place the police in a position whereby they have found evidence that needs to be 'expanded' upon but need to still question the suspect, so are 'stuck between a rock and a hard place as the saying goes'.

Speaking personally I am heartily sick of our mamby pamby liberal loving whingers and hope that the police are given any powers deemed neccessary to curb this infiltration of our once wonderful country.

Oh yes and to answer the question, yes I believe David Davies is a plonker!

 

Bas