Locking People Up For 42 Days Without Charge - Classic or Dud

it's quite hard for the rebels and tories to argue there's a difference in principle between 28 and 42.

TWO WEEKS

If you're innocent you have nothing to fear from this.

not arguing that there is a diff between 28 and 42 really does lead to a slippery slope of possibly indefinite detention. seems to be going that way anyway though.

Some of these plots are really really complicated. Like that plot where that dude set himself on fire and drove a Suv into a wall.

Or where that Brazilian dude plotted to shoot himself in the head 7 times.

Anyway snark aside I think we can trust the police not to fuck up here and only lock away indefinitely people who are really really guilty.

waht is this bullshit rock music bbc "news" video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7447212.stm

Dear BBC, I don't really give a shit what the Great British Public thinks about today's current affairs, most of them are fucking morons. kthx

"In 2003 that was doubled to 14 days - and the Terrorism Act 2006 took it to 28 days. That four-week limit came after then Prime Minister Tony Blair was defeated in a bid to introduce 90 days."

90 days! don't remember that.

Blair just did that for a bet.

isn't Foxy Knoxy still being detained without charge in Italy? let's not lose sight of the smaller picture people.

I can think of loads of people I would like to see locked away for 42 days without charge but sadly Noel Fielding and Andrew Gilligan are probably not very high on MI5's list of potential terrorists. Actually maybe Gilligan.

Don't see why we can't return to the time-honoured method of letting the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad forge a confession and then let them out 20 years later, apologise and do a movie about them.

90 days was pretty close to getting in at the time IIRC?

In the Name of the Fatwah, starring Daniel Day al-Lewis who has recently discovered his Iraqi roots.

Really if you don't want to be locked up without charge for 3 months you shouldn't be hanging around with Muslims.

http://www.freewebs.com/shamik-das/Pictures/George-Galloway_Saddam-Hussein.jpg

That BBC video is hilarious and rong.

Dear BBC, I don't really give a shit what the Great British Public thinks about today's current affairs, most of them are fucking morons. kthx

-- Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 09:02 (2 hours ago) Link

And now we go over to BBC HYS for some rational, well thought our criticsm of this important legislation...

Terrorists don't bother me.
What does bother me is the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who have presided in systematically running Britain down to the level of a third world country. Our reputation is in tatters, our economy is at a low all time level, we are no longer a key player in world economics, our country has been allowed to stagnate and droves of migrants allowed in to enjoy what we have provided for our kind causing stress to the NHS.
The worst government Britain has ever had.

Sir Herbert Scroggins, Edgeley, Stockport, United Kingdom

That's not the Sir Herbert Scroggins I know is it?

our kind
our kind
our kind
our kind
our kind

"we are no longer a key player in world economics"

Surely this is wrong? I mean it might be once the City collapses over the next couple of years but not right now. I'm assuming this is shorthand for "we don't have an empire any more".

And England won the World Cup in 1966

It's always shorthand for lack of empire. Sigh.

60 years of hurt

xxxp
Well, one hates to point to any particular crazyness but we're not a third world country either.

It's the only country we run now so I suppose that makes it third world by default.

I read a HYS comment recently which said that Britain was no longer recognisable as the peaceful country it was in the 40s. I mean you cannot argue against that kind of logic.

Gibraltar, sir! *stands up and salutes, manly tear trickles down cheek*

And The Falklands, god bless 'em..

Anyway, 42 days detention, totally dud, but not as bad as internment, as favoured by the tories.

Maybe they'll just drive them mad in custody so they can detain them under mental health legislation, thus having the potential to keep 'em inside for years.

(being as excessive, martyr-aspiring religiosity plus delusions of grandeur necessary to become terror-happy would in any other context be UH OH SCHIZOPHRENIC)

David Davies speaks HYS language.

The shadow Home Secretary said: "What characterises Britain in the world at large is liberty under the law. We have for centuries been the freest country in the world, and now we are actually the other way round."

So, we're now the least free country in the world?

Anyway, you ask yourselves, how will the new conservative gov deal with those pesky terror suspects? I'm glad you asked.

the Conservatives will focus on using intercepted and bugging evidence in court, plea bargaining and allowing suspects to be interviewed after being charged, as well as a ``much harder'' approach on dealing with people who radicalise young men and women.

a ``much harder'' approach
http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A5619/56199/300_56199.jpg

Come and Have a Go If You Think You're Radicalized Enough

"We have for centuries been the freest country in the world, and now we are actually the other way round."

The cuntiest freery... no.

fuck off DUP cunts! thanks a lot!

How convenient for the dossier on Al Quaida's activities to be found on a train just before the vote on 42 days.

Even the Tories weren't that cynical.

This country :(

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

ok own up now

david davis resigns

Lib Dems to not run against Davis in this by-election, apparently.

lol worst fucking Labour government in history

zomg at this!

wtf Davis? Must surely be some sex scandal. Or money?

No, he's going to restand in the by-election

i always had DD down as a nazi, but y'know, he is kind of on-point with most of this stuff.

^^^ asking for trouble after borisgate but ech, go read your constitutional history, bitches.

He's resigning his seat and restanding it, to serve as a kind of referendum on 42 days

xp

Oh right, I didn't read that very carefully. But nonetheless, wtf!

He's resigning his seat and restanding it, to serve as a kind of referendum on 42 days

Stupid cunt. Why?

Because Labour are a sitting duck now and the Tories can afford to do some showboating?

Why not run away and join the circus and be shot out of a cannon every night that says "No to 42 Days" up the side?

"his by-election campaign will be personal and not backed by the full resources of the Conservative Party"

My God, the only Tory who voted wiht the Government was Widdecombe. Perhaps she just doesn't like bugging.

what's really funny is that cameron isn't that arsed about 42 days & will have to squirm a whole shitload over this.

imo it could even be a DD power-move -- but then the public actually support brown on this, even though they usually support DD's "firm line" on yobbos, immigrants, etc.

I think that's the point, the Great Unwashed want 42 days, in fact it's probably the only position they side with Labour over the Tories on. If (when, especially considering the LDs aren't standing) Davis is re-elected with an increasaed majority, that knocks that problem on the head.

Bizarre

Although yeah, there is a kind of "I'm not going away, son" message from Davis to Cameron on this, they do seem destined to become the Brown and Blair of the right.

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, tops the lesbian romantic rankings, scooping over a third (34%) of the gay female vote in an online "Lust for Power" poll of hundreds of gay singles conducted by gay-PARSHIP.co.uk.

Amongst single lesbians, Britain’s first female Home Secretary proves big-in-the-ballots as the most desired lesbian date with British female politician:

1. Jacqui Smith 34%
2. Sarah Tether 24%
3. Ruth Kelly 18%
4. Harriet Harman 15%
5. Theresa May 9%

Davis is useless though... oh right (xp)

Wow!

Just saw this on the BBC news site!

It's like someone decided the UK population should be able to vote on whether or not locking suspected terrorists up for a long time is a good idea or not!

And expecting a tory safe seat to all go "actually, civil liberties are being eroded in this case"...

Like.

Not "is"...

What will happen? Safe seat tories will vote the tory back in. The 'issue' will not be resolved one way or the other.

http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/29/the_more_you_know2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_by-election_records#By-elections_prompted_to_honour_a_pledge_or_principle

On reflection, this could be a really good ploy for winning over Liberal Democract votes, they are their main rivals in the South after all, aren't they?

Southwark North by-election, 1927: Leslie Haden-Guest resigned and re-contested his seat following his resignation from the Labour Party. He was unsuccessful

Christopher Guest's grandad, possibly proving it's always been done for lolz.

Basically going for the middle class too-ashamed-to-admit-they're-Tories-at-heart vote, I imagine

What, you mean all Lib Dem voters ever?

Yeah this is madness, they will vote him back in because he's a Tory, not because they're particularly bothered about 42 days. It's fannydangle, pure and simple.

It's clever. They vote him back in, because it's a Tory seat, and then no matter how many newspaper polls say "Great British Wanker on the Street Backs Brown on Banging Up Them Ethnics" the Tories can say it's an unpopular policy because some chimp in a blue rosette got voted back into his own seat in the heart of Chimpdonshire.

And because of this I think speculation that Davis is being the Lone Wolf here is probably misguided.

At the same time, I'm not sure quite why they're bothering. Brown's obviously doing his utmost to ensure he doesn't get outflanked on security, it's the last card he holds very possibly, if I were Cameron I'd be all "how can you sleep safe at night knowing this bungler has your lives in his hands?!"

Yeah, there's some truth in that. But the Tories opposing a bill that most of their core voters probably support is opportunist beyond even their own abyssal standards. I get the feeling the current plan is "keep knocking Brown at every opportunity even when that's inconsistent or nonsensical".

I think Davis is genuine on this; Cameron is not in favour, reading between the lines, as Cameron's plan is to not demonstrate any principles or policies at all, just mood-music. It's no secret that him and Davis don't get on, so I think this is kind of 'yeahhhh....whatever' whilst walking backwards away from him than cynical.

It's a fucking pretty pass when I think I'd vote for Davis against a Labour candidate in this by-election. Good to see progressive Gordon getting his political viagra from a bunch of antediluvian bigots. But enough of Dennis Skinner my sides my sides. That'll be another 3% off the Labour vote, and precisely no HYS say who will only support him if they grind up terror suspects after 42 and turn them into cheap petrol.

as ever.
xpost.

Davis in "I'm more popular than Cameron, my balls be on the line, Cameron will never do this will he boys and girls?", um, cod.

I think the Labour line is going to be this is silly stunt and we won't put a candidate up either, which would be funny.

a silly stunt

It's certainly ... weird, isn't it?

I think the Labour line is going to be this is silly stunt and we won't put a candidate up either, which would be funny

That would be hilarious

Please be reading this, Central Office.

especially if the Libdems do not...

and all the loonie candidates do.

Then David (dave) Davis will still actually have to go and CANVASS!!!!

I have no time for David Davis or the Tory party, but I have to say that the 42 day bill and the continual erosion of our civil liberties is something I cannot stomach.

I really hope they don't put up a candidate, saying its a waste of taxpayers money. That would be brilliant.

I have no time for David Davis or the Tory party, but I have to say that the 42 day bill and the continual erosion of our civil liberties is something I cannot stomach

I don't think anybody on this thread disagrees with that, in the same way that nobody on this thread believes that that's why Davis is doing this.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who also voted against 42 day detention, said his party would not be fielding a candidate in the by-election, after speaking to Mr Davis.

'cunt'

Labour MP Denis MacShane said he was sure Mr Davis would win the by-election but added "I think this will be seen as a stunt" which showed the Conservatives were "utterly unfit" for government.

The former Europe Minister said he thought Mr Cameron had "cut the ground from under David Davis by not pledging to repeal 42 days" if the Tories won the next election.

But he said Mr Davis' decision to resign was "a bad day for Parliament" and said he did not personally think Labour should run a candidate against him in the by-election.

What happens if there's another terrorist attack on the tubes between now and the by-election? Davis is gonna be fucked

Time for Blunkett to take one for the team.

the continual erosion of our civil liberties

Apart from the 42 days, what other erosions have there been? Serious question.

I'm not too bothered about the 42 days, cos the safeguards are alright (as far as I understand them). Be much happier if those safeguards applied to the 28 days too - somebody should have put down an amendment for that, as politically would have been alright for Brown, but in reality would have been a step back from rbitrary detention.

What you don't want is the police just being able to use these powers willy nilly - or it just being judicial oversight. Won't parliament have to give the go-ahead every single time the power is used now? (which I can see problems with too,I admit).

Apparently the police are livid, because they're not allowed to keep people in police cells, and high-security prison places are all full, and you can't just move someone around to make space for a few days, as there are so few of them, so they won't actually be able to use the power. At all. Haha.

Apart from the 42 days, what other erosions have there been? Serious question

1. ASBOs

2. No drinking on the tube

3. Rule-breakers on Big Brother 9 placed in solitary confinement

4. All that stopping of demonstrations outside Parliament malarkey

5. Indefinite detention of terror suspects who we want to deport, but whose home country won't accept them. Now house arrest.

6. WALTER WOLFGANG!

7. Serious answer - increase in Stop And Search, esp without needing any reason for doing it

I think we can blame Labour for Big Brother detentions, but surely not the drinks ban!

8. the ban on FOXHUNTIG!

(just guessing what the DaveDavisman is thinking)

9. Rendition a.k.a. nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse

10. Not even allowed to use racial slurs on prime time TV anymore without getting sacked

Well, indirectly we can blame Labour for Ken losing, so... xpost to Jamie

Things I see as erosions of my civil liberties include constant surveillance in public via CCTV, the removal to the right of peaceful protest at parliament, the DNA database, the upcoming id card & database and other such things.

I was going to write to my MP and complain about it, but since my MP is Gordon Brown I didn't think I'd get much joy.

No.4 is a serious answer as well I think. No.7 is not really any different to what we've had in previous governments, except that now it may be used more widely then "because you're black". And let's be honest the police can always find a way to s&s if they want. On suspicion of going equiped for instance.

maybe we need an 'erosion of our civil liberties' thread

also:

How convenient for the dossier on Al Quaida's activities to be found on a train just before the vote on 42 days.

Even the Tories weren't that cynical.

wasn't this left by mistake by some civil servant?

11. Destroying the proud empire we had for hundreds of years, right up until 1997

Well I meant serious answer as opposed to my point 2. not other people's suggestions.

I know Stop & Search isn't new and it's been a big problem in the past. I think the new S&S law is tied to banning people from protesting - they just have to say "terrorism" and they can stop anybody for no reason at all/ban them from being there.

xpost

CCTV? You're in a public place, anyone can take your photo, that's always been the case. Get rid of CCTV and you'd be getting rid of the principle of photography in public places surely? This doesn't mean I think it's a good thing, only I don't really see it as an infringement on my civil liberties. The DNA database seems like a good thing to me. The ID card surely ain't gonna happen.

ID card surely ain't gonna happen cos Cameron will win the next election? Otherwise seems fairly likely to happen

I think Labour would be cynical enough to leak some al-Qaida material to the press to whip up a fervour (tanks at Heathrow?), but they're not stupid enough to do this, as it ties in with the whole losing people's bank details incompetence argument - which is rubbish.

To be fair to them, Human Rights Act, anti-discrimination legislation, liberalising drinking* and gambling laws etc, so it's not been all bad on the civil liberties front.

* this IS a human right!

that first bit was an xpost to thomp

ID card surely ain't gonna happen cos Cameron will win the next election? Otherwise seems fairly likely to happen

v much doubt this is ever going to happen now, the scale of it is to immense

Best-case for Labour is minority govt or coalition with the liberals, who won't be having it, so should be alright, unless Tories revert to authoritarian type if they get in, which thinking about it is *quite* likely.

ID cards are mostly useless but I wonder what people in countries where they have them think. Do they regard themselves as less free? I'm trying to ascertain how free the UK is in comparison to other countries, where I very rarely see this debate going on. Are we just very sensitive to this kind of thing, and if so why now? As opposed to say the 70s when you could locked up without trial indefinitely for being Irish or the 80s when laws were passed to stop you supporting striking miners or when you could be stopped and searched for being black?

xposts
I understand the need for CCTV for certain applications and in certain locations, but it has grown to such an extent that in places in the UK you will be filmed for the vast majority (if not all) of the time that you spend outside of your house. This is overkill. Is there genuinely a need for this? What reason is there for this situation where most public spaces are monitored continuously?
This is why I think there is an erosion of civil liberties involved with our current application of CCTV.

To be fair to them, Human Rights Act, anti-discrimination legislation, liberalising drinking* and gambling laws etc, so it's not been all bad on the civil liberties front.

-- Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 12 June 2008 15:47 (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Last two are increases of civil liberties that do lead to multi-national corporations driving the working classes into financial ruin, though.

"SHAMI CHAKRABARTI, DIRECTOR OF LIBERTY PRESSURE GROUP

Last night's debate, and the brave Labour rebels in particular, showed that democrats from across the spectrum care passionately about rights and freedoms. MPs of all parties hold courage and conviction about these values and few more so than David Davis."

Don't worry tho, thanks to exciting new anti-smoking legislation there will soon be no working mens clubs or decent pubs so the working class can save a few bob by sitting at home drinking Asda European-style Lager Drink.

Last two are increases of civil liberties that do lead to multi-national corporations driving the working classes into financial ruin, though.

Yeah, although paternalism &c.

I was just pointing out that it's not all been in an authoritarian direction.

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI really should get a fucking job

She might get one from David Cameron after the next election... a job that is... but on second thoughts

Just about all European countries have ID cards, don't they? I really don't understand the fuss over this. In any case, Britain has the concept de facto if not de jure, ie, there are always going to be times where you will have to prove your identity and have to provide passport, driving licence or whatever. You can't get away with never having a document to prove who you are, ever.

I'm trying to ascertain how free the UK is in comparison to other countries, where I very rarely see this debate going on.

Here are the UK's scores in the democracy index of the popular country analysis and forecasting service that i subedit for:

Overall score 8.15
Rank 21
I Electoral process and pluralism 9.58
II Functioning of government 8.57
III Political participation 5.00
IV Political culture 8.75
V Civil liberties 8.82
Regime type Full democracy

Basically, the ranking is as low as it is because of the low political participation score - which I'm guessing is poor turnout at elections, but I'm not sure why this is worse than the US. On Civil liberties, we do get a slightly worse score than most EU states (eg France 9.12, Sweden 10.00), including those that do have ID cards. US is 8.53.

Scores are out of 10

i attribute this entirely to the legions of community support officers outnumbering commuters at mainline train stations.

Wow, Sweden!

Shami C is on some tory think tank now isn't she? Miserable blighter when I met her last year.

I wonder if she thinks DD was brave when he voted against all the liberalising of sexual offences laws so that gay people couldn't be arrested by the police for having sex in their own homes.

Which is, while we're at it another example for Labour increasing civil liberties.

Jamie, where did those figures come from, they look v. interesting.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

It doesn't look like they've published this year's yet, which is what I gave. We've gone up!

Shami C is on some tory think tank now isn't she? Miserable blighter when I met her last year.

Not exactly proving to be too good at her job, is she? 42 days... hello?

At 3:12 pm on 12 Jun 2008, gjilltheboss wrote:
Good for David Davis. I'm joining the Conservative party as soon as their site is back on-line

HYS Cretins strike again

David Davis is a British hero.

Our freedoms are under threat. We need to re-investigate 9/11 and get to the real truth, not the official truth that we have been told about that day.

Bob Bradman

Recommended by 10 people

LOL!!!!

Well I never thought I'd see the day that I'd be proud of a Tory!

It's high time we shunted our 'Government' a long way back down the path we've come down where we have become answerable to them, not the other way round!

They seem to think as long as they dress it all up in 'national security' they have the right to rummage through all aspects of our lives trying our doors, windows and wallets!

Tom D, London

Recommended by 14 people

Why should our details be on government computers? They weren't 60 years ago.
CCTV cameras infringe my right to a private image, let's get rid of them so we can feel freer.

Er...

The tory party have really got HYS locked up. Who the fuck showed them how to use computers?

I don't think anybody on this thread disagrees with that, in the same way that nobody on this thread believes that that's why Davis is doing this.

I think it is principled, but what do I know. Maybe I need to turn on my ILX cynicism filter.

I suspect people on this thread would be a tad more concerned if they were asian or muslim. The time to be scared for being cynical, time-rich middle-class and computer literate isn't yet at hand.

CCTV? You're in a public place, anyone can take your photo, that's always been the case. Get rid of CCTV and you'd be getting rid of the principle of photography in public places surely? This doesn't mean I think it's a good thing, only I don't really see it as an infringement on my civil liberties. The DNA database seems like a good thing to me. The ID card surely ain't gonna happen.

-- Ned Trifle II, Thursday, 12 June 2008 14:39 (4 hours ago) Link

- don't buy yr cctv -- it's just like taking a photo in a public place analogy. at all!

- dna database: hmm, yeah, well, wait till they discover the 'likely to smoke the reefer' gene, then we'll be fucking laughing

- got to admire your principled stand on ID cards though.

xposts

i agree with boyler here -- that david davis-dave b0yle-enrique rainbow coalition we all saw coming for so long! kind of.

Oh, and yeah, 42 days might not seem like a lot; it's enough time t send you bonkers, but who cares eh? More worrying is that is that if 42 days is fine when the only ostensible reason is that Gordy has to show he MEANS BUSINESS just imagine what they'll get up to when there might be some hot headed reason to ACT KNOW OR ELSE THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.

Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Those who would trade liberty for an opinion poll boost are fucking cunts.

KNOW=NOW

This shit makes me so fucking angry I'm shaking like a shitting dog and losing what little power of language I had.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2118657/David-Davis-stuns-Westminster-with-resignation-over-42-day-terror-law.html

^^ welp, cameroonians are kind of leaving him out to dry, it seems. got no love for david davis on his past statements, but a lot less for the unprincipled cunts at the centre.

this is a strange episode but it's not going to change the game: brown is still fucked, labour is still fucked, and we're all fucked.

- don't buy yr cctv -- it's just like taking a photo in a public place analogy. at all!

Don't get me wrong I don't think cctv works but it's not an infringement on civil liberties. You have no right to privacy in a public place, so where's the loss of 'civil liberties'?

tbh i think it's a no-brainer. as in, i can't articulate why my movements being filmed and (potentially, if they wanted) logged without my knowledge is kind of bad.

obviously i have nothing to fear because im innocent lol.

But this could happen without CCTV! Do you want to ban people from taking photos in public?

Or films.

ok I'm off to mount a few cameras in public places which feed into my own personal 24/7 surveillance system

i've got the law on my side!

The Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, tried to persuade Davis he was making a tactical error in the hours after the vote on Wednesday night. She told him he wielded more influence by leading the attack on government policy from the front bench. She feared he had been caught up in the emotion of the moment.

OMG if you try to do the urban smartarse thing of actually photographing a CCTV camera to make a point about watching the watchers it's kind of odds on that some borderline-official uniformed creep will come and tell you to quit it, regardless of the actual rights involved.

k I was wrong about the whole Davis thing apparently. Next question then: is he actually gonna put a dent in Cameron's carefully polished veneer of party unity now?

He's worried you're taking pictures of *him*! xpost

xxp
I know that lots of photographers say this happens, but actually it hardly happens. It's definitely not odds-on. Whereas if you try and take photographs of planes in other european countries you get locked up and taken to court.

Of course there are some jobsworths hassling photographers out there (as documented on flickr) but I have serious doubts that it's worse here than anyway else or worse than it was in the past.

Also lol people who can't see a difference between voluntarily using ID to protect your own transactions and being compelled to carry ID by a benevolent police state.

This just in:

Ex Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie says he will take on David Davis in a by-election if Labour does not stand.

So far no party has said they will contest it, meaning Mr Davis could be returned without a vote.

But Mr Mackenzie, who backs Labour on 42 days, said: "I will definitely be doing it on behalf of The Sun."

He told the BBC: "I have been associated with The Sun for 30 years. The Sun is very, very hostile to David Davis because of his 28 day stance and The Sun has always been very up for 42 days and perhaps even 420 days."

National debate

The former editor, who now writes a column for The Sun, told This Week he had been promised financial support by the newspaper's proprietor Rupert Murdoch.

He was interviewed on Today about his plans, boasting about the number of readers the Sun has. Despite which, I can't imagine there being *that* many Sun readers in Cottingham, Willerby, North Ferriby and the other bustling metropolises in the constituency.

(one of the highest-profile employers in the constituency is the Press Association, funnily enough)

So, hmm, the main candidate to run against DDav is someone even more rightwing. And the possibility is, that KMac could actually be more appealing to the core tori voters of wherever it is.

There's more to this Davis thing than meets the eye. I'll believe that 'man of principles' thing when he campaigns to reduce the limit to 7 days, or something civilised like that. You said it in the very first post, Henry:

it's quite hard for the rebels and tories to argue there's a difference in principle between 28 and 42.

agreed but I still can't see what else is in it for him? a few days/weeks of publicity then he can park himself on the opposition/government backbenches for the rest of his career. he'll have increased his profile and presumably any future memoir he might write will sell a few more copies but other than that...

Actually, I've just had an idea. Who fancies putting up a deposit and standing?

The ticket to campaign on: breaking the local de facto telephone/internet monopoly. It would go down damn well with most of the constituents.

Also lol people who can't see a difference between voluntarily using ID to protect your own transactions and being compelled to carry ID by a benevolent police state.

As far as I understand the current proposals, it won't be compulsory to have an ID card, let alone carry one. I don't know what happens in other European countries, but I do know that in France at least, it is not compulsory to have an ID card. You can have one if you want, and it's free of charge.

Jesus Fucking Christ that's an unpleasant face off.

Anything other than a complete show of Cameron support for Davies could be disastrous for the Tories, especially if Kelvin McKenzie's candidacy makes this an even bigger media issue than it was before. Of course Cameron doesn't really agree with Davies, probably secretly wants to see the back of him, but even the slightest admission of that would equally be an admission of "we're just voting against this to take the government down, we agree with it really".

Davies knows this full well, even if he is acting on principle, and I'm far from convinced, it has the added bonus of destabilising Cameron.

Maybe he doesn't fancy hanging around in Cameron's cabinet, being ignored and/or worse until Cameron can sack him at the first available opportunity?

The card itself, and carrying it, is something of a red herring. The important part is the Grand Database Of Everyone, including all your biometric data. It's going to be a blessing for "identity fraudsters" - once the database and card are in place, thre's one big single-point-of-failure for proving who anyone is.

Jesus Fucking Christ that's an unpleasant face off.

Which is why we need an ILX Let's Have Internet Supplier Competition candidate!

(OK, the party name needs some work)

x-post
From the BBC:
Everyone over the age of 16 applying for a passport will have their details - including fingerprints and facial scans - added to a National Identity register from 2011/12. The first identity cards will be issued to non-EU foreign nationals coming to work in the UK in 2008. From 2009, about 200,000 airport workers in the UK will have to get identity cards as a condition of employment. From 2010 students will be encouraged to get ID cards when they open bank accounts. From 2011/12 the Identity and Passport Service plans to issue "significant volumes" of ID cards alongside British passports - but people will be able to opt out of having a card if they don't want one.

Equally Kelvin McKenzie and by extension the Sun siding with Brown and bellowing as The Voice Of Popular Support is potentially a big big dent in the popular media image Cameron's being working hard to polish up. It'll make him look flaky and that's the sort of thing that causes poll leads to ebb away.

Somebody should run as a candidate for reducing the limit to 7 days. Let's really push the envelope. Shouldn't Liberty be doing something like that? Or is Shami already looking forward to all those juicy consultancy fees she can get on Tory think tanks?

My platform for election is based on the fact that a damn sight more of Davis's constituents care about being forced to use a single (rather shit) ISP than care about civil liberties. Once you're in parliament, I'd vote down the limit as much as I could.

Kelvin McKenzie was the person who first gave Piers Morgan his break in journalism. Well done that man.

His is not a glittering career of achievement

It _is_ a glittering career of achievement, but then again so was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Greco

If this really is a single-issue vote, I think McKenzie might actually beat Davies. He'll be far better at presentation and spinning arguments if nothing else.

This morning Davies was already trying to fudge the issue into a general reflection on Labour's record which doesn't really work if Labour isn't standing against him.

Davies's main card is that his constituency isn't exactly high on the list of potential terrorist targets.

It's the headquarters of the Press Association!

That's a terrorist target?!

Such a powerful and influential organisation and so efective

Apparently, a past 'fictitional' holder of the title "MP for Haltemprice" =

Alan B'Stard, played by Rik Mayall in the ITV comedy series the New Statesman. Originally, the seat was purely fictional - but came into being as Haltemprice and Howden in 1997, with a boundary re-drawing.

this is surely monster raving loony party's best chance to take a shock win.

Well, he is the sitting MP.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1286612.ece

Wonder if this is going to backfire on Clegg too

I certainly hope so.

His coat's on a shaky nail as it is

The Tory tough guy quit at 1pm yesterday by making a bizarre speech outside the Commons.

The first identity cards will be issued to non-EU foreign nationals coming to work in the UK in 2008.

Hey that's me!

We're watching you

He'll be in the govts ideetree.us by now

Ask David Davis.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/773496/put-your-questions-to-david-davis.thtml

He'll get back to us all a few days later. And the commenters whose questions are chosen will all win Coffee House t-shirts and copies of the special 180th Anniversary issue of The Spectator.

Wonder if this is going to backfire on Clegg too

-- Tom D., Friday, 13 June 2008 13:14 (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I certainly hope so.

-- Ed, Friday, 13 June 2008 13:23 (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

why don't ppl like Clegg?

because he is a liberal democrat who is neither ginger, nor a drunk.

he probably bullied ed at school or something ;)

Because he is as liberal who seems not to have the benefit of being a liberal with the modicum of a social conscience that Kennedy brought to the party; so now the lib dems complete the triumvirate of identical Liberal parties at the centre of public life.

He is too old to have bullied Ed at school. T0m H0dgk1nson, possibly.

Missed him too, I wonder if my brother ran into a young LJ at any point.

People won't pay the slightest bit of attention to what Clegg does in all this.

I'm not sure people pay much attention to what he does *at all*.

This is true, which is why I have been trying to get a bookie to give me odds on the return of Charles 'At Least He Was Fun' Kennedy.

xxxpost: I remember someone with your surname in the "Pink List", must have been him. Don't think we really crossed paths much although I was fairly infamous throughout the older years for my clownish behaviour.

Because he is as liberal who seems not to have the benefit of being a liberal with the modicum of a social conscience that Kennedy brought to the party; so now the lib dems complete the triumvirate of identical Liberal parties at the centre of public life.

yeah, or that. except since no-one knows anything about him i think we're just assuming he doesn't have that social conscience due to his similarities with cameron. he spoke at a darfur rally I went to, which brought me round a bit.

because he is a liberal democrat who is neither ginger, nor a drunk.

... that's more like it. I don't rate Clegg, he's a lightweight (another one, like we need anymore) but Ed summed it up pretty much

does nick clegg come off as anything more than a fool kid who went thru sum fasting, pain, etc but doesnt construct and analysis with meaning in dialogue? he seems like a basic liberal, someone who just makes bad jokes and laughs while everyone else thinks his semiconscious rambling are dumb. this is all just supposition from media i don't watch/read

lightweight or not he's better than anyone on either of the front benches. not that that's saying much anything.

He looks a bit like a cross between Blair and Cameron, and that's about the only reason I can come up with why he's the leader of major British political party in 2008. In fairness to him, that is the reason that seems to matter most these days.

he never outlined a game to reduce class disparity, ever. all he talks is surficial intellectual bullshit. he is a weak leader, though when surrounded by intellectuals he can synthesize some real smart dialog

Hey not fair that could be any of us.

I am faintly embarrassed about voting Lib Dem in 2005 now. I should have just abstained.

Do people even know who Clegg is? He's their leader but the only one that seems to actually say anything is Cable

I would've preferred if Cable had been the leader.

I am faintly embarrassed about voting Lib Dem in 2005 now. I should have just abstained.

I don't feel embarrassed about voting for them in 2005 at all and will vote for them again in 2008, 2009 or 2010, whichever it ends up being, as I do not like the others and I don't believe in abstention.

he never outlined a game to reduce class disparity, ever.

well, it's a tricky thing to do! at least he's being honest about it. Far better than the others who claim they are going to reduce class disparity when in fact they have no intention of trying to (Tories) or haven't got a clue how to but claim to not only know how to but be already on the case (Labour).

Have the Tories claimed they are going to reduce class disparity? Chris Thingy would have been a better leader for Lib Dems... but too serious and not young enough.

By voting as a protest!

Hey, DCameron started it (recently)

OK, let me get this right... A vote for the COnsrvtvs is a protest about scrapping the 10p tax rate..

Friday afternoon malaise is setting in...

I understand that abstention is seen as I dunno a cop out or disrespecting our forefathers who fought for our freedom or whatever, but what's the fucking point? Really, what is the difference between voting Labour and Conservative? It's nice to think oh now Blair's gone, Brown will get down to some proper left-wing politics, but it hasn't happened and won't happen.

At some point soon they're going to have to have the 'what is Labour *for*? debate that they've been dodging for the last ten years. Conservatives fundamentally know what the point of their party is regardless of prevailing winds, post-Blair, I don't think Labour do. Other than 'win elections and stop the Tories getting in'.

Any left-of-centre party is unelectable in England

Any left-of-centre party is unelectable in England

unless there's a war involving conscription and/or fighting on the home front.

They've not always been unelectable but they are now.

do we know if UKIP are putting up a candidate? could well seeing them attract a pretty significant portion of the vote- this is the East Riding after all.

Time for the BNP to put their best jackboot forward

The Metro said he'll be up against BNP & UKIP. I know, I know, I should stop reading the Metro.

They said you were poor

Well, nearly poor. I'm about £30 a week over the poverty line, according to them. Which is obviously not true, which was why I brought it up in the first place.

I just wish they'd just get on with it and turn England into a police state already. I mean like, who are they kidding?

That's a joke right?

Its a joke in that its whats happening but no I vehemently oppose becoming a police state.

You seriously think that England is becoming a police state?

verona is a menk, but if you think that the police being able to lock people up for a month (never mind 42 days) without bringing a charge is ok, if you're fine seeing jury trials cut down, if you like the idea of ID cards and CCTV, then yeah i could see why you don't think we're headed in a grim direction.

Add in changes to inquests to prevent investigation as long as there's a self-proclaimed 'national security' issue, add in immigration courts taking place in camera with rules of evidence changed to favour the state, add in police investigatory powers of ISPs, add in police powers over bank accounts, add in the ability of the police to stop anyone from going about their business for a demo (see the start of 'Taking Liberties' for hilarious footage of this), add in dna sampling of everyone arrested for anything (which the police themselves want to be exempt from). Still, nothing to fear eh?

Being stopped and searched sucks, everyone (ok not everyone) walking by stares at you like you've done something wrong (I've done that myself). Imagine if that happened to you multiple times for no reason. Of course we're not a police state in the absolute sense, and I concede suggesting we are one is sensationalist. I don't think because it's been worse in the 70s and 80s it's OK now.

So, you're all living in fear then? I know I'm not and really I doubt you are either. I fear a stupid fuck with a knive much more than this supposed police state.

And I am happy with CCTV tbh, as are many people I've spoken too on estates where 'civil liberites' activists wouldn't be seen dead (and not only because the people living there feel safer but they also feel that CCTV is watching the police - if you want to talk about police states let's talk about the 'ownership' of the police of these estates where they pretty think they can do anything they like and have done for 30 years).

I was much more afraid of the police in the 80s when I was trying to picket mines and got prevented from driving from Leicestershire into Nottinghamshire. Or when the police sided with a nutter with a shotgun threatening us on a demo at Molesworth. People at demos have always always always been hassled as anyone who has ever been on one will know.

Most of the Boylers point deserve more of a reply than I can be bothered with here, but overall I am pretty happy with police accountability these days, which is much more than in the past (ask a police officer) and I've already said that I think the DNA database is a good thing (for the proving of innocence as much as guilt, for instance.

There are lots of things I don't think are 'ok' but I just don't think it's that bad either.

Sorry Ned you're just sounding like an apologist here, if it was a Tory government doing it you'd be up in arms. Just because you're not the demonised one any more doesn't it's not that bad, try asking young Asians or Muslims if they're less afraid of the police than they were.

"I was much more afraid of the police when I was picketing mines in the 80s than now I'm a respectable middle-aged guy with young kids" is not a particularly good way of quantifying or qualifying anything.

This issue has been the camelbackbreaker for me. Never voting Labour again. Appalled.

How can CCTV be watching the police if the police are in charge of CCTV?

the police have excellent internal discipline, as proven by the menezes case.

"I was much more afraid of the police when I was picketing mines in the 80s than now I'm a respectable middle-aged guy with young kids"

This is dead on. It also seems to be true that when civil liberties are removed it is not pushed on us, we request it - to protect us from the hoodie, the terrorist, the hooligan, our neighbors we don't know.

Create the idea of an enemy out of our neighbours and introduce methods to protect us from them. We see it in history yet seem reluctant to see it in our present. Demonize the working class and have us turn to the authorities to protect us from ourselves - without considering who might be doing the protecting and in whos interests

it's not really anything to do with that -- why so you need to deny knife crime or terrorism in order to defend the jury system? -- and it's not even about 'civil liberties', which are a pretty recent idea to do with things that were hitherto denied. this is about overweaning state power and the erosion of basic constitutional protections from it.

if you unpack "Demonize the working class and have us turn to the authorities to protect us from ourselves - without considering who might be doing the protecting and in whos interests" i guess that might help, but you seem to be saying that people's concerns about crime are a conspiracy to blind people to the real villains. i would have thought that a lot of people in favour of punitive treatment of criminals were also working class. but the class of the person making the argument ought to be irrelevant to constitutional arguments really...

Knife crime and terrorism are certainly prevalent and i see no need to deny them - my uncle was stabbed in Liverpool when he was young. not sure how much more violent the streets are than periods in the past.

Ok you can chuck civil liberties in bin and replace with the fact we request overweaning state power where safety is concerned ("whatever the police need, they face a tough job" etc)

Peoples concerns about crime are not a conspiracy. They are as real and valid as they ever were. And of course it is true that many in favour of punitive criminals are working class! Thats kind of the point. It is the demonization of ourselves. The idea we have to fear out neighbours is an insidious one. It is not that it is too blind us to the real villains, it is that it is that we see villains in everyone - the idea that the hoodies and terrorists are legion

It is irrelevant the class of the person making the argument, this is correct. The idea is that we are to fear the people we live with and travel alongside - and approve of greater state power and surveillence to protect us from them, yet we do not consider that we are also those people. This is how this power is extended, it is asked for

(i shd probably have said, remote policing/cctv/blah are pretty rubbish ways of cutting crime and alienating and basically criminalizing everyone by putting them under surveillance is probably more on the 'problem' than 'solution' side.)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/janetdaley/june08/david_davis_calamity.htm

^^ uhhh this is fucked up. it's like the conservatives really have become new labour c. 1995: the "libertarians" who care about locking people up for six weeks without charge are the crank minority, and because opinion poll respondents -- who i'm sure have all given the matter great thought -- don't really give a shit, the tory party has to go with them. this isn't conservatism or any other ism really, just naked power politics.

I'm not quite sure why knife crime is being folded into this debate really, it's a genuine concern that's maybe being exploited on both sides of the argument but I don't imagine many people imagine hoodies will be detained for 42 days without charge. Most people do not have much to fear from this law but then again most people in this country are not black, Asian or Muslim. Considering what's been happening to a friend of a friend lately, and how that started in the first place, I do not have the slightest bit of faith that this law and others will not be abused.

Anyway, as far as CCTV goes, it is not particularly effective for deterring crime, catching criminals or making people feel safer. What makes people safer regardless of the area is material, concrete improvements to their environment. Last week I came out of Shadwell DLR station at night for the first time in three or four years. I remember it being isolated, dark and very intimidating, now its very brightly illuminated and feels populated and much safer. That's where taxpayers money should be (and indeed is) going, and makes people feel a lot safer than putting a camera up and hoping it will magically deter muggers.

Just because you're not the demonised one any more doesn't it's not that bad, try asking young Asians or Muslims if they're less afraid of the police than they were.

Come on, this is ridiculous. They are just as victimised as they were. Maybe less actually. Show me some figures that prove me wrong. Well don't bother because back in the 70s and 80s there was no police accountability and they could do pretty much what they like. If you ask young asians now of course they'll say it worse, they won't remember the crap their parents had to out up with.

How can CCTV be watching the police if the police are in charge of CCTV?

CCTV is monitered by a whole range of people, not just the police. Most CCTV is probably manged by council employees or shopping centre people. It is crap but as I have said before you cannot use a civil liberties arguement against it without arguing for the banning of photography ion public places.

This whole argument is kind of crazy because I'm against 42 days as well (lots of labour supporters are). I'm against ID cards for that matter (ditto).

BUT I'm going to vote Labour in the next election because if you don't you'll get a tory government. Not a lib-dem, civil liberty friendly one, not a Green Party one, a tory one. And if you think that's OK then fine but I don't.

And I know that I sound like a boring old fart but really you don't have to rub it in with the 'respectacle' and 'middle-aged' ffs...

matt i have to disagree on one point - CCTV is very very good at identifying criminals after they've done whatever it is that they've done, if they've actually been trained on the spot where the crime went down

ned you are ignoring the USE that photography is put to - there's a difference between snapshots and a total system of 24/7 government-controlled surveillance

I am not ignoring it - please tell me how you will make a law which will get rid of CCTV and still allow photography? Most CCTV is on private property anyway. Are you against that too?

if you take a photo in a public place for professional use you have to get release forms, i think. and i think you have the right to request cctv footage of yourself?

if you take a photo in a public place [which contains identifiable people]

BUT I'm going to vote Labour in the next election because if you don't you'll get a tory government. Not a lib-dem, civil liberty friendly one, not a Green Party one, a tory one. And if you think that's OK then fine but I don't.

*sigh*

I'm not living in fear, I'm living in hope for a revolution and less Britney Spears video and wtf? about calling me a fucking menk?!
England is becoming a police state, we have more surveillance than most 'devolped' countries,ID cards, racist 'illeagal immigrant laws' and the kind of facist, racist stupid idiocracy that the pigs sorry 'police' are allowed to get away and the hypocrisy behind that...self government people, self government. I'll leave you with this...
"the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation"

Vote Labour and you're voting for more of the same fucking ruling class, bourgeois, indifferent, exploitative bullshit. In fact, vote at all and thats all you'll get. Don't vote!

Results 1 - 10 of about 616,000 for white guy with dreadlocks. (0.27 seconds)

I'm a black woman.

http://www.thatkidinthecorner.com/mt/images/verona.jpg

I'm tired of this hateration, I'd just like some fucking sleep.

I really wish I was more coherent.

The trouble with posting drunk is that the most diligent reader is no more sober. Or something

those candidates in full:

Grace Astley - Independent
David Bishop - Church of the Militant Elvis Party
Ronnie Carroll - Make Politicians History
Mad Cow-GIRL - The Official Monster Raving Loony Party
David Craig - Independent
Herbert Crossman - Independent
Tess Culnane - National Front Britain for the British
Thomas Darwood - Independent
David Davis - Conservative
Tony Farnon - Independent
Eamonn "Fitzy" Fitzpatrick - Independent
Christopher Foren - Independent
Gemma Garrett - Miss Great Britain Party
George Hargreaves - Christian Party
Hamish Howitt - Freedom 4 Choice
David Icke - No party listed
John NICHOLSOn - Independent
Shan Oakes - Green Party
David Pinder - The New Party
Joanne Robinson - English Democrats: Putting England First
Jill Saward - Independent
Norman Scarth - Independent
Walter Sweeney - Independent
Christopher Talbot - Socialist Equality Party
John Upex - Independent
Greg Wood - Independent

interesting that david craig is standing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Craig_%28author%29

TS: National Front Britain for the British vs. English Democrats: Putting England First

... it's a toughie

i guess the lbzc choice has to be the pneumatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemma_Garrett

That's the pneumatic angle covered, and there are plenty of Nuts to chose from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/29/do2903.xml

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/LeboviciAB84/HarryHillsmallerrordiffusion.gif

Comments

I may not necessarily agree with some of Tony Benn's politics coming from the left as he does, but I will say one thing for him. He has always come across as a patriot and a true champion and supporter of Britain and its core values. Which is more than can be said of the Labour Party in general and the present crop of treasonous scum that occupy the cabinet.
Posted by TonyG on June 29, 2008 1:43 PM

Madness.

does nick clegg come off as anything more than a fool kid who went thru sum fasting, pain, etc but doesnt construct and analysis with meaning in dialogue? he seems like a basic liberal, someone who just makes bad jokes and laughs while everyone else thinks his semiconscious rambling are dumb. this is all just supposition from media i don't watch/read

― Free Peace Sweet!, Friday, June 13, 2008 2:52 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark

this guy spitting str8 fiya