Hear hear!

Good for him. That vote yesterday was a fraud.
I wonder how his share of the poll in the by-election will change.

This is of course not without precedent:
In 1986 all 15 Unionist MPs from NI resigned their seats in protest against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They all then stood again in the ensuing by-elections, and in four of the constituencies the election was not contested. However, for the sake of a political stunt a certain Unionist, Wesley Robert Williamson, changed his name by deed poll to "Peter Barry", the name of the Rep. o. Ireland Foreign Minister. This "Peter Barry" then stood in these four constituencies under the label "For the Anglo-Irish Agreement", and in fact collected an impressive total of votes considering he didn't really exist.

It was good entertainment, but of course ultimately a waste of time and money.

"we defended the freedoms of the British people"
"Well we did up until yesterday"

Yes you can align yourself with a self serving MP Pete Moore. One who actually doesn't even share your 'principled' view of recent history from the 70s when his party were far more ruthless with terrorists. Maybe his memory is just fuzzier than yours or maybe this is just about slamming Labour and being .......self serving!! Commonly known as a timely putting the boot in. And you take this view as principled?

Course the DUPs hazy version of recent history is up for greater scrutiny though eh.

"Government's ferocious expansion has so eroded the culture of liberty in our Kingdom"

No. That would be terrorists ever evolving skillsets and choice of victims.

And what is the first duty of a government Pete?

Protection.

Does it require absolutist solutions or absolutist views based in parchment scribbled on by a long dead King?

Nope.

Stop shoving ancient history in our faces and deal in realities.

The most principled MP yesterday was Widders.

I wonder how many people on the bombed underground or bus or 9/11 would feel. Times have changed since the Magna Carta believe it or not. We have moved on, the population of the British Isles has changed We are now inundated with people of a different cultural and religious mind set. It is in effect a war or are u all blind.

Most of the population of this country were in favour, for a change, of Gordon Brown's proposal. Poor old David Cameron, just when he thought, he was in with a chance along comes another complete and utter disaster, along with the MP's who are robbing us all with their bogus expenses ploy.

"Most of the population of this country were in favour, for a change, of Gordon Brown's proposal"

Yeah but to hell with them Maggie what do they know? The silly people. Ask King John! (bloody ironic) Course if those polls support anyone on ATWs views they will get trotted out as an example of how haughty government ignores the people!!

In 42 days any one of you could be made to sign a confession admitting membership of Al Queada and implicating your mother too. That's a fact and to suggest such detention periods have anyting at all to do with justice is a joke.

Maggie -

Citing 9/11 and 7/7 is bogus. The US and British states could have detained suspects for 420 days at those times and it would not have been prevented either atrocity.

Most of the population of this country were in favour ...

Most of the population were barely aware of the proposal until yesterday. So addicted are so many Britons now to their bread and circuses, I'd be surprised if most of the population are aware today of the matter. That opinion poll citing 62% support for 42 days detention is clearly nonsensical.

Alison,

"And what is the first duty of a government Pete?"

I'm not Pete (and I'm sure we're both glad about that:-) but the first duty of a government is to obey the law.

"Protection."

Including protection against government.

"Does it require absolutist solution"

No. Which is why abolutist positions that elevate preventing terrorism above all else are not required.

:D hello Frank

I don't believe this legislation to be absolutist. I think protection would include in a state of war or undeclared state of war with your fellow Britons (as Maggie pointed out). When I say the word 'law' right now Peter Sellers springs to mind (don't ask)

But seriously quoting magna carta and ignoring/dismissing outright the silly will of the public seems royally silly.

Just as well the then King didn't have so much contempt for the ignorant masses or Pete Moore would be out of a day job. I look forward to many future polls being quoted on ATW that i can point to as nonsensical when the usual cabal trot out how government is riding roughshot over the will of the people.

"Most of the population were barely aware of the proposal until yesterday. So addicted are so many Britons now to their bread and circuses, I'd be surprised if most of the population are aware today of the matter. That opinion poll citing 62% support for 42 days detention is clearly nonsensical."
You're wrong the people of this country are totally aware of what is going on, and that we need protection from enemies within our own country. If it takes 42 days to prove or disprove the intentions of the person/persons incarcerated then so be. Rather that than people blown up in the Underground or on a bus, or does human life matter so little to you.

The publics' will in an uncertain time is often the least reliable thing to base the law upon. Fears, real and imagined, are not good ingredients for legislation.

There are many other steps and precautions a government could take without resorting to this type of stunt which seems more like a public relations stunt (and will have the reverse effect internationally). The war on terrorists is not just a war of force, it is a war of ideas. While they may from time to time strike, so long as we maintain our ideas (such as freedom from unlawful arrest or detention) we'll beat them. If we sacrifice our ideas, we give them a victory they could never obtain for themselves.

While they may from time to time strike, - I wonder if you would retain your lofty views Mahons if your family were involved in the 'time to time' strike!

Alison -

You need to shake off your inner nutter before commenting.

King John was summoned to Runnymede at the point of a sword and made to sign the Charter. The liberties contained were won from the Monarch, they were not granted. For the first time in English history a ruler was forced to concede that we have inalienable and unviolable freedoms. They were not his but ours by right of our existence alone.

It forms the bedrock of not just our Constitution, but those of the US and much of the world. The notion that the state cannot hold us without charge or reason has saved an incalculable number of lives from misery, torture and murder and it stems from that document, laid before King John in 1215.

To put up a piffling opinion poll against that is really very stupid.

To continue I have listened to a heartbroken woman whose only daughter was killed on the London Underground bombing...

Our 'freedoms' are being eroded. We cannot express our feelings for the countless dross who have invaded our shores on the grounds of being persecuted in their own countries. We 'the people of this country' know they are economic migrants bent on obtaining money, medical care etc. 42 days is not a lifetime, a lifetime of grief which the woman I have spoken about above has to endure.

Maggie: Far from lofty my views are consistent with the ideals of our two nations which have stood us in good stead through far more dangerous times than these. Myself and my family walk through major terrorist target areas every day, if you must know. Doesn't change my opinion. I am not going to let a bunch of ragheads upend my Constitutional rights.

Just as well the then King didn't have so much contempt for the ignorant masses

Magna Carta was between King John and the barons. The "ignorant masses" would have remained in, er, ignorance of it. But habeus corpus was central to it, which is why it is relevant to this debate today.

Good for you Mahons I hope you continue to walk through your war zone in peace for as long as you live.

Maggie

The logic of your position is preventive indefinite internment of all possible suspects. As previously posted, I think we'll get to that point before too many more years.

Peter...no 42 days or maybe they can be sent to Gitmo...I honesty don't care so long as they don't get to plant bombs in UK I WANT my family protected.

Maggie

You make my point. Gitmo is internment with knobs on.

Thanks Maggie, and I hope you won't use again the real grief of an unfortunate woman to justify your willingness to sacrifice the rights far more many of your countrymen and mine died for because immigrants upset you as long as you live.

It matters little to him Maggie - it's his inner absolutist nutter. You simply cannot draft balance or safeguards and have a debate on that - no, no you have to go by what was chalked up on parchment all that time ago. Nothing changes, the world is still as it was. No ideas can be adjusted to suit the present threats. Not without the world caving in on liberties. Apparently.

Total nonsense of course.

He couldn't give a rats arse if a terrorist blew a few people to bits because he wants to be able to quote the "Magna Carta" a few times and YOU are expendable to that fact.

Course Maggie this was all mapped out between the barons and the King for no other reason than to protect you from yourself you stupid pleb! Stop worrying your pretty little head about it and leave these decisions to The Wise.

On another thread both Mahons and Pete Moore reckon entirely innocent people should NOT be allowed the choice to end their suffering in long term illness using the slippery slope argument. THAT is how much they value balance, liberty, justice and freedom.

Course when it comes to voting on the EU constitution everyone should have a vote and we should all listen to the public. God at least when i say im in favour of a public vote on that I am not blowing it out my back end.

Maggie - good point regards that woman. Her husband stood up to Liberty the pressure group also 2 years ago and their points of view matter. Ignore that last comment from Mahons i doubt he meant to not give a shit about them. They started a group to support the victims of terrorists and pursue justice. They have been vocal on it and long may that continue.

You are not using her at all.

I'm with the guys on this one. If they don't have enough evidence to charge you, they shouldn't be allowed to detain you for weeks on end while they go digging for some. The police have to do their homework first, that's the way the system works and that's how it should remain.

Detention of uncharged persons by the state is something that is clearly an abuse of state power at 42 days. The fact that I believe this to be the case does not mean that I believe we shouldn't aggressively investigate, apprehend, try and convict terrorists.

It has zero to due with assisted suicide, unless of course one makes the analogy that we are assisting in the suicide of our ideals because of unspecified threats.

Maggie

re "I WANT my family protected"

There are currently half a dozen suspects against whom the police have sufficient evidence for holding them beyond 28 days but not enough to ensure they get a conviction. The point being ENSURE. Consider that for a second - how many hours it takes to decipher internet, phone messages, networks, who links to whom, tracking them all and all the scary stuff the police know around the 300 networks currently operating in this country. If you look back at the legwork that went into busting the Ministry of Sound group they KNEW those guys were a vile bunch and had to hope their patience in grouping the evidence to secure a conviction came AHEAD of any sudden decision to go ahead and blow up that club.

Consider that the police have credible evidence which points heavily to strong terrorist links with those people. It is NOT in the police interests to see these religiously inclined nutjobs walk. Then consider that they may well now be freed! Happy Summer for us all.

The point being that the number of days requested is not a blank cheque at all. It does not need to be all or nothing and CAN be judicially safeguarded. We are not talking about members of the public plucked from obscurity and held on nothing and for no good reason.

I don't know which concerns me more. That we have people sitting on the 28 day limit and 300 networks here with limited police resources, that this legislation has not been afforded the due consideration it should have been by our MPs or that we have civil liberties absolutists never willing to think laterally under such an incredibly complex and prescient threat who whip out the Magna Carta when it suits (especially David Davis!).

I found what i was looking for here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6125338.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6126040.stm

Alison -

No-one here's saying that you or Maggie hold your views from bad intent. You ought to concede that those who hold different views from you on this don't either. In fact I'd knock you down in the rush to put the noose around the necks of convicted terrorists.

That we don't live in 1215 anymore is irrelevent. That the state ought not to detain us without charge or reason is a timeless principle. That's why civilised nations don't just have it as law, but incorporate it as a civilisational statement within constitutions.

Course when it comes to voting on the EU constitution everyone should have a vote and we should all listen to the public.

No we shouldn't. A referendum would be unconstitutional. No vote is needed. The EU constitution isn't valid in the UK.

... we have civil liberties absolutists never willing to think laterally under such an incredibly complex and prescient threat who whip out the Magna Carta when it suits (especially David Davis!).

Well I'm always ready to whip it out, love. No second bidding needed here. Since David Davis was nailed on to be Home Secretary should the Tories win the next general election, he would have inherited enormous state powers, 42 days detention among them. It doesn't really suit, then, to accuse him of whipping out Magna Carta when it suits him, when he's clearly taken a huge career risk.

I suspect you haven't read or heard Davis' resignation statement. if not, then you ought to. It's not just this proposal which has provoked his action. You may find you sympathise with him on much.

And your links contradict your argument: Barot was arrested and charged within 14 days.

Daphne's 5.48pm comment is absolutely spot on and matches exactly my view. Practical, full of common sense and not hung up on absolutes.

Alison,

"I think protection would include in a state of war or undeclared state of war with your fellow Britons"

The police don't fight wars. If you want to call it a war then why not call in airstrikes on the suspects (and hope they don't live next door to you).

"But seriously quoting magna carta and ignoring/dismissing outright the silly will of the public seems royally silly."

The will of the public is not absolute either. Rights are inalienable for exactly that reason. According to many polls a woman is partly responsible for being raped if she wears a short skirt or if she is drunk. Should we change the laws accordingly?

"There are currently half a dozen suspects against whom the police have sufficient evidence for holding them beyond 28 days but not enough to ensure they get a conviction."

Why then does the DPP (responsible for seeking convictions) say these laws aren't necessary and that nobody has needed to be held beyond 14 days since last summer?

"We are not talking about members of the public plucked from obscurity and held on nothing and for no good reason."

Innocent people have been plucked from obscurity, tried, convicted, imprisoned and even killed before now. That was with ALL the checks and balances and the rigor of a full trial in place. I really doubt they will suddenly become infallible by removing them.

Pete

The issue is not with my being unwilling to shift on the issue. Since neither group is, that cannot be solely levelled at moi.

The argument should be won on merit and i do believe we have merit. I am more in favour of a full open debate on the issue around judicial reviews and safeguards which are of course paramount, rather than simply saying NO as you guys are. Which you are. Being intransigeant on this complex debate with a piece of old parchment is no substitute for argument on the issues of 2008. We ain't talking about individuals plucked out of obscurity for no reason and against whom there isn't already credible MOUNTING evidence.

"a timeless issue"

Yes time comes into it. We are no longer just speculating about suicide bombers. London experienced them on July 7. That alone tilts the balance in favour of new measures. There is a strong case for allowing the police to detain suspected terrorists for longer than 28 days and we should afford that concern for human life a dignified debate and still consider judicial protections for these particular criminals. We are capable of getting balance and with that all in mind i would want a sunset clause on the legislation.

The issue is that you guys are being absolutists (and frankly you guys laying into Maggie earlier was an appauling example of intellectual snobbery on the issue and entirely what ive come to expect where civil liberties are concerned).

The point about Davis is that he contradicted your own views. I would have preferred him to lead the Tories actually.

Frank - see links.

I don't actually think people have thought about what is even involved here. Again these are not individuals plucked out of obscurity for no reason and against whom there isn't already credible MOUNTING evidence. And there is a time threat in each case.

Alison

If Maggie, you, I, Pete, Mahons and anyone else wants to wade into this thread then all of us have got to expect responses we may not like. Maggie doesn't need defending or being treated with kid gloves , nor does anyone else.

No I don't Colm and I also think anyone who is an Americano should not be entering into a thread to do with UK law on holding suspects without trial. Now all US contributors read very slowly - it reads 42 days without trial not six years. Of course we need not have passed a law and just shipped suspects off to the Isle of Wight or the Emerald Isle, would that have suited you all better. As for Mahons remark at 4.59 my reply is ...What? No more replies from me. I am going to watch the US PGA. Far more interesting.

Colm

I am fully entitled to defend and/or agree with Maggie's views (i concured with her and directed comments TO her not for her). That said I am also fully entitled to give an opinion on the manner of the unfolding argument.

Pete,

Allow me to point out the cynicism regards Mr Davis.

"I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons representing our constituents was a noble endeavour because with centuries or forebears we defended the freedoms of the British people. *Well we did up until yesterday*"

Really? And your point was that our freedoms have been eroded since 1979, a specific date since that is when the Tories came to power. Davis is essentially suggesting that the Tories defend freedoms better than Labour. It's political posturing and not in the least bit noble. Even if he did quote MC.

Maggie: And you intend to limit your participation on ATW to British female golf fan's issues? Sorry, I will happily weigh in as I encourage everyone to weigh in on issues involving the U.S. Plus this issue involves us all as we face a common adversary.

"we need not have passed a law and just shipped suspects off to the Isle of Wight or the Emerald Isle"

If you mean discussed and debated and held up to scrutiny then yup. Heh! That is why i find David's views on this (given his opinion on Gitmo) slightly off centre.

>>you guys laying into Maggie earlier<<

Alison, did anyone say that Maggie couldn't give a rats arse if a terrorist blew a few people to bits?

No, but that's exactly what you said about Pete Moore.

It is simply wrong for anyone regardless of which side of the argument they hold to bring the victims of terror into the thread in a manner designed to imply a disrespectful attitude on the part of their opponents.

So, at the end of the day, just why did he resign? Personal gain - or what? To make a political point, or perhaps just because he does actually believe in the freedoms as declared by Magna Carta.

That he was prepared to resign, when he could have kept quiet, must indicate a degree of integrity not seen for many a day. He really did put his job 'on-the-line' didn't he?

Re the polls in favour of the 42 days, - I hope Brown, or whoever, takes equal note of the poll on whether or not to have a vote on the EU constitution, you know, the one he promised us...and which has an even larger percentage 'in favour'.

Very good point Ernest. There is a much stronger moral argument for politicians accepting public opinion on the case for a referendum , which does actually involve transferring British sovereign powers than there is on th 42 days business, which involves as it should MPs listening and voting according to merits of argument rather than pure populism.

Alison -

The argument should be won on merit ...

Enough then with your accusations that your opponents dont care about victims of terror.

I am more in favour of a full open debate on the issue around judicial reviews and safeguards ...

It seems to me you're not. Yesterday I pointed out the absurd and contrived nature of the government's proposed safeguards, safeguards that would see no cases go to trial, and you stopped debating them. By the way, I am an absolutist and not at all inclined to discuss safeguards since the notion of 42 days detention is loathsome.

I described habeas corpus a timeless principle, not a timeless isse.

We are no longer just speculating about suicide bombers. London experienced them on July 7. That alone tilts the balance in favour of new measures.

Yet again, this is ludicrous. 42 days detention would not have prevented 7/7. You're becoming tedious with this irrelevency.

And your point was that our freedoms have been eroded since 1979, a specific date since that is when the Tories came to power.

Yes. The Thatcher governments undoubtedly brought about needed economic reforms in what had become a socialist basket-case of a nation by 1979. But - as I've said in here before - she was a revolutionary more than a conservative. The British state has now the fundamental structure and mechanism of a police state. This process started way before the Thatcher era, but it certainly accelerated under her before moving into warp speed following her. I'll go into it another time.

Ernest Young -

So, at the end of the day, just why did he resign?

Davis has long been on the libertarian wing of the Tory Party. It's always healthy to treat politicians and their statements as hazardous material, but I believe he's being straight here.

In any case, quite unexpectedly and to my absolute delight, liberty is front and centre of stage.

Maggie , The 42 day detention period will no more prevent the next "terror" attack than any detention can , when people are detained the act has already taken place . It is not a protective measure and will do nothing to safeguard you or anyone else from evil doers .

It is a PR gift to the terrorists because it permits abuse like the Guilford Four and Maguire Seven incidents.

Taking time out...yes I love American golf mahons. The Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven, in my opinin, were all as guilty as sin...please note the Police made statements after saying they were not looking for anyone else for these incidents. I do not give a rat's arse for any suspected terrorist held for 42 days, I am bloody sure you won't get that sort of treatment i.e. 42 days for running a **** red light.

No, perhaps the prospect of a long detention will not lessen the risk of terrorism, and maybe the Police should take a little less time, but if you are doing nothing wrong you have absolutely sweet fa to worry about. Comprendrez.

ps back to the golf. By the way Croatia beat Germany 2 nil, you have no idea how much better I feel about the English team now. Goodnight all sleep well in your respective war zones. Rest assured Gordon is doing his best for you. BTW thank you Alison for all help proffered, much needed in this male chauvinist pig zone.

Maggie: British Law is not subject to opinion, but proof, which is why it served as a model instead of a charade.

If you think soemone disagreeing with you is male chauvinism then indeed you should go to bed.

Maggie

I think you were guilty of planting IRA bombs in the seventies in my opinion.

Pete

At no point have you acknowledged the points i made and linked to regards the issues the police face. And since that is at the crux of the issue i won't be pulled on the canard regards safeguards when i would in fact fully support an essential and better focused debate on those.

I raised them yesterday as you were implying this debate was about a blanket stripping regular Joes of their rights without much else. It is not.

It is equally tedious that you cannot bring yourself to acknowdledge the issues and debate them for what they are. But instead BOLDLY suggest they would not have prevented 7/7 as if all terror incidents are the same and once again you are able to determine this. And ignoring again the links i supplied and the issues with the protracted MOS case.

So are you concerned with the issues we face or not? I don't see it as in any way 'irrelevant' (eh Noel)

Have you considered the issue of the suspects held at 28 days already? Do you consider the complexities of the cases and the time factors involved mean we should simply disregard the request? Are you happy to accept that the people we are talking have a balance of evidence stacked against them already that means we are not talking about innocent happy go lucky noones here? But that the issue is about ensuring the complex evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction and get as much out of the pursuit of evidence as possible (leading to other groups)? Would you be happy to accept a full and robust parliamentary debate on those rather than a total denial that we should even have one?

Can i just point out again that the parents of the woman who died formed a lobby group in favour of the 42 day detention issue. They made their daughters death political and I salute them for it in the face of such dismissive attitudes towards essential liberty.

Maggie - seriously don't bother. They are just in it for the big swinging dig not the issues.

Now the name calling seems to be done, - a slightly different look at the man, the party and an inside view of his actions.

If there was ever a better sign that the Tories still don't really 'get it', some of the following remarks might cast a light.

"But Conservative insiders now believe Mr Davis has “lost the plot.”

What 'plot' exactly - the one that says 'power at any cost', and never mind the means?

"Some Tory MPs were left bemused by Mr Davis’s decision. With the Tories a long way ahead in the polls and favourites to win the next election, Mr Davis could have been Home Secretary within two years if he had stayed on the front bench."

Even if that means selling his soul for something that he seems to believe in vey passionately.

"One ally of Mr Cameron said: “It is a very odd thing to do. He looks like a slightly tired old man now who has missed his chance as leader. He has acted in haste and will probably regret it when he’s simply another backbencher"

So typically bitchy, so typically jealous of 'the better man', so typically Tory.

The Labourites are all cock-a-hoop, making the usual asisnine remarks, - but then, that's what the do so well, and is too be expected. MRDA

It is quite obvious that the Tories still feel they are responsible for their lead in the polls, and all without doing anything other than talk. They think that all they have to do is sit on their hands, and wait.

I think that a man who knowingly puts his career on the line for a belief or principal is to be admired, that we have so few in our Parliament is to our national shame.

The quotes are from the DT Online.

p.s. Just read that UKIP hopes he will feel as strongly about our freedoms and the EU, when the time comes..

Alison

What do you mean by the 'big swinging dig' comment . Are you suddenly calling for a sexist attitude to be implemented here on ATW. Do you want the males here to be patronising to the weaker sex by not engaging in robust argument with them. Do you want female commenters here to be treated only according to their 'weaker' gender and patted on the head ?

Why are you insisting on bringing chauvinism and so called macho posturing claims into this debate where it just isn't relevent. Do you actually want to be treated with equality or not ?