David Davis resigns as MP over civil liberties

[danny la rouge]

Until recently, people accused of something - suspects - had to be charged within 24 hours. (This then changed to 48 hours).

And before some other pedant comes along, this obviously only applies to people being detained. People can be questioned and released, and nevertheless still be a suspect. The police don't have a time limit between the moment they suspect someone and charging them in those circumsances, only between the moment they bang someone up and charging them.

 

[poster342002]

Perhaps. If ID cards are compulsory, then the police can use that to arrest any old person (I don't carry my passport anywhere unless I'm off on my hols), if they are not compulsory then the only objection I have to them is why should I pay £80 when I've just paid £80 for my passport? Unless they replace passports and I don't have to buy an ID card until my passport has run out!

ID cards will be compulsory by defualt. If you don't have one, expect to be refused service by every organisation that decides to demand it before serving you.

The 42 days, I'm not sure. I had asked if anyone knew of any legal analysis from Liberty groups that might shed light on whether this law could be used against non-terror suspects. If the law can only be used on terror suspects, then maybe I won't be too bothered, but if Leeds Council can throw me in a cell for 42 days because I put the wrong kind of rubbish in my green bin then perhaps I'd be a little concerned...

And, by then, it'll be too late.

 

[elbows]

What is all this about Shami Chakrabarti threatening to sue a Cabinet minister?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7463925.stm

I am all for the exposure of dodgy tacticcs in politics & the press, but this hardly seems like a real bad character assassination, and more importantly..


Its not about the main issue, its a sideshow, aaarghgghgh

 

[El Jefe]

What is all this about Shami Chakrabarti threatening to sue a Cabinet minister?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7463925.stm

I am all for the exposure of dodgy tacticcs in politics & the press, but this hardly seems like a real bad character assassination, and more importantly..


Its not about the main issue, its a sideshow, aaarghgghgh

You don't think the way it portray Chakrabarti is totally demeaning and arguably pretty fucking misogynist ("ooh, she may disagree with him but cos she's just a girly she can't help swooning over him anyway")?

 

[elbows]

Yes I do, and she has a right to be pissed off, and so do lots of other people regardless of their genital configuration.

I am not happy that the media, politicians and other humans still feel it is acceptable to talk about women in these terms.

I guess I jsut generally dislike threats to sue, they seem even more perverse when they come from Liberty, and I dont want sideshows instead of a debate about the big brother issues. Its all about the usual few personalities who are visible in the media, and pointless bickering about words that come out of their mouths.

 

[magneze]

So it seems that Labour aren't going to run but instead will snipe from the sidelines. Yeah, cos that'll make the voters warm to them...

FFS, do these people live in the real world at all?!

 

[elbows]

Or maybe I am out of line for referring to it as a sideshow. Its an important issue, I just cannot hide my frustration that what personalities are saying and doing is whats being focussed on, instead of the big brother stuff.

I would like to see some sensible debates about sexism etc, because half the time the media seems to pretend these issues were solved long ago. The problem is that like several other equality issues, all the players have earnt to use the right language, and to look as if they are solving the issues, but the dark underbelly of long-held prejudices and iffy worlviews still lurks.

On the otherhand even if equality were gained throughout most of human society, politics would still be a dirty game where people will be attacked in personal terms?

I dont much like the way certain things Obama's wife is saying is being handled by some sections of the American press rgiht now, but thats going way off topic so I'll stop ranting now.

 

[elbows]

So it seems that Labour aren't going to run but instead will snipe from the sidelines. Yeah, cos that'll make the voters warm to them...

FFS, do these people live in the real world at all?!

Yeah I aint quite sure who the smears were supposed to impress. I guess the general labour strategy is to make as much of a mockery of the election as possible?

I found it equally sickening that Labour still have the nerve to highlight the Tories lack of true love for civil liberties, considering what Labour have done.

Would all of this have been possible without the war on terror? Well I guess CCTV, DNA and some terrorism acts started before 9/11 so I guess so.

Is permanent detention for watching Pop Idol one of the few Big Bro policies that would cause mass protest these days?

 

[soulman]

So the 'left' response is:

 

[Dravinian]

So the 'left' response is:

That is not what they are doing, if you can even quantify the posters who responded in this thread as the 'left'.

They are waiting. For a better candidate and a better opportunity.

I am doubtful that such an opportunity will ever present itself so they may well up doing nothing, but they would argue that is not what they are doing.

 

[trevhagl]

What would be the point in putting up a left candidate when he has such a majority and also, he is doing the only decent thing i've ever known a Tory do?

 

[Dravinian]

What would be the point in putting up a left candidate when he has such a majority and also, he is doing the only decent thing i've ever known a Tory do?

As I said earlier all it will achieve is a watering down of support as each sides supporters opt for the party political option.

 

[danny la rouge]

So the 'left' response is:

Three questions:

Who is this 'left' to whom you refer?
How have you gleaned the nugget that their response is to do nothing?
What would you have them do?
Why aren't you doing it?

That's four...the four questions are...no, no...amongst my principal questions are...

 

[newbie]

And before some other pedant comes along, this obviously only applies to people being detained. People can be questioned and released, and nevertheless still be a suspect. The police don't have a time limit between the moment they suspect someone and charging them in those circumsances, only between the moment they bang someone up and charging them.

AIUI once charges are brought the suspect can't be subsequently interviewed by the police. During the debate on the 2006 bill Davis argued that changing this in terrorism cases would be a "smaller infringement of our traditions of liberty and justice by comparison with the proposed 90-day extension."

I don't know if that's still his position, if it is he seems to want to trade one 'liberty' against another, but with the same end result.

 

[weltweit]

Well it is all very well David Davis making this principled stand but as Kelvin Mackenzie is now not to stand against him, there will now be little competition and David Davis may be limited to trying to have his debate with the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

So how will this great debate actually take place now?
Between which parties will it occur?
How will the re-election of David Davis prove anything relating to the issues of freedom?

Has he now chucked away the shadow home secretarys job, and the likely next home secretary position, for next to nothing?

 

[trevhagl]

Well it is all very well David Davis making this principled stand but as Kelvin Mackenzie is now not to stand against him, there will now be little competition and David Davis may be limited to trying to have his debate with the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

So how will this great debate actually take place now?
Between which parties will it occur?
How will the re-election of David Davis prove anything relating to the issues of freedom?

Has he now chucked away the shadow home secretarys job, and the likely next home secretary position, for next to nothing?

No, he's got respect from all quarters. Something most MP's never will have

 

[weltweit]

I don't think he has.

Labour are ignoring him, because that defuses any debate on the issues in this constituancy. And if there is no debate then there is no changing of opinion polls, opinion polls which support 48 days.

His own party is handling him at arms length for fear of what he might commit or attempt to commit them to, i.e. the label of being soft on crime which they do not want to be labelled with.

He himself has given up the shadow home secretary position, possibly the most relevant position to actually do something about these issues to start a debate which it appears the tory party do not really want to have and it appears he has given up hope of returning to the shadow cabinet after this charade.

How is he going to have a great debate if there is no one to oppose him?

How is his re-election going to prove anything if no one opposes him?

 

[soulman]

Three questions:

Who is this 'left' to whom you refer?
How have you gleaned the nugget that their response is to do nothing?
What would you have them do?
Why aren't you doing it?

That's four...the four questions are...no, no...amongst my principal questions are...

To answer your four questions:

I'm leaving it deliberately vague to not leave anyone out. But I mean any individuals, groups, parties, federations etc., not from the right who could field a candidate.

Because it has gone quiet, and the momentum is being lost.

I would have them either stand as a candidate, or stand a candidate, to try to ensure maximum publicity concerning the whole raft of oppressive legislation that has been introduced by this government, and to highlight just how our civil liberties are being eroded. So try to keep the debate, such as it is, alive.

Because I don't live in the constituency, won't be voting, and don't have the experience or backing to stand as a candidate anyway.

 

[agricola]

Harriet Harman weighs into the "debate":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/20/daviddavis.byelections

Anyone like to lay odds that NL have actually been briefing behind the scenes that DD and Chakrabarti were actually having Ugandan discussions?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They are utterly muffing the PR. They've had the sense not to oppose him, but this half-arsed smearing is both keeping him in the headlines and making them look pathetic. Alastair Campbell must be laughing his bottom off.

 

[agricola]

They are utterly muffing the PR. They've had the sense not to oppose him, but this half-arsed smearing is both keeping him in the headlines and making them look pathetic. Alastair Campbell must be laughing his bottom off.

Indeed, though from a brief poll of the people I know it is at least getting Burnham known for something other than "Is that the one with the mascara?".

 

[Malamud]

No, he's got respect from all quarters. Something most MP's never will have

David Davis has NOT got respect from ALL quarters.

Many MP's have rightly been respected much higher that DD.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm leaving it deliberately vague to not leave anyone out. But I mean any individuals, groups, parties, federations etc., not from the right who could field a candidate.

"Not from the right" wouldn't be my normal definition of 'the left'.

I would have them either stand as a candidate, or stand a candidate, to try to ensure maximum publicity concerning the whole raft of oppressive legislation that has been introduced by this government, and to highlight just how our civil liberties are being eroded. So try to keep the debate, such as it is, alive.

I see. So a lot about standing a candidate.

Because I don't live in the constituency, won't be voting, and don't have the experience or backing to stand as a candidate anyway.

Again with the candidate stuff.

So basically, you want someone who isn't a Tory to stand as a candidate. But it isn't something you feel able to influence in any way.

 

[soulman]

"Not from the right" wouldn't be my normal definition of 'the left'.

I see. So a lot about standing a candidate.

Again with the candidate stuff.

So basically, you want someone who isn't a Tory to stand as a candidate. But it isn't something you feel able to influence in any way.

Did you miss where I said I was deliberately making it vague.

Yes. As a tactic I think it makes sense now.

Yes.

In terms of what could be achieved through the media I think a genuine pro-civil liberties, and anti politics candidate makes a lot more sense than standing someone for mayor of London.

 

[danny la rouge]

In terms of what could be achieved through the media I think a genuine pro-civil liberties, and anti politics candidate makes a lot more sense than standing someone for mayor of London.

I'd agree with that.

Any suggestions?

 

[TAE]

As far as I know, the local Labour candidate who would have stood against DD was also AGAINST 42 days, and that's why they decided not to contest.

 

[TAE]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/20/daviddavis.byelections

Harman said that Burnham was right to question why an organisation like Liberty was supporting a Conservative like Davis.

I think my head just exploded.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

DD site now allows comments: http://www.daviddavisforfreedom.com/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.news

 

[liampreston]

Socialist...who?

A leftist candidate is standing in the H&H by-election. Chris Talbot of the Socialist Equality Party has been nominated.

So that's at least some worry off the minds of posters here who felt there was no left/leftist/socialist candidate. Just one personal point....who are the Socialist Equality Party?!

 

[soulman]

http://www.socialequality.org.uk/