´óÏó´«Ã½

Hello Simon,
Not necessarily tonight, but could it be worth looking at the GMB putting the bite on financial support for individual Labour MP's, at a time when Labour's finances are in such a mess, as being another move towards the restoration of Left/Right politics, and the end of Blairism.

On 42 days I suggested compare the governments position with the US where they have 8 days I believe. One simple position for a government spokesman to defend against say Shami Chakrrabati. They can't obfuscate or distract.

Why do we need so long and nobody else in the world does. Its arbitrary, machismo orientated froth that undermines our civil liberties.

It works and it is important.

thegangofone: actually our detention times are quite short compared to most of Europe. In many EU countries (especially France) you can be detained for years on the order of a single magistrate and with less evidence than would be needed for a charge to be made in the UK.

I'm personally against the 42 days for the simple reason that as we've never even needed the full 28 days yet why on earth would we need 42? A recent terror investigation in Nottingham was cleared up within 6 days.

That said there is no defence against Shami Chakrrabati. If we gave people to right to carry AK47's in the street she's claim the government were oppressing peoples rights to carry anti-tank weapons. I'm sure in her ideal world the entire criminal justice system would be abolished in order to protect peoples essential liberties.

#2

I was unclear. "It works and it is important." referred to the idea of how to expose the government position, not the 42 day extension .

Also they key issues in exposing the government position are:

1. Our cases are not more complex than theirs.
2. They cannot be 5 times more efficient than us.

If they try to use the argument of differing legal systems then Chakrrabati (Liberty of course) probably has the nouse to shoot them to bits.

#3

Nooottttttttttttt Peter_Sym! Thats the point.

Chakrrabati took that notion apart on Question Time last week. Milliband looked like a vacuous but clever child. He had to know that what he was saying was rubbish.

In Italy which is often cited they charge within 4 days. I don't know enough about law to indicate how inquistorial systems differ from ours but it is a fallacy that in France or Italy etc you don't get charged. With Meredith Kichner the suspects have not been tried (I think) but they have been charged.

I agree with you in that I would not get distressed about the 28 days even though I thionk it is already too long..

Are you sure Multibrand is not flying back merely to go through the appropriate division?

The anti Shami Chakrrabati league is already underway, i am presently working on the flyer design. You may see me on a roof top very shortly.

thegangofone: 'being charged' is meaningless if you're not actually tried in a reasonable amount of time. Fundamentally whats the difference between being held (uncharged) and questioned and being held (charged) and questioned?* In either case you're in jail and haven't been found guilty of anything.

28 days is very long, but at least a magistrate reviews it every 7 days so you do need a reasonable amount of evidence against you to be held that long. As I said in my first post a recent case in Nottingham where a student downloaded an Al Queda handbook and then e-mailed it to an illegal immigrant was resolved within 6 days.

*in many EU countries people who've been charged CAN be questioned after the charge is made. I'd support that as a better solution to our current system. Virtually all our 'terror suspects' are guilty of something that would warrant prosecution (illegal immigration or possession of prohibited material usually) so be charged for one offfence then questioned over others.

#6 Assuming Multibrand is Milliband I doubt that he is coming back to arrange for moving into No. 10 as its too early for that.

I have heard it said that Jacqui Smith is a candidate but if they lose the 42 days vote - on merit they should - then that was her moment in the sun.

Personally I think Jack "the rat" Straw (as Barabara Castle used to refer to him I believe) would be a caretaker whilst Labour disintegrates. Its a poisoned chalice right now.

Think of Hague.

#8 Peter_Sym

I am not a lawyer.

On charge/detention the difference is if there is due process the accusations can be challenged. If people can just be picked up it is easy to abuse. There is no audit trail.

I think we already charge on a specimen basis and it can be a long time before the trial and other charges.

As for the Nottingham case I agree and that is my point.

Bottom line if in the US they charge after 8 days (I think) why do we need so long?

#7 thecookieducker
Given the size of Shami Chakrrabati I think you won't be standing on a house top but on a rabbit warren on Wimbledon Heath!

'Tomorrow sees the crucial 42 day parliamentary vote and David Miliband has cut short his trip to fly back today to help lead the debate.'

I'm sorry, but as I don't know as much as I evidently am expected to, maybe someone might help with explaining what trip and where, and why he was there and now needs to come back to 'help' 'lead' this debate? Was he on holiday? Or on UK business? If so what is happening to the overseas responsibilities in the interim. Is he going back? I am a little confused as to how all this gadding about works. Was the date a last minute surprise to the diary? Is his presence essential? Who pays?

I am sure there are good reasons and explanations, but a lot seems to have been taken as read. Having been given a hint at the situation, it would be nice to know the full story.

thegangofone: copying any US procedure in regards to terrorist investigations (no matter how sensible) is political suicide because Chakrabbati plus the collected readers of the Guardian and Independent will start screaming about Guantanimo. Unlike the US we've had anti-terrorism laws for 40 years. They suddenly realised that there WAS terrorism on 9/11 and had to play catch up fast.

People ARE picked up whether they're 'guilty' or not (and there's a big difference between being guilty and being found guilty in a court) and the evidence needed to charge someone doesn't have to be watertight... just good enough for the crown to have a case. A lot of people charged are never actually tried but can spend 6 months on remand and far more are charged but found not guilty at trial. You don't need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to charge someone... far from it.

In any case, my prefered option of charge someone for a crime that CAN be proven easily (i.e if the suspect is an illegal immigrant charge them with visa fraud) then question them about other more serious crimes while on remand ensures that no truly innocent person is detained for too long. Even Chakrabbati would be reluctant to argue that people truly guilty of a crime shouldn't be detained for commiting that crime.

I am with Grumpy-jon the first posting. Perhaps if not tonight but can Newsnight get the GMB on to the prog. and ask the Gen.Sec. how starving the Labour party of money and probably ensuring a Tory Governmnet is going to benefit his workers and Unions in General?

Or have I slept for a number of years and am waking up to a Tory Governmnet that is going to look after the workers and the low paid.

If so, it has been the biggest conversion since St.Paul, on the Road to Damascus.

The point of the US comparison is to show how ridiculous our moves towards 42 days are not to copy them. They are not soft on terrorism by anyones standards.

I think whilst I may be missing the point with the second two paragraphs the procedures are actually currently used as with your immigrant charge scenario. I could be wrong and not being a lawyer should probably say no more.

I think we both agree that 28 days is not ideal but isn't worth arguing about.

As for the comments regarding Chakrabbati - I have heard her say dozens of times that we do need proper anti-terrorist legislation. She doesn't want to get blown up any more than me or you.

Her position is I think harder than those terrorist-luvin a-whoopin bandeets the Americans.

That tells you quite a lot about the government proposals

PRAGMATISM

Is detention such a problem when you can shoot the guy? After that you know where he is one way or the other.

We are told there are 2000 of 'them' out there, plotting. We presumably know where they are too, or the claim would be disingenuous; perish the thought.

I think '42 days' belongs with fox hunting as a spoof issue. Whatever number they settle for, no marked suspect (or fox) will go free.

thegangofone: No. Under current laws once you're charged you enter the prison system and the police can't question you, except under very limited circumstances (usually a special request to a magistrate is required and you're not obliged to help them). Once the police charge you effectively they've put their cards on the table.

The problem with Islamic terrorism is that it IS a special legal case: its one of the very few crimes when you have to attempt to prove someones intention rather than something they've actually done. Once a suicide bomber has actually commited his crime he's beyond any earthly justice. As a result getting evidence strong enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt is very hard, more so as the police can't leave someone they strongly suspect of terrorism on the street without risking a De Menezes situation when officers suddenly think he's going to commit an act of terrorism.

Regarding the US law- they cheat. The 8 days is effectively saved for easy cases against US citizens. Anyone hard to make a case against or who's considered especially dangerous, or who isn't a US citizen becomes an 'enemy combatant' and is put beyond civil justice on Cuba.

Equally if Chakrabbati can list her proposals for 'proper' anti-terror laws I'll listen. Forgive me if I think they'll be ineffective though.. I don't see how 'proper' anti-terror legislation could ever be compatible with her total opposition to retaining DNA, use of wiretap evidence etc.

#13 Billbradbury

Haven't the Unions been threatening this sort of action for years? Was 10p not the final straw? Was that in working peoples interests? Does New Labour want to be identified with Unions or with investment bankers - like the one who turned down the general secretary position - apparently due to the financial risk of liability.

I can't say that I expect people like Boris to emerge as the Peoples Champions but Labour credibility does not exist anymore.

I too would like to see an item that discussed Labour finances. But I am more interested in the ongoing Abraham investigation and how come the Labour Party say they are buoyant when donors and members are evaporating before our eyes.

If the dosh exists where did it come from?

barriesingleton wrote:

"I think '42 days' belongs with fox hunting as a spoof issue. Whatever number they settle for, no marked suspect (or fox) will go free"

As approx half of the those detained under anti-terror laws have gone free I'd love to see your evidence for that claim. So far one innocent man has been shot dead (de Menezes) and one (probably) innocent man (Forest Gate) has been wounded.

As I've stated in my previous posts just a couple of weeks ago a student at Nottingham uni who unquestionably had downloaded terrorist material and passed it onto another man was released in 6 days without any bullet wounds at all!

#16 Peter_Sym

I don't represent or probably even know fully the views of Chakrrabati - but I think she is in favour of wiretap evidence as are many civil liberties proponents. Its the government who is against it as I believe they think it will expose MI5 procedures. "Proper" was my word.

The DNA argument is I think partially about practicality and partially privacy. Lost data disks; ID cards that could be used to monitor each individuals location etc etc

She is not a friend of terrorists as you try to paint her and many Labour, Lib Dem and Tories agree with her I believe.

Regarding the US cheating I think that depends on where they get caught doesn't it.

I will take your word for it on paragraphs 1. Partially thats because there are some workmen drilling in the corridor outside so I can't think. Partially thats because I am no lawyer.

For Paragraph 2 I think everybody agrees we need to keep our laws in line with the fight against terrorists. The police do do a difficult job but when they ask for powers that other countries like the US don't feel they need its sensible to ask questions.

A list of the 638 "worst performing" secondary schools was published today with Ed Balls announcing a £400 million drive to raise exam results by turning 70 of them into Academies. But 26 of the schools listed ARE academies, including those which opened to great governmental fanfare 4 or 5 years ago because of their involvement with private schools and those whose philanthropic patrons were subsequently knighted. Barnsley, Manchester, Northampton, Paddington, Sheffield Park, Sheffield Spring and Walthamstow are all listed (all run by the United Learning Trust headed by Sir Ewan Harper) as are the Bexley Business Academy (Sir David Garrard), Capital City (Sir Frank Lowe) etc. etc.

Perhaps someone could explain why this policy is still being pursued (at great public expense) when it doesn't seem to be working?

thegangofone: 'Privacy' is like 'civil liberty' or 'freedom'. Its a meaningless word thrown about too much. Regarding DNA- the database seems totally practical and is highly effective. I can think of several rapists from the 1980's caught when they're DNA (taken for commiting minor crimes) was run through the database. As the database only contains a very small section of non-coding DNA its of no use to any insurance company etc and certainly couldn't be used to clone you or fabricate evidence so if any disc was lost the actual impact would be zero. I'd be MUCH more worried about my income tax records going AWOL as that could be used against me by ID fraudsters.

I'm not a lawyer but I AM a trained molecular biologist and I'd have no problem having my DNA fingerprint on record.

Equally ID cards that track you are Sci-Fi- no proposal is in place for that sort of thing and the technology would be impossible to produce on a nationwide scale. In any case if the government WANT to track you they can do so simply by using your mobile phone and/or traffic monitoring cameras. Protesting against a fictional tracking device when most of us freely carry one voluntarily and can't wait to upgrade to the latest model seems perverse in the extreme.

I'd ask why any innocent person would want to hide his identity from the police is asked as part of an enquiry.

I don't think Chakrabbati is a friend of criminals per say but her rigid adhernence to absolute principal without any real idea of implementing these policies in a real world serve the law breaker far more than the average law abiding citizen. I don't mind if my DNA is on record but a serial sex offender will!

While you are looking at the failure of 'Education, Education, Education', spare a thought as well for the Polyclinics stitch-up, which is being accomplished by too little communication, biased questionnaire surveys and 'bribes' at the 'consultation' exercise shams...

This is a disgrace, and I hope you can find airtime to cover it, before it becomes an another fait accompli....

ARE WE DOING IRELAND?

Talking of stitchups: whichever side in the Irish referendum comes up with a belated, blatent lie, could swing it.

Remember Wilson's pound in your pocket, and Heath's EU trading agreement?

Surely a bit of blarney is due?

STALIN Mr BEAN Cpl JONES

DONT PANIC! (No 10)
Phew. that's the fuel rush averted.

ANICIA BARD #20

You ask why government pursues failed policies. The same reason that Brown still tries to smile.

To repeat a previous posting: Westminster is a Palace of Anomaly. It Attracts and holds a strange type of individual; one who does not stand up for us and denounce Westminster stupidity, nihilism and vacuous ritual, but joins in. When election time arrives, each party offers us one of these aberrants, such that we may choose a red weirdo, a yellow weirdo or a blue weirdo. Should some normal person, of competence and integrity, known in their community as honourable and of substance, stand as an independent, the gullible, childlike voters, motivated by comfort and fear, will vote for a pretty coloured rosette (unless some local crisis has popular appeal). Each party grouping of oddballs, elevates one of their number on ‘merit’ – that is, of course, oddball-merit. Whichever party wins the election, their oddest-ball goes to the palace to become endowed with a level of power even a saint should not have.

This has been going on for a very long time. The effect is a re-distillation of 'essence of weird' into 'elixir of weird'. Have a look at what Vaclav Havel said about 'Living within the lie'. Oh - weeping helps.

Thanks Dan!

I already did my blogging on the sister page.

::)