Government wins on 42 days detention with just 9 votes

[edam]

Shameful. We are now no better than a rogue state. NO other democracy in the world detains people without trial for such a length of time.

Particular shame on the DUP - their MPs' nine votes got the government through. Wonder what backroom deal they did?

I dont really understand why this is so awful? (genuine question)
If the cases are complex, is it so awful to extend the limit by two weeks?

Humm. Over the top I think. Most other European countries have nothing like this.

I dunno, does Gordy want to be seen to be being tough on terror? I like Gordy, but I'm struggling. I wish he would ring me up at 6 am in the morning.

But surely this is all academic as the Lords will throw it out?

Can still get through without the Lords tho?

I too am very suspicious. But - unnervingly, since I usually am - completely convinced by the anti arguments. In response to the 'no other democracy arguments, for example, I wonder whether any other democracy has the particular abusive colonialism-thence-(could be termed abusive) immigration history which Britain has, and which MIGHT (please note 'might') make us most likely, amongst all similar nations, to have fostered a situation in which second-gen immigrants might be most suggestible. Have to go, but v interested in others' thoughts.

I realize that I'm going to get shat on for this btw.

Also realize that this is not a de facto argument for 42 detention - but there have been several, haven\t there, where computer evidence was so complex that it couldn't be unravelled in 28? v rushed as you can see

onebatmother - people can easily be held for not co-operating with police re. investigating their computer files etc.. it is an offence I believe. This travesty is purely an attempt to save GBs sorry ass and make him look tough like Tone. The really bad bit is that if you take it together with section 3 of SCOPA people can be arrested for almost anything. 3000 more arresatble offences since 1997 I think And do you trust this govt? think Walter bloke at Labour Conference not to mention anti-terrorist RIPA legislation being used by councils for daft reasons (school catchment etc.) and then think again. Loads (2 mill?) of ordinary people protested against the war on Iraq, many of them for the first time. With legislation like this in place how comfortable would many people feel with doing that?(remember they don't have to tell you why you're being held, effectively you can be disappeared for weeks). Many people would feel apprehensive - what if they were picked up by accident etc..They have torn the heart out of Magna Carta for no good reason - "Those who would trade their liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Thos. Paine 17??. Aaah but what about 'terra'? What about the Spanish Armada, what about the blitz, what about the IRA? Terrorists who want to blow themselves up will do maybe we should just 'feel the fear and do it anyway'. I hated Margaret and the Tories- being trained up to say 'Thatcher Thatcher milk snatcher'from a baby. I helped for 2 years in the run up to the 1997 election and punched the air pint in hand as Portillo's face came on the screen but have grown to hate these unprincipled mendacious tossers with a passion. If you want to see how to respond to terrorism look at the vid (Youtube) of Thatch immediately post Brighton bomb. I will be voting Tory at the next election and for almost all my 41 years would never ever have believed it possible.

Agree this is utterly shameful. Internment without trial has been tried before and it has been shown that it serves only to make terrorists' arguments more convincing. And I cannot concieve of any circumstance where it would actually be useful. If you have held someone for 28 days and been unable to find any reason to charge them, what use is an extra two weeks? And after six weeks those who have been wrongly held will have found their businesses damaged, their work gone... Almost by definition those suspects will fit a particular profile - what better way to actually turn them or their loved ones toward extremism?

In the past few years detention without trial has gone from 24 hours to 48 hours to 14 days to 28 days. To me that is the most shocking erosion of civil liberties. Brown initially wanted 56 days. When will this stop?

And I want to hear more about these "backroom deals" with the DUP

Well said, Sticky!

Upwind, dunno what the DUP is getting out of it - more money for their pet projects, maybe. But there's been talk of Labour MPs being offered knighthoods, safe seats being dangled before people facing deselection... they've used every trick in the books to buy the votes necessary to get this appalling affront to democracy through.

FGS, NO other country finds this necessary (the govt. was caught out lying about Italy) and lots of other countries are threatened by terrorism. The Spanish didn't bring in internment after the Madrid bomb, did they? AND they had an empire, if that's relevant.

i feel your rage edam,
but they said they couldnt smell panic yet in house of commons so sounded like some plenty backroom deals were done
this is sick and i am ashamed to be honest

did you hear talk of hefty compensation if held after 28 days but no charges brought after 42?

its a sad day for democracy i do agree

mmind you they also said 2/3rds of public agree, is that so?

still rushed but -

lots of other countries are threatened by terrorism. - yes but none with the very particular circs that I detailed above.

Also" onebatmother - people can easily be held for not co-operating with police re. investigating their computer files etc.. it is an offence I believe." yes - I am talking about situations where the evidence which already exists is so complex in its poss connections etc, that it's not poss to go through in 48 hours.

I'm shocked and depressed by this government victory -- that habeas copus can be even further eroded even though MI5 has not asked for this and the govt is basically saying 'ok we don't need it but one day, you know, we might.

Even their competance to exercise this power is suspect -- look at the farcical and abusive treatment of that british citizen mistakenly deported to Pakistan.

Brown said today that national safety is the priority. How many times has national safety been invoked to justify oppression -- from the French rev onwards?

People have already been driven to mental illness by detention under terror laws. And I agree with the important worry that measures like this will tend to increase extremism.

GB is lost and it pains me to say that as I am a big fan. I believe in his integrity and integrity is a dirty word now. He is just lost. Trying to win the battle with spin and tabloids, its gone - he can;t win, they won't give him time and he has bollocked it up. End of. Pple will vote Tory. I won't tho.

what stickybun said!

It's a total disgrace, am really ashamed of our government tonight. As dh said earlier, when you have a news piece with the director of Liberty and the Tory shadow home secretary standing side by side agreeing, you know you're in trouble.

And aren't there emergency powers already available for the kind of, er, emergency that they say they want these new powers for? They don't need them, they just want them and it's the thin end of the wedge. High hopes that the Lords will chuck it straight back at them.

onebat, lots of European countries had empires. Spain, France, the Netherlands, Denmark... and they all have immigrants, too. Don't see any of them introducing internment. As I pointed out, Spain suffered the Madrid bombing, and ETA has been around for decades.

even though MI5 has not asked for this and the govt is basically saying 'ok we don't need it but one day, you know, we might.

yes tat is the strongest arg against.

People have already been driven to mental illness by detention under terror laws.
And by imprisonment for crim offences - no arg in itself I don't think.

Am wanting to be conv here (though not really capable of debating properly bcs of RL)..

The Lords will block it and it cannot practically get through without the Lords. If the Lords overturn it then the Commons will have to vote again (will more Labour MPs be braver the second time round, will the DUP abstain having got their money already?). Even if the Commons voted for it again the Lords would overturn it again. It would "ping-pong" between the two Houses and if the Lords refused to back down then the Bill would be lost in November (end of the Parliamentary session). The Government would not want to risk losing the whole Bill so would probably compromise.

If they did lose the Bill they could theoretically introduce it again in the next session and if the Lords still refused to compromise then after a few months the Government could pass it without consent of the Lords. This procedure (passing without consent of the Lords) is highly unusual and controversial and has been used a handful of times in history. To use it on a point such as this, where the Lords are experts and the Commons voted for it by such a slim majority, would be v controversial.

edam - good point.

No, I think the Commons can in law overule the Lords (will check). Surely. Makes sense. Yes? (hopefully?)

Niceglasses - see my post below. Its called the Parliament Act 1949.

And the idea of chucking £3k at anyone detained for 42 days but not charged is just ludicrous. It's so daft it would disgrace a Year 6 schoolkid doing a project, let alone a bloody actual elected government. Even if they did pretend to actually bring it in, they'd just release people on day 41 and say 'sorry, no cash'. And how on earth can you offer £3k to one bunch of prisoners but not anyone else? Why not people remanded on burglary charges but not convicted? What about people detained for seven days, or 12, or 22?

And I'm sure £3k would really make it all worthwhile for some poor bugger who is imprisoned for six weeks without even knowing what they are accused of.

thanks, onebat.

From what artichokes says, it does seem that the bill is more likely than not to fail ultimately.

There is no other way for the Commons to overrule the Lords than the procedure I outlined below. If the Lords are brave and keep refusing to agree to 42 days then there is NO WAY the Bill can be passed this session.

I wouldn't be so sure about the Lords blocking it, although one lives in hope. In practice, they very rarely flout the will of the elected house.