Top Tory resigns on principle over 42 days bill

Wow!

And I was considering many attempts at trumped up charges, to make a careeer out of it.

...dash!

A politician with principles?

I never suspected David Davis was in any way a man of principle. He's gone up a great deal in my opinion because of this.

That said...it's equally possible he's well aware he stands a very strong chance of being re-elected. I wonder if there's any real risk to his seat.

<no title>

So he has resigned from his party because they support his views on a particular topic. Must be a first.

Anyway I'd lay odds on that he'll win his safe seat back again. After invvoling all his constituents in the hassle of an unnecessary by-election. Still he got his face in the papers.

Bill has the support of 60% the public acording to latest polls........

I bet if those 60% were asked the question "Would you mind being locked up for up to 42 days whilst the police desperately search around every part of you life, your family and friends for a reason why they arrested you in the first place”, the percentages might lessen somewhat.

I'm reminded of Lincoln's quote about how, when he heard someone extoll the virtues of slavery, he felt the urge to see it practiced on them.

(I don't know where these 60% live 'cos I have not met one yet)

Shows how crap the BBC are at reporting.

At last someone fighting against this NuLab Nazi Government continually removing our rights all in the name of "anti terrorism". So how does "Aunty" report it - internal fighting within the Tories? WTF? This is not just over 42 days detention without trial, but ID cards, CCTV Surveillance society.

< no title >

<begin rant>

Hmm okay may it is a loss of civil liberties BUT how would you feel if the law hadn't passed and some "brainwashed" fundamentalist came along and blew up your office / town centre and killed innocent people and it emerged that hmm we could have gotten him if we had more time, we kept working and proved it but too late to prevent this...

That is how I see it, as for the Ulster MP's voting the way the voted - you forget they've all lived through not knowing if they will wake up the next day or when someone's going to try and blow them up or shot them because of who they are..

He shouldn't have resigned really he had a point to try and make, no-one listened so the toys got thrown out the pram and he resigned.

I mean let me think surely MP's are meant to vote for / against something based on what they believe in, how their constituents want them to as after all IF you voted them in, they have a duty to listen or is that just all lies and they just do as they please..

The labour rebels are just idiots, some may say GB is an idiot too at least he's trying to do something to protect YOU the public at large..

Hmm having seen MP's on TV, I've seen school kids better behaved.

<end rant>

"Robinson numpty"

Ex-ITV, innit. 'Nuff said.

As for Davis. Kudos for him for giving the electorate a chance to give Labour a good kicking in the polls. Woulda been nice to see him defect to LD or Indie, but that's probably a bit much to ask seeing as his party opposed the 42 days. Still no chance of me voting red OR blue though.

Meanwhile, I'm not the world's biggest Diane Abbott fan (to say the least) but her speech yesterday deserves to be read/heard by as many folk as possible. See http://tinyurl.com/5qrrfg - I've del.icio.us-ed the article and stuck the link in my facebook status. This Week should be an interesting watch tonight (assuming she's on it).

@Be interesting to see...

"Some of the rabid hang 'em and flog 'em lot might thing 42 days is not enough..."

Do they feel strong enough to vote against the Tory on this issue? I reckon the people who think this is appalling would vote against Labour on this issue, but that the people who agree don't feel strongly enough to go against every other reasons to vote these fookers out.

So, you're a man, you view internet p0rn0, Jacqui's just made you a potential arrestable target for viewing the wrong type, but you agree with 42 days vs 28. Which issue counts more to you? The fact you can be locked up, and put on a sex offenders register, or the fact people can be detained for an extra two weeks before being charge (or not). I reckon the one that criminalized you is more important to you.

Your kid is a teenager, and you suspect he smokes pot, although he denies it. Jacqui's made possession a criminal offence. But you agree with the 42 days vs 28 days. Does that make you happier that your kid is at risk of a criminal record over 'lethal' pot, knowing it's not lethal? Does that outweigh the 42 day issue?

Do you want to see your teenage boy on a sex offenders register with a criminal record for viewing internet porn? Do you think that's fair? You agree with the 28 vs 42 day limit, but does it outweigh the other issue?

Have you ever been stopped and searched under the anti-terror stop and search laws? Do you think anyone who has been stopped, would ever vote to let the police detain people without charge? Would they ever vote Labour again?

The cumulative effect of this crap is to make Labour unelectable. As long as Cameron represents a change, then he'll win. I reckon Davis is pretty safe on this.

I bet Jacqui Smith would never have the courage to do the same. She and Brown must know they're unelectable. They should have had a proper leadership campaign instead of letting Blair choose his successor.

@AC

Erm.. he resigned from Parliament not his party...

Well, that's a first...

Watched him give his resignation speech outside the Commons today and caught myself nodding at every word. My ghast is flabbered. A Tory with principles, who'd have thunk it?

Good start

Hopefully might persuade a few more will do the same.

Switching off the Twat-O-Tron for a moment it really isn't terrorists I fear any more - it's my own government. Clowns in charge of live ammunition. Creating a State that the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit would be embarrassed to be part of.

Leadership move?

So while I disagree with the whole 42 day detention thing, I applaud David on his principled move.

That said, when he gets re-elected, he's going to have more Kudos with th public and fellow Cons than Cameron, is that the real objective here?

@EmoSys

if you are that desperate!!!

http://web.archive.org/web/20070814175052/http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=4881

@ Ranty AC

"...how would you feel if the law hadn't passed and some "brainwashed" fundamentalist came along and blew up your office / town centre and killed innocent people and it emerged that hmm we could have gotten him if we had more time, we kept working and proved it but too late to prevent this..."

You obviously don't understand the process. If they knew about such a clear and present threat, they could arrest the intended perpetrator and (before yesterday) they'd have 28 days to find something, *anything* to charge 'em with and justify holding them. In other words, if they hadn't got enough evidence to even charge after 28 days they subject would be released automatically.

In my opinion, 28 days, even, is too much time. If the police had suspicions, a fortnight should be plenty to find something confirming *some* of them. There have so far been *no* cases inn which more than 28 days have been needed to find enough evidence to lay charges against the suspect, after which they can be remanded in custody. Why extend it by another fortnight? The criteria for charging someone are no where near as stringent as the criteria for finding them guilty, and the Police can work on getting the additional evidence once they've been charged.

Your example doesn't even have the terrorist in custody. How the fuck would extending the time the police could've held 'em have stopped the murderer going off when they did? Get your head out of your arse.

@AC

>Hmm okay may it is a loss of civil liberties BUT how would you feel if the law hadn't passed and some "brainwashed" fundamentalist came along and blew up your office / town centre and killed innocent people and it emerged that hmm we could have gotten him if we had more time, we kept working and proved it but too late to prevent this...

On balance, I would be absolutely fine - I feel that any victim of a terrorist is a sad, terrible, dreadful loss, but they're also martyrs in the name of freedom.

I've been on the receiving end - I have had my office/town-centre blown up and had innocent people killed, including a friend. A longer detention period would have done absolutely nothing to stop the Bishopsgate bomb, or July 7th on the tube, both of which I was very close to.

I would challenge you to mention a single terrorist case in the UK where if the police/intelligence services had been able to detain someone for longer, they would not have been able to commit the crime.

The best defense against terrorism is not to alter what you stand for, and I stand for liberty.

<no title>

party / parliament / slip of the keyboard / makes no real odds.

Resigned when his party was in agreement with him. One could understand someone resigning from government when disagreeing with proposed laws, but that is a different matter.

Interesting "Catch 22" situation noted by M though. But there again, surely the public aren't so daft as to be fooled by that? There again, they might be (unless the polls that claim support for this law resulted from just asking cabinet members).

WOW! A politician with principle!?

Aren't they a dead species? The last politician with principle I can remember was also a Tory, Michael Heseltine who resigned a cabinet post in protest over the then Tory government's dealings with the whole Westland affair.

Anyway, good on the guy, It's a pity that no one else had the courage to do this, perhaps then the legislation he's protesting wouldn't have been passed?

You know, it's a real pity that our politicians no longer view their jobs as roles of statesmanship. Time was when more of the people going into politics did so for reasons of duty, or a feeling of wanting to make things better. Now it seems as though most simply want power. Curiously, I think that is what makes the House of Lords in the UK such a great balance to Parliament. Most of the folks there already have all the power they need, or were born to it. So their personal agenda is somewhat more based in duty and care that those who are making a career in the halls of power...

Ulster Unionists

Why does everyone pick on the DUP when there were 306 other scumbags inthe same lobby as them, the vast majority of them Labour MPs? Why does the 9 at one end of the line get all the flak and the 306 in front get by on "oh, well, we knew THEY'D sell the country down the river"?

Come on Tony McNulty

Home Office minister Tony McNulty should stand down from his seat; immediately announce he's the Labour candidate and will also be fighting the campaign on the 42-day issue. Then we can see how the arguments really stack up.

The prospect of seeing McNulty (a man with the face and personality of a cat's slapped arse) being bulldozed by David Davis would be a pleasure.

Labour is screwed on this one.

Today was going to be the first day of the PM's fightback, but now it's dominated by DD and the botched vote over 42-days.

And it doesn't get much better for them. If Labour choose to fight the election; they will lose (they came third at the last general election) AND they face the prospect of having 42 days in the news *every* day (Guido is reporting that the Labour candidate for the seat opposes 42-day detention, so that'd be fun).

If they don't fight then the Tories will make hay about Gordon Brown being afraid to face the voters.

Jeez, I'm living in a World where I'm wishing all the best to a Eurosceptic Tory.

Help!

Just tell me Paris is still beautiful.

@AC untitled

"BUT how would you feel if..."

Come on man, if the police can't dig up *anything* to charge one with in 28 solid days of looking, there's probably nothing to find. If somehow nothign were found, but it really were *that* critical to hold them for longer, an emergency act of parliament could be passed to detain the individuals. Hell, if they're that dangerous, hold them illegally and sort it out later. Hold back a tiny percentage of the NHS/welfare state wastage, sorry budget, for compensating wrongly detained non-terrorists.

The usual argument for holding people for >28days is that it can take a long time to get data off encrpyted drives &c. Well, witholding encryption keys is an offence now so that doesn't wash anymore. As soon as you find an encrypted drive if they won't give up the keys you have them.

Tories,

At least he's a tory in blue and not a tory in red. Besides as conservative as tories are they tend not to like people sniffing around peoples private lives becouse they tend to like the spicer things in life...

Brainwashed fundamentalist

"Hmm okay may it is a loss of civil liberties BUT how would you feel if the law hadn't passed and some "brainwashed" fundamentalist came along and blew up your office / town centre and killed innocent people and it emerged that hmm we could have gotten him if we had more time, we kept working and proved it but too late to prevent this..."

How would you feel if the man became radicalized because you kept arresting him without cause or justification? What if YOU CREATED the extremists by your abuse? How would you feel then?

Think of the situation in Gaza, they suffer periodic bombings, tanks, shelling of beaches, bombing of power stations, deprived of water, and naturally that radicalizes them. When they are treated fairly the violence settles down. Israel got to a stage where it only suffered stone throwing at its troops (largely over the water dispute), they elected a hard liner, started responding to stone throwing with bullets and bingo, we're back to escalating violence again.

Terrorism is a REACTION, it's a COUNTER culture, it bounces off the mistreatment of someone or something. So by creating mistreatment you radicalize and ultimately create terrorists.

Now back to Britain, to the basis of our law, that survived centuries and far worse attrocities than happened under Blair. No punishment without judicial process, detention without charge cannot be accepted in civilized Europe.

@Robert Long

"Why does everyone pick on the DUP when there were 306 other scumbags "

... cos it's a Northern Irish Unionist party voting for Internment? Love to be a fly on the wall at the next NI assembly cabinet meeting.

"Hey, Gerry, guess what? Wait'll you see we we're getting for xmas"

"More money for schools?"

"Yeah, that too...."

(truck with large gold statue of Ian Paisley pulls up to door of Stormont...)

Pointless posturing

These suspects, if it were for a lesser offence, would have to be bailed, charged, remanded in custody or released without charge etc. However, due to the often complex nature of terrorist cases a period of 28 days was decided upon. This period can then be used to make further arrests and enquiries to root out the other people involved. Without this facility the 'terrorist' could not be lawfully questioned further except in exceptional circumstances.

They don't call them 'plotters' or 'conspiritors' for nothing as they can weave quite a web, which may take a while to investigate.

I do not know where this 42 day remedy came from but I am sure 99% of cases can be sewn up in the current 28 days.

It seems Brown had something to prove by winning this fight but what Davis will prove remains to be seen.

Blaming the symptom

Quite agree with AC: Terrorism is a counter-culture. It doesn't happen unless you provoke it.

It never was 'too late to prevent'.

Loads of us were screaming (for example in 2003): "if you carry on like that, invading foreign countries (such as Iraq) and condoning slow-motion genocide in palestine, you'll just breed more terrorism", but we were told "No.. no.. we must protect our judeo-christian values/culture/bottom line at all costs. They're poised to attack us tomorrow with unspecified but terrifying WMDs. We have to act now!".

What happens? More terrorism, and then we're invited to feel 'wrong' because we don't have an answer??? Hey: We had an answer, but you never asked, or if you did ask, you weren't interested in listening.

We had the answer. We STILL have the answer: These 'terrorists' are a symptom, not a disease. The disease is western (mostly US/UK) foreign policy, and now (new!) we're already painfully taking the first steps past the oil peak, with those wretches in Haiti and elsewhere eating mud cakes to survive, so things can only get much worse (more riots, more terror), unless we all get a clue quickly.

What ifs

How would you feel if your wife started an affair with a policeman and to cover his tracks he got you locked up for 42 days in which time your wife had all the time in the world to sell a sob story for the press, sell your stuff and leave you with nothing?

Ok, but...

... whilst it's nice to see a Tory Politician standing on a point of principle regarding our liberties, I have to ask where the hell they were when the *other* policies that violated our liberties were being pushed through?

The Tories had the chance to vote against the Governments Extreme Porn legislation, but, instead of standing up for our rights, they decided that criminalising people for looking at "bad pictures" and creating a Thought Crime wasn't important enough, so they just abstained, when, if they had voted, the Government would have been defeated and a liberty protected.

So pardon me if I think that, whilst it's a good idea that the 42 Day limit gets questioned, this looks like a piece of political grandstanding to me.

Grandstanding perhaps

but at least it is something.

And whilst this is going on, how does Parliament cope when a part of the UK is not represented in the House of Commons.

The House of Lords hopefully will not pass this law, it is not needed and will just be abused. In fact the 28 days law should be repealed as well, I think that is the smoke screen here. They want to keep that one in place, so they stick more on and when it fails hope people think good another liberty saved.

Whereas we are still left with the position that you can be held for 28 days without evidence enough for a charge. So, really you can be detained on a whim, which of course is not liberty or freedom, it is oppression.

People are not bothered about terrorists, they are more bothered about the lack of liberty, we need more referendums in this country. That is what technology should be enabling, democracy. I cannot even remember the last referendum we had, but it should be the norm not the exception for anything that effects liberty and democracy itself.

@ AC

'how would you feel if the law hadn't passed and some "brainwashed" fundamentalist came along and blew up your office / town centre and killed innocent people and it emerged that hmm we could have gotten him if we had more time, we kept working and proved it but too late to prevent this...'

Think about the recent Exeter bombing - the brain-washed bomber who had learning disabilities and his handlers were known to the security services, almost certainly through communications intercepts. If this evidence was admissible in court, they would have been arrested, charged and imprisoned before his failed attempt. How would you feel if he had succeeded? Detention without charge would not have prevented the bombing.

The security services claim there are hundreds of people plotting to attack us. They can only know this through intelligence - spies and intercept evidence. Our security depends on subjecting them to due process of law before they blow us up, not 42 day detention without charge.

42 days is about Brown politically posturing and nothing to do with our security.

An example to the rest of them?

When I was a lad, there existed the concept of individual responsibility, which meant that if a Minister or his Department was found wanting, resignation was the honourable reaction. In these days of spinning, jargon - abusing, quasi - quango social engineering micro - managing, gravy train jumping, self - serving, retro neo - socialist, stealth wealth - distributing, power - abusing, Orwellianly arrogant (2 legs better, etc.), taxation - hungry, power - hugging, one rule for us another for you, buck - passing, debate - dodging, sound biters, isn't it refreshing that one of them (either side of the House) is prepared to act on a matter of principle? I'm sure the local party (as opposed to Con HQ) will support him and I'm delighted the LDs are showing their support for his stance by not standing against him. We can all only hope that his action encourages the rest of them (all flavours) to consider their personal values versus the party line: I doubt any of them would actually have voted out the Magna Carta! Good luck, sir.

Internment

If you remember internment (detention without charge in Northern Ireland).

How did that work out? Was it.

a) Good thing

b) Bad thing

Then there's support for terrorists, according to Senator Kucinich impeachment articles against Bush:

"In June 2005 former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter reported that United States security forces had been sending members of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) into Iranian territory. The MEK has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, Canada, Iraq, and Iran. Ritter reported that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had used the MEK to carry out remote bombings in Iran."

Do you think supporting a terrorist organisation is

a) Good thing

b) Bad thing?

When Bush comes to visit will he :

a) Walk on a red carpet?

b) Be detained for 42 days?

If there is a protest group protesting his visit, will they

a) Be allowed to protest because protest is a protected right

b) be detained under anti-terrorism legislation, fingerprinted and DNA tested and held on trumped-up charges till Bush leaves?

12 days has actually been enough every time so far.

Shami Chakrabarty, of Liberty has publicly noted that in every case so far the police have not found any additional evidence after 12 days, even on the occasions where the suspect was detained for almost the full 28 days.

Therefore, there is precisely ZERO evidence that more time is required.

ACPO seem to want the extra time - but have no evidence whatsoever to back up their request. All they seem to be able to do is say "But terrorist plots are complicated!"

Well, yes they are. But why were you OK with 5 days when the UK was under weekly attack from Irish radicals, and suddenly not ok when the radicals are from elsewhere?

How would you feel if you were arrested as a terror suspect (eg http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html), then held for 42 days while the police desperately searched for something to charge you with?

It gets even worse - so far, a major reason for extending past 7 days is that the police couldn't find a translator!

In many businesses, especially the lower-paid sectors, not turning up for work for 7 days will get you fired.

Being detained for 42 days and then released without charge would mean that you would have lost your job, your house, possibly your children, maybe your wife...

This is a bill designed to destroy people's lives, not protect anyone.

Detention without charge has precisely NOTHING to do with protecting the public.

Would all those in favour of the measure, please give at least two believable examples whereby this measure would prevent an attack, where no other currently-available measure would achieve the same result.

You can't, because there are none.

Brave new world.

Although I agree with Davis's position on the Magna Carta, I just wish he and the other lot would be more principled about the bigger threat... The EU!

@Carol Yates

You're missing the point. Magna Carta is usually invoked in these debates because that was the jumping off point for the concept of "English liberty" (sorry rest of UK), that continued to develop nicely for the next 900 years or so, until this government decided we'd had enough of that nonsense and decided to start rolling the clock back.

As for your comment about the process; this is what's so ridiculous and shows the level of Brown's grandstanding; if the police felt they had sufficient evidence after 28 days, the law ALREADY allowed them to go to the Home Secretary for an extension (and of course, there was always the gitmo option). Brown is playing to the gallery; to flog 'em and hang 'em Sun readers, and the ACPO, and it does nothing for so-called "security".

Finally, your comments about Davis; his stance on these issues is well established; since his party machine won't back him, he's chosen an approach that at least lets the public have a say on this single issue; an opportunity denied to us at the general election, where most of us subsume our uneasiness about erosion of liberty at the alter of economics, or can't actually tell the parties apart on this issue anyway. For that, even if you completely disagree with what he's saying, he should be applauded. Would that more politicians had his cojones.

@Carol

"Habeus corpus is the thing and that has not been recinded, if after 14 days the police can seek an exception and get 28 days to gather evidence."

There is no rule that says the police can only gather evidence in the PRE-CHARGE period. Indeed the ACPO rep said that it takes 42 days to decrypt computers. No Mr Officer, an encrypted computer cannot be decoded in your lifetime, a decrypted one can be scanned quickly with a USB key that Microsoft provided to grab all the information of it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/30/ms_forensics_usb/

So the officer is telling me a lie on something I know about, and therefore I have good cause to suspect the rest is therefore a lie.

"As far as I am concerned there are adequate checks and balances on the whole process to safeguard the rights of the individual and the safety of the nation."

Good job! You protected the nation from people you're not even prepared to charge! Way to go! And even if you do charge them it's with 'Dissemination of Terrorist Publications" or "Encouragement to Terrorism", i.e. reading and speech. Yeh protect the nation from reading and speaking!

Who will protect me from you?

Top Tory resigns on..............

Point of public relations rather than principle surely? What was the principle in question? A vote his party didn't introduce or support, why is that a resigning matter? I can only assume that having not defeated the government another stick to beat them was required, and a one sided by-election is good enough.

Do we have an icon for spin?

@ Carol Yates

Here, here.. (mostly)

Whilst i'd love to believe that DD had the strength of principal to resign, what Carol says is emminently more believable.. Lets not forget DD lost out to Cameron and has little to lose. He's put 'one in the bank' to dig up later when he can eventually challenge for the tory leadership. Whilst there's a small chance it'll backfire.. its a calculated risk and clever strategy.

However, no matter what 'controls' are put on the 42 days.. I'm not happy with it. We've already seen terrror legislation used questionably, thats a much longer detention period than any of our peers. Is our police force so under resourced / incapable that it needs so long to decide whether to bring charges?

I'm a little surprised to see so little cynicsm in the resposnes to DD's resignation, whats happened to us all, where did all this optimism come from ? remeber we work in IT?..

Court gives detainees habeas rights

In related news:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-gives-detainees-habeas-rights/

"In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention."

Gosh you mean Habeas Corpus is important?

"The Court also declared that detainees do not have to go through the special civilian court review process that Congress created in 2005, since that is not an adequate substitute for habeas rights."

Gosh you mean you can't substitute any other process for Habeas Corpus?

IMHO Davis is a fooking hero, and Labour are too frightened to even field a candidate. According to the Labour rep presenting it, the bill represents the UK mood (they had a poll), but if it represents the UK mood why are they frightened to field a candidate and have a vote? Because they'd lose!

@Carol Yates - Magna Carta

Quite right, it's like everyone thinks they're landed gentry or something.

The thing is when you lock someone up for a month and a half- probably releasing them at the end of it their life is destroyed. If that person wasn't a full blown terrorist but merely on the fringe then they're now motivated to become one.

Given the political climate the people locked up for 42 days will be young central asian/arabic men when there's a press headline pointing that out, all young asian men will feel victimised - understandably - and will find themselves in opposition to the government. A bit like young afro-british men did in Brixton and Toxteth in the 80's.

Whenever there is discussion of bombs etc on this site it becomes immediately apparent that many here have the ability. The only separation between us and them is motivation.

This 42 days malarky will motivate people to kill us.

@ Carol Yates

While you're correct about the original intent of the Barons in forcing John's hand at Runymede, the Magna Carta has been a cornerstone of thinking in the development of the rights of Her Maj's subjects over the years. So it *is* relevant, since the current "King-equivalent" (i.e. NuLab) is now asserting that they have the right to abrogate Habeas Corpus.

"...authorised by the Home Secretary..."

Do you trust Jacqui Smith? I certainly don't. Not on a personal level; I'm unlikely to hit the radar for terror plotting, but to act on my behalf in detaining people? No, I don't trust her to act fairly. And I *certainly* don't trust any indeterminate successors, once the "climate of terror" has been exacerbated by a few more years of heavy-handed incompetence at home and abroad.

They have the inch, now. Next, the mile.

Re Carol Yates

I totally agree that DD is just looking to get himself some column inches. This wouldn't be happening if he was in a swing seat. He knows his job is safe - the LDs won't oppose him as they agree with his stance, Lab won't because they know they will lose so it's best to just let him win by default and say "it proves nothing".

However the 42 days issue is a BIG issue. Not 42 vs 28 - that means nothing. The fact that you can be taken from the street without charge, and disappeared for 4-7 weeks should scare you though. It's getting very South American over here. Yes the Home Secretary needs to sign off on it, but there is no public scrutiny as that might tip the terrorists off (so they say). So, it is possible to shut people up during an election campaign for example, or during a public consultation or state visit etc. Talk about burying bad news!

5 days is sufficient. Yes, it is theoretically possible that someone may slip through the net and let off a bomb. That's the price I *choose* to pay for my freedom. Risk is inherent in our lives - locking ourselves (and others that are different to us) away to mitigate what is a tiny, tiny risk compared to others we face on a daily basis is not the way forward for a progressive, democratic society. Roll on the Iron Curtain Mk II :o/

Brown nosed

I want Brown and his brown nosed cronies gone too - and well done to Davis for standing up and provoking a debate.

@Simon Painter - I agree, but even one million people telling Brown to get stuffed doesn't seem to be enough these days.

He just buys votes.

Re. 42 days for decrypting computers.

Since refusing to provide the password is an offence, then they could lock them up for that and spend the time decrypting away.

So that's a spurious argument.

Re: "Grandstanding?" Biased much?

I think "grandstanding" is a pretty good way to describe quitting and immediately restanding in a safe seat ... umm, when he wins, what exactly has that proven?

Labour and Lib Dems have already called the bluff and are not opposing. Hopefully no nut-job independents will oppose, and he will win by default; saving us all a lot of cash that would otherwise have been flushed unceremoniously down the toilet.

PS I think this legislation is a disgrace, but grandstanding and wasting taxpayer money isn't exactly something to be proud of.

Davis is a Pratt

Most of the sensible people in this Island support Gordon Browns stance (on this issue) - that is according to the opinion polls. I certainly do. I would give the police the right to hold these people until they need to, more than 42 days if necessary. If a few innocent people get inconvenienced - tough. Rather that than a mad bomber is allowed out to take out a tube train or a bus.

In reality no one's civil liberties are threatened by this except the suspects.

As for fun boy Davis resigning, it proves nothing except that he is a media tart. Who is his resignation supposed to influence? Not Gordon certainly he'll be glad to see him go, and not David because he agrees with him.

The by-election will cost in the region of £80,000 - what a waste of time and money the whole thing is.

I hope K Mc K stands and whips his arse!