Law, Actually

Mike

When will the luvvies recognise the general contempt that is falling on their heads. They in the form of Firth, Stewart and others acted as cheerleaders for Blair and NuLab. No-one gives a monkeys what they think and say. Now look at the mess they have gotten us into through their support of NuLab. Clearly they were only interested in low taxes for the rich!

TrevorH

If Partick Stewart is anything to go by - these are however a bunch of lefty liberal luvvies. If Stewarts interviews are anything to go by he is a yorkshire-poor-as-a-churchmouse-born life long labour socialist.

So I think this shows the shallowness of support for extending detention without trial.

Great actor, Stewart, by the way.

And in respect of detention without trial -- If I own a password protected computer and refuse to reveal the password on production of a search warrant, then surely I am breaking the law, if not there out to be a law. No need to pretend police need umpteen days to break into the damn thing.
Just arrest and charge me quite sensibly and legally and get on with collecting evience.

Ujima

Political opinions paraded about by luvvies are all part of the West’s self-harming decadence.

Look on the bright side, though, once the Caliphate is here we won’t have to hear any more of this cant as the theatres will be shut down.

I believe it’s what’s known in drama as hubris.

CS

TrevorH hits the nail on the head. There's no need to spend weeks trying to decipher computer records. It is already illegal to refuse to provide a password or decryption key. So you could bang up the SUSPECTED baddies on that charge alone for 42 or 90 days surely. During which time the police can do all the work they seem to need 42 or 90 (or whatever is the latest figure to be plucked out of the air) days for.

As for the article, Matthew quotes, firstly, in a free society, the police do not get to "demand" anything. They police society by the rules which society chooses to impose. At what point does a police "demand" become unacceptable, Matthew? When they demand the power to lock up anyone with a beard and an Arabic complexion? Or merely when their demands start to affect your own ilk?

Secondly, most of Matthew's argument seems to rest on the fact that the police have a difficult job to do, therefore we mustn't ever presume to question their competence or motives.

Does the fact that the police have to sift through blown-up bodies require that we turn a blind eye to the shooting of Charles de Menezes and the subsequent bare-faced lies fed to the public by the Met in an attempt to cover up their actions? Of course, it requires that we take into account the pressure on the police but it should never be used as an excuse.

We see every day how 24 hour news pressurises the police to provide instant solutions to crimes. Not real solutions, of course, but media events. Someone (anyone, and with a big beard) who can be arrested before the cameras as a sop to the goldfish attention spans of a nation which will happily sacrifice any freedom, and right and any liberty so long as they retain the right to be fart before reaching for the TV remote.

At least Matthew didn't stoop to the risible sophistry of the argument that the police should be given carte blanche because we should be more concerned with the rights of law-abiding citizens than the rights of terrorists.

Ian C

As a sympathiser withthe objective I cannot see that a) we don't have the powers already and b) can trust our serially incompteent police forces not to abuse the powers granted per what happened in the 1980's (not to mention the arrest of an old socialist at Labour's own conference in 2006). One of the few times I go with the luvvies - but not because it's them, but because it's right.

Ujima

CS. Are you a lawyer? Have you ever seen a bail application?

Bail applications are rarely refused unless the charge is very serious.

A bail application for refusing to hand over a password would have every likelihood of succeeding. And then what?

Moreover, somebody witholding a password is unlikely to say "I'm not giving you that password." They're more likely to say: "I don't know that password."

Whenever you arrest a defendant, you focus on the main part of the investigation. Imagine realising you've just broken the surface of a network and you need to find where the next bomb is. You may only have 24 hours.

Do the words Haymarket and Glasgow Airport mean anything to you? You would seriously have anti-terrorist officers working against the clock to find another bomb by saying: "Well, at least we can focus on asking him about this password he won't give us"?

Kevyn Bodman

TrevorH and CS are both right about the best way to deal with problems posed by suspects with password-protected computers.

I, too, am fed up with celebrity culture that attaches weight to the opinions of famous people just because of their fame.
But it's just as silly to dismiss opinions just because they are held by famous people,isn't it?
So , let's stick to the merits or otherwise of extending the detention-without-charge time limit.
It's a bad idea because:

it's unnecessary

it won't protect us better

it opens up possibilities of abuse.

And finally, why the parenthetical reference to Trevor Phillips as admirable? It's not needed.
And why, Matthew do you think Trevor Phillips is admirable?
Other than his relatively recent statement that multi-culturalism has failed, and many people arrived at that conclusion before he did, what has he said and done that is so admirable?

Let's not slip in gratuitous sucking up to prominent people and celebrities here.

EyeSee

42 days, oh purleese. The Government propose to detain without charge anyone (yup anyone, not terrorists) for longer than they actually imprison the convicted. The spectacular lack of arrests, with fewer convictions, are only surpassed by the lack of terrorist incidents. But, whisper it quietly the New Labour administration need to greatly increase their power over you, to protect you. You can't believe how useful detention without charge is, for terrorism obviously, just ask Stalin or Pol Pot. There is a massive threat from Islamic fundamentalism and their supporters, including the liberal luvvies and New Labour (who facilitate its success in the UK). But the measures proposed don't seek to address these issues (strangely). New Labour came to power on lies, have sustained themselves on lies and continue to breach even the most sacred freedoms easily, with more lies. Try to focus and not just nod through lies (even plausible ones).

Kevyn Bodman

Ujima,
An interesting response.
I think it was Alan Dershowitz who advocated the use of torture to extract urgent information from suspects. It was a turnaround from his former liberal stance on many issues. But that's where you are heading with your 24 hour scenario.
Would you like to make that case? It is a case that deserves reasoned treatment, on both sides,but it's not relevant to the 28/42 day debate.

As for Haymarket, Glasgow Airport, 7/7 and 21/7 we ought to quantify the threat as far as possible, and look at their success rate.

These terrorists are simply not very effective.

An idea that I came across over on Samizdata that I would like to put out here for consideration, we have a MUCH greater capacity for effective violence than any of out Islamist enemies. When is it time to use it?

Trumpeter Lanfried

I think you're all being a little unkind. For my part, I would love to know how Victoria Beckham views the impact of the Berne Convention on international jurisprudence.

Lance Diatessaron

Matthew: Instead of abusing them, I think Mr Stewart and his co-signatories should be applauded heartily for making such an important and self-effacing contribution to this debate, rather than simply indulging in a bout of vacuous public posturing.

God bless these modest figures who so elevate the level of public discourse in this country, asking in return only that they be left alone to be paid lots of money.

Who can forget the tireless and important work done by Lady Antonia Fraser and the Guardian staff in stopping the theft of the 2004 election by President Bush? The contribtion of Richard Gere, Bjork and Laura Bailey in delivering the people of Tibet from oppression?

More power to their elbows. If only someone could get some leading cultural figures to write a letter to the Independent about Iraq: then it could all be sorted out.
If they set up a charitable fund, I'd gladly send them a tenner.

Ujima

"These terrorists are simply not very effective." - and that's a guarantee they won't be in the future?

What a great way to prevent terror attacks.

He's not really a Charlie Big Potatoes that Mr Hitler, you know...

Spare me.

Tiberius

Do politicians regularly tell artists how to produce their next work? So why do so may celebrities in general feel they have a right or duty to tell politicians how to do their job? Too many celebrities are idle opiniated numbskulls, too wrapped up in their own self-importance to hold an opinion of any real value. If they want to do politics, they should take it up as a profession, but of course that would mean assuming some responsibility, sacrificing current lazy-time, and boldly going where no back-seat driver has gone before.

Vincenzo Rampulla

Seriously, the only people would are entitled to a view are middle class intellectuals blogging on tory-lite magazine websites....

If a letter from the 'luvvies' (face it d'Ancona - Captain Picard has fans across the spectrum - you have not) stimulate debate - as they have done, hence your blog post, then that's a good thing for democracy.

Graeme - Egypt

O My God .. the actors are coming. We can all sleep safe in our Beds.
This is same lot of dead beats that banged the drums loudest once Nu Labour came to power

Kevyn Bodman

Ujima,
Your latest post is rather less interesting than your first.You didn't address the point that no detention limit, however long, is going to prevent a bomb attack in the next 24 hours, and you didn't take the opportunity to discuss torture, for or against?

Hitler and Nazi Germany posed a threat to the UK's national survival, we do not face such a threat now.
So, following your comment to 'spare me' I'm unbale to resist saying 'Get real.'

Now, we face a problem with terrorism. Analyse it, quantify it and make a reasonable prediction of likely future events.
There are no guarantees of what will happen in the future, but I am reminded of what someone said about security at an Olympic Games held in America a couple of decades ago. 'Of course you can have total security at the Olympics, but first of all everyone must stay home.'

I suggest that is not an appropriate response (It was said, with irony, though.)You can't have total protection against terrorist attacks either.

What you can do is monitor, infiltrate and arrest if necessary. And punish. Death is no deterrent to suicide bombers.
So there'll need to be very severe punishment for supporters and aides left behind. A punishment that the suiciders know will be inflicted on supporters after the event, and that they know about before they send themselves to Paradise.

Now, you tell me how 42 days detention rather than 28 days detention helps.
And at what cost in terms of increasing the police power over citizens.

Craig

Vincenzo - it might be a good thing if their opinions were not so boilerplate. They don't even debate things with themselves, they already know the 'correct' answer.

cuffleyburgers

Ujima

you have not made the case for how 42 days' detention will assist officers trying to prevent a bomb going off in 24 hours?

Face it - there is no sensible justification for this measure.

In fact you could say the same for pretty well everything new luvvie have done since they came to power.

Walt Whitman

Two words: Team America.

Oscar Miller

and boldly going where no back-seat driver has gone before.
Tiberius - there is of course the case of Glenda Jockstrap now playing the part of a Labour MP in Westminster.

David Lindsay

I don't care who says it as long as plenty of people do.

And not content with trying to lock people up for six weeks without even so much as charging them with anything, the Government now wants to be able to appoint anyone it likes as the Coroner in any case of its own choosing and then have the inquest (if it could be described) held in complete secrecy without a jury.

Off Topic

"For my part, I would love to know how Victoria Beckham views the impact of the Berne Convention on international jurisprudence."

From a very long distance.

salieri

This is very unkind, Trumpeter, to Victoria Beckham, who undeniably, and admirably, says what she thinks and thinks what she says. To those ungracious souls who opine that this may not be a great deal, I would cite only her immortal words on Climate Change: "It's not rocket salad, you know."

TGF UKIP

Matthew, your professed great admiration for David Davis - too late I'm afraid, much too late. As, I guess, a great many people are going to be reminding you around May/June 2010.

Ted Tedford

These luvvies clearly think they are free-speech martyrs on the basis of assembling a string of mundane cliches and posting them to a free press in a liberal democracy. So let's give them an issue that will statisfy their moral vanity: indefinite detention without trial for any actor, choreographer or outreach co-ordinator who writes to the Independent - and for any editor who publishes their self-righteous pap.

Harry

Walt Whitman, 24 hours is just one scenario, you could go on and on. There were two weeks between 7/7 and 21/7. Are we supposed to wait until there's a scenario of say 35 days between linked attacks?

If a bomb goes off or is discovered and you pick someone up, why would you at any stage be wasting time concentrating on building a charge around not handing over a password?

Why is everyone in this wretched country so damn spineless in the face of terror.

The front cover on the Spectator this week says it all: lemmings.

Harry

Walt, apologies, I saw red so much when I read Mr cuffleyburgers I got the names mixed up.

Annie

In a democracy we are all entitled, if not obliged, to make our feelings known to our MPs and our PM.
Politicians discuss these things- it's their job. Organisations like Liberty make their views know- they would wouldn't they? And they get their voices heard.
Mr or Mrs Bloggs can write, petition, do what they can to make their views known, and no-one gives a damn.
Celebrities- or luvvies - are as intelligent, well informed, and politically active- or not- as the general population. The difference is that when they write, the press- you included pick up on it. They have provided you with material. If you disapprove, ignore them. But you didn't did you? Maybe they have shown more nous than you.

Paul Hill

What's the big deal? EVERYBODY is entitled to have their opinions heard and valued in a democracy.

Large parts of the Spectators output are now little more than the loonier bits of the Jewish Chroniclereheated.Balance,intelligence and open midedness have steadily disappeared.

It might be worth while pointing out that in the three court cases I have any detailed knowledge of the Senior Investigating Officers were asked by Counsel when they had reached the "charging point"-the earliest point at which charges could be laid-the longest was 12 hours after arrest.

Couple this with the legislation to hold secret inquests presided over by Government stooges and we move steadily into a Police State