Cameron is walking into an elephant trap on 42 days

Tiberius

An odd take on the subject, James. I believe the Labour Party are playing politics on this issue, as they were when it was 90 days (or any other number they might ask Ian Blair to come up with), but the Tories, via David Davis amongst others, have always made a convincing case that it is not an effective means of preventing terrorist activity. I don't believe the public think it is either, if only for the very obvious fact that Labour keeps seemingly and hapazardly changing the number of days under consideration.

Austin Barry

The 42-day issue only troubles some of the ruling elites. To prevent another terrorist outrage most of the people I know would be quite happy to extend the period to 365 days or more subject to judicial discretion, but not subject to Human Rights legislation. But then most of my chums would probably also support extraordinary rendition and waterboarding in Hyde Park. No doubt, however, this constituency of the robust and realistic will grow after the next, inevitable, deadly event. Cameron should support Brown on this one.

Ted Tedford

I think the terrorist attack is a red herring. It would be very hard to demonstrate that a 42-day detention could in any way have prevented it.

If the government were serious about preventing attacks, it would recruit more Security Service and Special Branch staff to enable better surveillance. Instead, this is gesture politics: more Labour 'message sending' legislation which costs nothing financially but which exacts a very significant cost to our liberties.

Border Reiver

Last night, contemplating radical Islam (as one does) the prospect of another terrorist outrage on these shores seemed a case of when not if. The Prime Minister hit the ground running because NHS doctors were trying to fire bomb Glasgow airport and West End nightclubs. It was ghastly to watch Cameron open his PMQs on the detention issue as it is irrelevant to council tax payers and as you correctly point out will look infantile if there is a whacking great explosion in London which could have been prevented.

CS

No disrespect, James, but I honestly believe that that is one of the most contemptible things I've ever read on Coffee House (and that's saying something).

So, for party advantage, Cameron should kowtow to Brown's 42 day proposal? Coffee House is full of people demanding that Cameron propose to slash taxes and the public services, seemingly heedless of what this might do to his poll ratings. But, when it comes to trivial matters like the freedom of the individual, suddenly these must take second place to short term popularity.

I should have thought that one thing uniting most Coffee Housers is a belief that the state is overmighty. When I read pieces like James' above, I begin to wonder if the only problem some people have with the state is that it money out of their pockets.

But maybe there's no need to worry about allowing people to be banged up without charge if you yourself are white, middle class and don't have a bit of a foreign accent.

David

"If that were to happen, this whole debate would look very different"

Labour tried that tack with ID cards too, and have failed miserable. It's an essential civil liberties point-don't let the terrorists win by default.

Ian C

Not seen PMQ's but the Tories need to present sensible alternatives to this method of security tightening. From what I have read there are bags of powers already in place but they're not used properly or the police/CPS keep screwing up. 42 days is not a trap, providing there is no (obvious) gloating when the gov't loses the vote. Cameron does need that win if Tories are going to get a sniff at removing Labour from office inside 2 years. But that should be its purpose not posture enhancement.

Jack R

I think that Cameron should support 42 days, emphasising the security argument.Cameron could have chosen to go on several other targets. One which the Conservatives must be interested in is to campaign to reduce the excessive fuel duty on diesel and petrol in the UK. The economic case,and the social justice case for doing so are strong;of course, a shift in the tax burden is involved, but the Conservatives should not overweight the NGO 'Green' lobbyists and the questionable man-made global warming mantras.

Herbert Thornton

Islamic extremism understands that to further its ambitions it needs, for the time being, to strike a balance between on the one hand causing such timidity among infidels that they are afraid to react robustly (and even delude themselves that they are it's cause) and on the other hand provoking a reaction among infidels that will cause them to abandon their most cherished beliefs in the values of the Enlightenment and act very robustly indeed.

So far, events demonstrate that this strategy is working very well indeed, at least so far as the ruling elites mentioned by Austin Barry are concerned. The general tone of the letters in response to this article demonstrate this, very depressingly.

Austin also mentions what he calls 'the next, inevitable, deadly event'. Again, he is right. And it will be even deadlier than what preceded it. But even when it comes, it will be calculated in accordance with the same principles. It will enough to cause even more timidity and feelings of guilt, but - unless our elites are replaced with people more like Austin's chums - it will still not be enough to cause an effective response.

And eventually, unless we do place our faith in people like Austin's chums, the balance will tip - and it will not be in our favour.

TrevorH

How does arresting someone and waiting 42 days to charge them - or 92 or 1002 - make us nin any way any safer from terrorist attack?

All that this rubbish is about is the alleged time it takes to gather evidence to make a charge - nothing at all to do with 'security'.

There is no evidence that we need longer than 28 days no evidence that more than 28 days makes us any safer and no evidence that it is not possible to make a charge and then continue gathering evidence.

Spectator columnists and commentators are talking pointles claptrap. The government is in a hopelkess incompetent mess.

Chuck Unsworth

There is no evidence whatsoever that prolonged detention without trial will have any effect on the security or otherwise of the nation. There is, however, clear evidence that such imprisonment is counter-productive and conflicts with justice, law and human rights.

This pathetic bleating from Ms Smith and the other vehement supporters of a totally repressive piece of proposed legislation should be seen for what it is. If Cameron's actions do that alone then they are worthwhile.

But 'the truth of the matter' (as one Tony Blair was fond of saying) is that Cameron does not have to turn it into anything at all. Already he has managed to discomfort many Labour MPs who now have to make a choice between supporting their government or sticking to their principles.

All Cameron is doing is turning up the heat on Labour MPs with consciences - that is assuming there are any, of course.

Anyone taking bets on this?

Cindy

'Suddenly, Brown’s approach would be far more appealing to the public.'

In case you had'nt noticed Brown's approach on this issue is actually one the public agrees with (the NOW poll found a majority of people agree with 42 days detention already) its only the Westminster village, the elites and liberty that are opposed. Note to Cameron and the tories if you are on the same side of an argument as the organisation Liberty, you are not in agreement with the majority if the public.

TGF UKIP

Both sides are playing politics with this issue and there is a degree of naivete, some of it wilful, in some of these posts. At a PLP meeting pre the 90 day vote, Blair quite shamelessly said that a primary purpose of the legislation was to split the Tories many of whom were instinctively for a longer period of detention. Unfortunately for Blair, by then a goodly proportion of his own party hated him even more than they did the Tories and were quite happy to vote down 90 days. The Tories, though, are no better. Forget all the civil rights bullshit, this was always about the Hilton/Cameron New Tories re- branding strategy aimed at liberal "opinion formers", and LibDem and soft -minded Labour voters. Cameron on this is running aqainst the instincts of most ordinary voters and most of his own party and running a big risk if there is another attack. And before all the Dave apologists start bleating, I too deplore the abuse by Labour of "terrorist" legislation - european arrest warrant, council spying on school applicant parents etc. Tough terrorism laws with tough safeguards - that's where a conservative party should be.

Dr Blue

I think Cameron should oppose the 42 day limit. Habeas corpus etc.

The terrorist suspect can always be kept on remand, but at least such a process is open, and under judicial control.

Imprisonment without trial is an infringement of civil liberties, and will lead to poor justice. It's the kind of justice totalitarian regimes use.

Oscar Miller

Proof that Gordon Brown is playing politics with 42 day detention comes from an amusing quarter. In the heady days of Brown's honeymoon last July Martin Bright wrote a hubristic article for the New Statesman headed 'Brown v Cameron. Game over?' (and he didn't mean for Brown!). He wrote this:
"Proposals to extend the 28 day period that terrorism suspects can be held without charge, which formed the centrepiece of Brown's statement to parliament on 25 July are designed to outflank the Tories and make the new PM look tough on terror". So if Martin Bright thought it was all a PR stunt - who can be in any doubt that it is? David Davis has been absolutely consistent in opposing the extension. It is a point of principle - you might not agree James, but don't tar Cameron with the tabloid headline grabbing politics that entirely dictate Brown's 'policy'.

Cogito Ergosum

For "the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid" (FDR), it would be more use to apply 42-day detention to the yobs who infest our daily lives.

We could save all the expensive nonsense of trials and police paperwork.

Max Kaye

Austin Barry, I agree that most people would support holding terrorist suspects for 365 days, etc. i>. I'm not so sure that this same public would agree to extending the detention without charge to 42 days for non-Islamist British citizens

Personally, I'm of the Jack Bauer tendency and I'd use almost any means to safeguard Britain and the British people, whether kosher or not [sic]. Does this make me an Islamophobist? Assuredly! There's a lot to fear about Islamism. Not very nice or PC of me, I know. But, hey: I'm not willing to be a dhimmi.

Diablo

So David Davis a liberal "opinion fomer" now?!

Anyway, what's wrong with backing Brown into a corner on an issue that his Government has made such a hot political topic? By trying not appear to be a ditherer on this, Brown runs the risk of a defeat (a la the 90 days case) which will add to the perception that he and his crew are losers.

Graeme Stewart

When it comes down to it, Joe and Josephine Public are more interested in the security of our country, I'm afraid civil liberties are no concern for the vast majority of the population. Cameron messed up over this and he has fallen into a trap. The Conservatives risk the tag of being weak on terrorism.

Graeme Stewart

When it comes down to it, Joe and Josephine Public are more interested in the security of our country, I'm afraid civil liberties are no concern for the vast majority of the population. Cameron messed up over this and he has fallen into a trap. The Conservatives risk the tag of being weak on terrorism.

Fergus Pickering

Herbert Thornton, I think you are making a mistake about how this kind of terrorism works. You postulate a kind of emninece directing operations behind the scenes, tweaking a bit here, pulling another string there. John Buchan's Greenmantle is the book, or one of the books. But Dostoevsky, who knew about Terrorim at first hand, gives what I think is a truer picture in The Possessed. There is no shadowy figure controllling operations. Bin Laden's just a rich Saudi with delusions. These people are dangerous but they're not a load of Treens blindly obediant to the Mekon. They don't even have the sense of Sinn Fein, and that's not much sense at all. They don't know what they want, except World Domination, that is. Of course we can bang up some people (let's hope it isn't you) for 42 days, or 142 days, or for ever, just as they do in benighted third world countries. Which people? Oh, any people. And don't you believe that, once the Government are truly in the saddle, that they will all be comfortably black or brown. As son as the Government is able to opass a new, repressive law,then they will tryit out on.. a couple of women reciting names at the cenotaph perhaps. And, for Christ's sake, let us ask Cameron to dowhatis right, nd niot what he might suppose Joe Public wants. That's what Broon and Blair do. Sorry. I seem tohave gone on a bit.

Ted Tedford

Fergus: You could have gone on longer. Peter Clarke has made the point that a lot of low-level would-be Islamist poster-boys positively boast about their half-witted schemes: you'd need a 42-day period to get them to shut up.

So our picture of the networks is growing, which means we need more resources to process the information. That means more surveillance and more analysts, not more ill-advised laws.

For the 'hard core', about which I suspect a certain amount would be known ahead of their arrest, thirty days is a pretty generous span. I'm no expert, but my guess is that, if someone hasn't cracked after 30 days, 12 days more won't make much difference.

I think it's a bit lame to caricature anyone opposed to detention without charge as 'liberal elites', just as it would be to caricature supporters of the proposal as brain-dead totalitarians. I'd rather have effective laws than tough ones, and see those already in place applied more effectively. That's surely not to be a Guardianista bleeding heart, nor even a fellow traveller.

Simon

Bet you £50 your wrong.

Ian C

TGFUKIP - your analysis is playing politics. David Davis has been the leading exponent of resisitance and has always based his dissent on the 'powers already exist' argument. Herbert Thornton's analysis in his 6.17pm comment last night suggests that the Islamo-fascist terrorist needs do nothing as we will do it for them, which rather defeats its own argument. No, this whole thing is about what difference will it make? Tories and Libs. say none, Lab. say it's good to have it on the shelf, ready to go. There has been no substance to prove this and strong arguments to say we already have the necessary. So Labour is playing politics, as UKIPTGF has admitted. The Tories had to respond and their duty is to oppose unless there is a clear advantage to the country at stake. We've been whining for years about the lack of opposition, so let them oppose.

Alan Yates

I have lived all over the world and in my experience we may need 42 days, so let's vote for it/them. Also, just as CCTV suits us and not them, so ID cards would benefit us.
Also in my opinion, it suits us to have Brown as leader so there is no need to be overzealous in our search for sticks with which to beat him.