Tilting at the liberty windmill

Silent Hunter

Ahh! Logic!

Was it 'logical' to go to war over WMD's that never existed?

Was it 'logical' to sell arms to one of the worlds most oppressive regimes....Saudi Arabia?

Is it 'logical' to have an election system (FPTP) that allows a government to have a 100+ seat majority whilst having less than a quarter of the popular vote?

If that's 'logic';....give me 'illogical' any time.

David Boycott

WTF is PDDS?!

Lost in Kate Winslet

Perhaps a better way of making your point to Melanie is to use the examples of philosophy and mathematics Silent Hunter.

In philosophy, David Hume demonstrated the limitations of reason & logic - that all lead to irrationality and illogicality. Indeed, Kant's reply was somewhat of a cheat - that is reason and logic work only within defined parameters.

Mathematics saw the Incompleteness Theory emerge in the early 20th century which blew apart the idea of mathematics being a pure language of logic from which truth could be understood.

In order to survive as a human being, we need to be able to accept our contradictions and irrationality. Its the mad which cling to logic relentlessly.

David Davis is actually all of the above (he’s lost the plot/is a one-man plot/is a monstrous narcissist/he’s a hero fighting for Britain’s ancient liberties) and that makes him human.

So what about Melanie's criticism?

1. First of all he goes on about defending Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus and so forth – but as I have already set out, this is all but irrelevant because Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus don’t mean what he thinks they mean.

I think Melanie is confusing the meaning of the imagery with the technical meaning of these terms. These are terms we use to define identity, not the law.

2. he says he is against 42 days because he stands for the hallowed principle of not locking people up without charge. So does that mean he is against the 28 day limit as well? And if he is, then surely he has to be against the 14 day limit that preceded it, and the seven day limit before that. Indeed, according to the principles he has laid down he has to be against any detention before charge at all.

This is a more meaningful question from Melanie. My impression is that 42 days has been the straw that broke the camel's back. However, once broken, this requires a coherent answer from Davis.

My own personal opinion on this is that we need to look at our rules about police investigations into terrorist activity. Instead of extending the amount of time before charge which is a response to problems of resources and time, why not allow in terrorist cases for the police to continue to question after charge. Have this period reviewed by the courts on a 7 day basis.

3. he says he’s against the whole ‘surveillance society’ including speed cameras, DNA databases, CCTV and so forth; yet he also says he’s not against all of this, and doesn’t want to get rid of all DNA testing because some of it is perfectly sensible.

This is a strawman Melanie. Its not about either/or but about defining the limits of the surveillance culture. Pure rhetoric on your part.

A debate is what David Davis has asked for. We should respect this and pose many questions as well as give opinions. This is a useful addition to that process.

Water

I look forward to a question being posed on PH's entry by you Mel, then again maybe this is too much to ask.

David Lindsay

The Cameron Tory neocons (for so they are, and used to say so openly - why have they stopped?) should put up against Davis and let's see who gets more votes.

It is they who are signed up Eurofederalists: the Statement of Principles of the Henry Jackson Society (signed by Gove, and with several leading American neocons as Patrons) calls for a unified EU defence "capability" under overall American command.

The President of the European Commission is a classic neocon, a rabidly "free"-marketeering and pro-Bush product of the Maoist insurrection that overthrew a Catholic Encyclicist bulwark against both Marxism and Fascism.

Just as utterly unrepentant old Communists, Trotskyists and fellow-travellers overthrew the Christian-based movement that had prevented a Communist Revolution in this, one of the two countries that Marx himself believed most likely to have one, and replaced that movement with something rabidly "free"-marketeering, warmongering, and thus (once he came along) pro-Bush.

Just as their slavish imitators are now overthrowing Toryism and replacing it with something that, unburdened by serious Christianity, defines itself in the pseudo-conservative terms of totally unrestricted markets and endless foreign wars.

And just as the godfathers of it all, the disciples of Max Shachtman and the erstwhile Trotskyist alcovists at City College of New York, infiltrated and, for a time, overthrew the American Republican Party, turning it into a direct enemy of the American 'res publica'.

But their days are mercifully coming to an end. As we bid oh so fond a farewell to George Waterboarding Bush, let us also bid oh so fond a farewell to the New Labour Continuity Council around David Cameron.

The most obvious way to do that is to return David Davis with a thumping great majority.

Charlie

Mel, much ofthis demand for extra powers is because of inadequate policing. Threats either from Islamic terrorists, drug cartels , street gangs, the rise of organised crime from Ex-Jugolsavia became significant because they were allowed to develop for far too long before the authorities acknowledged the threat. In the Book Ghost Squad the author praises the late Michael Bentine for recognising the threat from terrorism in 1968. Bentine was largely ridiculed by those in authority apart from wise NCos in the SAS. Churchill and Lloyd George recognised that the reperations imposed on Germany in 1920s could lead to war. When on holiday in Germany Churchill recognised the Nazi threat. If generals fight the last war: politicians ,police/civil servants fight the last crime wave. If teenagers know where to obtain fire arms from criminal armourers why do the Police appear to be ignorant? The reality is that politicians/police /civil servants are often divorced from the brutal realities of life. However , once a problem has become obvious politicians must be seen to do some thing. Passing legislation is much easier than solving problems which have become significant and often long standing.

Lee Jakeman

This is the age of the selective principle. If he was really concerned about "civil liberties" Davis could have resigned in protest at the way the Lisbon Treaty was steamrollered through parliament without the promised referendum. But he didn't. So the EU police state is okay with him. Maybe it's just the number 42? Perhaps it's the new number of the devil?

stanley Jerusalem

I realize that this only touches the above subject peripherally but seriously, why are people so animated about speed cameras. So much so that they perceive and represent them as direct threats to our civil liberties?
You are not allowed to speed; it's dangerous to everyone, and if you do and you are caught you are punished - SIMPLE!
It's not a conspiracy to collect more revenue for the government.
Like the guy who complained about the disbursements of the National Lottery - It's not like Income Tax - you don't have to buy a ticket!
Where are their brains?

Archie

Well, all well and good Miss Phillips, but surely the huge support that David Davies has garnered on sundry blogs and in newspaper feedback columns is not to be casually dismissed?

Ed Hummer

How come the Italians have locked up the suspects for the English gir who was murdered for the best part of a year without charging them?

G Miller

It is undoubtedly true that personal freedoms and private space is being encroached upon by The State. Given the marxist nature of the Labour Party and its followers we should not trust their motives.

I entirely accept the need to tackle terrorists but if terrorism is the problem then why is the legislation applicable to all?

The government is enabling new laws to tackle a phenomenon, fanatical Islam, which it will not tackle head on.

If you took all muslims out of the UK together with foreign criminals, bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants violent crime would plummet and terrorist acts would stop.

But why doesnt the goverment tackle the problem head on?

If it did normality could swiftly be restored.

No, it will not be long before this law will be applied to non-muslims such as people who hold alternative political views - especially during the run up to the next general election.

David Mason

Agreed, it is obvious that DD's one man stand illogical. It was a bad move because in the three to four weeks taken for a by-election it will be easy for DD's message to get lost in the background noise of current affairs or he may be totally wrong footed, overtaken by 'events.'

It may be that DD is taking a principled stand on liberty and BIG government, or it may be that he wanted to bale out of Cameron's shadow cabinet of old Etonians. Only he knows.

To add to a previous comment, in the 2005 "stolen" General Election in ENGLAND Labour won 286 seats with 8,046,461 votes and the Conservatives won only 194 seats with 8,116,005 votes ! This means, on average, in England it took only 28,124 votes to elect a Labour MP whereas, on average, it took 41,835 votes to elect a Cnnservative MP. If only Robert Mugabe found it this easy to gerrymander elections!
Figures available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

What would be interesting is if there was an issue whereby ALL the opposition MPs would resign en masse! Then would or could the Queen use her powers to dismiss the government and call a General Election?

Michael Taylor

Melanie,
It is perfectly possible to be alive to the danger posed by Islamic terrorism and at the same time be opposed to the endless extension of state powers available to be used against the individual. If we are to properly protect ourselves against the Islamic threat, we need precisely to broaden and deepen the social relationships upon which the material of society is woven, for it is only in that way that we give ourselves the best chance of accessing important information, and recognising it as such. This, if anything, is the lesson of the information age: it is also the lesson taught by Hayek several decades ago. I would have thought you would have been alive to it.

Consider the contrary proposition: that our public safety is best secured by relying on the attentions of a bored civil service thumbing its way through endless centralised databases. . . Surely you can recognize the problem?

If so, you can and should conclude that DD's attempt to preserve and extend what's left of our civil society already under multiple attack from the centralised state is not only right, it's also the right practical response to the real security threats we face.

Frankly, I'm surprised you're on the wrong side of this one.

flabslab

According to Silent Hunter (first comment):

"If that's 'logic';....give me 'illogical' any time."

The authentic voice of the left methinks. Anti-rational, grammatically inept and barely literate.

Johanna

'the most fundamental freedom of all - national self-government'. Really? Since when has the nation state been the summum genus of free institutions? Surely the freedom of the individual would come before the rights of states, as the 'right to bear arms' enshrined in the US constitution signifies. In Lockean terms the individual is the true locus of liberty. The notion that the EU need somehow be less democratic than the UK, which is itself a federated union of sorts, is clearly wrong. The United States (and, historically, the Netherlands) is in fact a composite of many states freely associated. This is what the EU should be - a free union of independent states that maintain a common foreign and external economic policy whilst retaining many individual peculiarities, local customs, laws etc. The EU must become a force for global stability and it can only become that if its members agree to closer union. If, as Ms Phillips suggests, it is insufficiently democratic, then the UK must share part of the blame for failing to help reform its institutions in a more libertarian direction. The British people with their latent xenophobia and refusal to look beyond the shores of a small island, must be held in part responsible for the democratic deficit that persists within the EU. Ms Phillip's policy of reaction and disengagement will consign the UK to oblivion.

TomTom

Actually Michael Gove is weak and David Davis strong. Gove spouts the slogans of the moment whereas Davis looks to the foundations of our nation.

The leader of the 7/7 Bombers had passed a Capita CRB check to work with children as a teaching assistant in Beeston.

Several of those blowing themselves up were in receipt of Benefit and no doubt "available for work", certainly they were young enough.

Just why should a Government that cannot control its borders, nor street crime, be permitted to intern its own citizens because it is short-staffed and incompetent ?

Ian C

I am not in agreement with you on this one Melanie (I was last week!).

42 days is just the lightning rod that carries a message of 'this government has gone too far'. It is less the hard examination of the detail and more the line in the sand being crossed in so many places someone has to do something - and most of those crossings happened while there was no opposition (one reason Davis could have done this in situ. as there now is effective opposition).

As someone above has said the introduction of 42 days is more to do with incompetent policing methods and management than the need for the extra power.

But then there is the politics of the situation that has been mis-underestimated in all of this. If Brown does not send in a candidate he will be seen as bottling defending something he has (unnecessarily) risked his diminishing stock of political capital. It also has the potential to impact Tory policies going into the next election - the extent to which they are timid or bold. At present they are much criticised for being too cautious. If Davis pulls this off with greater impact than we all expected on Friday it could have a really dramatic effect on galvanising a real sense of purpose in our government in waiting, so shortening Labour back-bench willingness to stick with Brown when the next gaffes come.

We should quietly wait to see what happens while recognise that it can only really backfire on him.

patricia

As usual, brilliant start Andrew Marred by an insane conclusion.

Phillips really must take the predudice patch off her left eye and look more clearly at the neocon agenda and track record.

Specifically, I refer Phillips to the Iraq War and oil spike driven by dollar destruction thanks to reckless economics.

Her support for 42 days and more reminds one of Israel's policy of banging up Palestinian teeangers without trial for years. How many thousands are rotting in Israeli prisons right now I wonder?

Message to Mel - This ain't Israel, thank God, and the the Neocons are a busted flush.

One horse wonder

Charlie

Before people ridicule Magna Carta they should study Medieval History. Magna Carta and the start of Parliament in about 1275 is the beginning of the end of absolute monarchy with divine rights.Compare with the rest of continental Europe. The English and Welsh bowmen of the 14th and 15th centuries realised they had a freedom their equivalent social class in France lacked.An outlaw bowman beacame a part of the bodygard to an English King and was made a knight on his deathbed. In continental Europe the aristocracy provided the majority of the fighting capability while the peasants were largely excluded from military training. By the 1450s it was recognised that there was a significant difference between the kingship of France and England. France was absolute whereas in England Magna Carta, Parliament, the merchants of the Cty of London and the presence of a yeoman class of farmers ( some who wealthier than knights) meant that the power kings was limited. The idea that England is a country ruled by laws goes back to Edward the Confessor. When William had won the Battle of Hastings his promise to rule by the Laws of Edward the Confessor did much to reduce Saxon resistance. The belief that the British are born free; equal under the law, be they rich or poor and free to speak their minds has been part of our tradions for over a thousand years. The barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta had by 1215 realised that arbitary and absolute royal power was unacceptable. Once this had been established it meant that other social classes enjoyed greater freedoms and better access to justice than those in continental Europe.There was a time when Magna Carta hd to be read out once a year in every village to remind people of their freedoms. One aspect which is ignored is how often the word reasonable is used In Magna Carta.Magna Carta defines the rights and obligations based upon reason and therefore limits the absolute power of monarchs who claim the divine rights of kings. In effect it is codifying traditions which can be traced back to the Saxons.

michael

"Corpus Juris"...

Wow, that's some crazy pillow talk you got going there with the freshly shorn Joshua R.

Keep it up!

Jan Maciag

In my opinion this argument has everything to do with the status of our actions in defending the UK against Islamic fundamentalism.

If we were at war, most people would accept just about any TEMPORARY action (ID cards, internment, surveillance) required to win against both an external and an internal threat.

But we are told that we are NOT at war. We are told that this is a police and courts matter; a crime and justice issue. We are even told not to name the ‘enemy’…and to placate certain sensitivities and yet, at the same time, we are told to PERMANENTLY accept all the restrictions and actions of a state defending itself against a fifth column attack.

That is the crack in the logic. Is this a war or not?

FMiers

It is wrong to couch David David's action entirely in terms of other issues like Europe and the threat from Islamic extremeism, and even more so in terms of party politics and personal rivalries within the Conservative party. Magna Carta is important in its own right. It is the foundation of our liberty, and without it our whole political and legal system is founded on sand. Imagine what it would be like to be imprisoned for six weeks without charge. You would ask why you were in jail and you would be told it was a state secret. You would ask to see the evidence against you. That too would be a state secret. You would then be released and told it was all a mistake, and, having lost your job and perhaps your home, when you asked what all the fuss was about, you would be told to be glad you were out of jail and to leave it at that unless you wanted to return to jail for another six weeks. Then you would understand the meaning clauses 39 and 40 of Magna Carta: "(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

The above scenario is why Magna Carta still exists, after 800 years, in English law. We would be mad to throw it away and nothing, not the Eurocrats, not the terrorists, not even the outcome of the next general election and certainly not the fortunes of any individual politician, is more important. David Davis deserves our full and unequivocal support.

"Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you - did she die in vain????"

Melanie - you are absolutely right. This absurd campaign is just a jamboree for those on the Tory right who feel disenfranchised by Cameron, and just for a lark they've invited the Labour folk who feel disenfranchised by Brown and the Lib Dems who are just miserable and lonely. It's a good excuse for a humungous moan and will achieve nothing in the long run except an extended stint on the backbenches for David Davis.

Thom

Mel,

This must eat at you badly Mel, that the first principled stance in politics for a generation at least is against something that you were espousing.

Davis may be, as Lost In Kate Winslet pointed out, all the above comments - a narcicist/a hero/a fool - but above all these things he is only human and what the government will stand to lose from this will not only include the salami slicing mechanism for terrorism detention, which I think should be repealed back to 3 days, a will certainly many more people after Davis' actions, but any shred of respectability left. Equally this will apply to the opposition who stood idly by and let this go through - we will now enter an era where the Tory's no longer can just "expect" to be handed the keys to number 10 at the next election and will instead work hard on opposition policy to the illiberal policy already put in place.

It would be nice Mel if you could just accept that the 42 days campaign (and all its predecessors) were just attempts at imposing greater control over a populace by a political structure that has garnered too much power to itself to now be under any real scrutiny or called into question about its own criminal actions; Davis' is bringing that system down in slow bites.

The Snowman

I think point of his protest has been missed completely here, it's all about striking a good balance between the threat of terrorism and traditional liberty, the balance of which must always strongly favour the public, i.e. 42 days is the straw that broke the camels back and the point of no return.

Yes, Islamism is a terrible threat agreed and some safeguards against extremists have to be in place but 28 days itself is more than enough and barely justifiable in a democracy.

Extremism can only be fought with freedom, liberty and all the common Christian values we have witnessed over hundreds of years and certainly since the enlightenment, not with our own form of extremism.

The draconian state measures of which DD spoke of though have their nasty tentacles spread out over a myriad of government and local government areas which twenty years ago would have been unthinkable and it is in this vital context that you must judge and analyze his comments and his personal stand.

I mean to warn of such crazy notions as micro-chipped wheelie bins twenty years ago might have rendered a kind comment from a close friend to visit a doctor quickly.

cuffleyburgers

Johanna lines up some good points and then fails to reach the obvious conclusion :

"This is what the EU should be - a free union of independent states that maintain a common foreign and external economic policy whilst retaining many individual peculiarities, local customs, laws etc."

The union which is being made is not free is it? Because opposition to the Superstate project is widespread, and is routinely suppressed and ignored by those who should know better.

An EU cobbled together by brute force, which is what the project is now evolving into, can never be a force for stability; and is far more likely to be a focal point of a great deal of chaos.

It is already doing more harm than good by refusing to tackle issues such as CAP, GM foods, overfishing, abandoning any free market credentials.

Ms Philips - you are on the wrong side on the DD issue as well. Civil liberties are being eroded at a shocking rate and this can only get worse as we are forcibly integrated into an alien legal system.

Kevyn Bodman

It is perfectly coherent to be fully aware of the threat posed by Islamism AND to be opposed to 42 detention without charge.
That is the postion I take, and it is the position of all my political acquaintances who oppose 42 day detention.
Melanie is wrong to put the two ideas in opposition to each other.

42 days, 28 days, 14 days. This was probably the the final straw for Davis; he may well have thought that he'd conceded enough.
I applaud him.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that he thought he wouldn't be able to address this issue of civil liberties as Home Secretary. I suspect that he thought that Cameron wouldn't prioritise it, that Cameron isn't robust enough.
Well, Davis is robust enough.

Joseph

I agree with David lindsey, this is all about the Trotskyites who believe in free market economics. What we need are the capitalists among the Left to take back control and restore our freedoms.

Everyone knows that the City College of New York is behind all of this, and has been for decades.

David Lindsay, you are the only one here with any real logic whatsoever.

Robert Lindberg

Just a note for Melanie from a Yanqui expat who has lived in the UK for 10 years.... Thank you!!!! You are always a breath of fresh air in an increasingly polluted atmosphere. Yes, even the Britain I came to 10 years ago is now only a memory. The present status-quo is increasingly distorted and a sane future will require a quantum shift in consciousness. If and how that will happen is an open question. Thanks so much for lending your able hand.

Angela

Goodness me, Kate Winslet’s fan club is as watery as her acting.

Archie, the public are not with Davis. Yes, there is a very vocal minority who will be given a good platform by the Press (who always like to give legs to a story), but throughout the 42-day debate, the majority of the public were always in favour. Unlike many in the metropolitan elite, we don’t work in buildings with armed guards or behind swish electric gates and so on.

No, I trudge to work every day on the tube wondering if the lasts words I hear will be “Allah Akbar!”

Funnily enough, my MP Andrew Dismore always stands outside Hendon tube station on General Election day, leafleting and shaing hands. This man, whom I have given my vote to – three times – turned up on Newsnight last week to say he would vote against 42 days – and he did.

Well, come election day next, Mr Dismore, whom I had respected as a constituency MP until now, will (if one of the al Qaeda franchise hasn’t toasted me yet) see me walk past him again. He may be casual about me meeting my demise on the tube, but I will not be so casual about trying to send him to his political demise.

We know it’s a fig leaf for the failure to control our borders and so on but we also know it may be necessary to use these powers one day. We’re not going to get lucky every time.

Greg

The issues of 42 days, surveillance, ID cards, databases et al cannot be separated from the question of competence of the authorities to safeguard the information they collect.

And as the government has shown again (and again) it cannot be trusted with confidential information, even data of the top-most secrecy.

I would rather let alleged criminals out of detention a few days earlier than see my bank account details and my address left on a train to Surrey!

Robin

Clearly we've all reacted to DD's resignation in a variety of ways. Watching him on TAMS (The Andrew Marr Show) on Sunday morning, I felt that much of what he said rang a chord with me.

Agreed, there's an illogicality in his position over 42 days, but I agree with an earlier poster that this just was DD's tipping point. It's quite right for Melanie to say that DD's position has resonated with many who feel that MPs of all parties are largely out-of-touch and irrelevant. This is so true of the current government.

However DD does in his election, the issue that winds me up totally is one that the Tories constantly sidestep - the EU.

In her Daily Mail article from last week - "The Eleuphant in the Room" - (found on www.melaniephillips.com) one reads about the sort of issue that DD should have resigned about.

DD will know in detail about the Tory MP Peter Lilley's Bill (see www.numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20June.htm#shock) which makes the sort of point of interest to us all, I would think.

Thus, I have a lot of sympathy with DD's viewpoint, but I wonder if you fight as effectively outside the Shadow Cabinet as you would on the inside.

Lucan C. Heraclitus

I take your point the impact of the European treaty on our constitution but I'm absolutely convinced that Davis has done the right thing in resigning from the ccabinet over the Forty-two Days. The supension of Habeas Corpus requires a very special set of circumstances - the outbreak of civil war, say - but I do not believe we have got that with the present government's approach to terror.

The government has not made an effective case, and has not proved its point. That is why so many voted against the measure and why Brown had to offer inducements to win the DUP over.

Let me plain, the present government is despised and hated by most people in the land, and we do not want to arm it with such powers.

Quite simply, we don't trust them and we are pleased that at last a leading politician has stood against the cant.

Lost in Kate Winslet

Angela wrote
June 16th, 2008 2:13pm

"Goodness me, Kate Winslet’s fan club is as watery as her acting."

Clearly you didn't bother to read what I proposed Angela. Let me remind you:

"My own personal opinion on this is that we need to look at our rules about police investigations into terrorist activity. Instead of extending the amount of time before charge which is a response to problems of resources and time, why not allow in terrorist cases for the police to continue to question after charge. Have this period reviewed by the courts on a 7 day basis."

This would give the police more than 42 days if required. Its an amendment to the practices of law in the UK and would only apply to terrorist threats.

You have to grasp the basic point that 42 days is a response to a resources problem. Surely you must remember those maths tests where you were asked if it takes 2 men 3 days to dig a ditch, how long would 5 men...

In what I have proposed, the only check is a regularly weekly review from a high court judge. Provided it was acceptable to the reviewing judge, the police would have the time they require.

This is far more fundamental a change than extending pre-charge detention from 28-42 days. It is an exceptional response to exceptional circumstances.

What is remotely watery about that Angela?

JJ

I wonder if I might post this here since we’re all talking about national security.

I sat there last week watching the news and pondering first why the instinct of someone who found something marked ‘top secret’ on a train would be to – not phone up the police (it might have had fingerprints on it) – but to… hand it to the BBC. My.

And then, when the same thing again, a day later, the instinct of a second ‘finder’ was to hand the papers to – the police this time? – no… The ‘Independent’ on Sunday. Wow! Or should I say ‘double wow’?

Do I think the BBC and Independent on Sunday have a similar world view? Who could suggest such a thing?

Surely the way these stories were revealed (in the way that anyone au fait with drumming up press attention would use as a matter of common practice – midweek splash, Sunday splash) didn’t mean anything. It’s all coincidence, right?

I don’t know whether Ms Phillips shared my thoughts, but I was fascinated to read the inconsistencies in the accounts of how these top secret papers were reported missing that she covers in her column today “The curious case of the Waterloo files” (see the right hand side of this page).

Am I missing something here?

Olly

"he is against 42 days because he stands for the hallowed principle of not locking people up without charge. So does that mean he is against the 28 day limit as well? And if he is, then surely he has to be against the 14 day limit that preceded it, and the seven day limit before that. Indeed, according to the principles he has laid down he has to be against any detention before charge at all".

Melanie might "get" the answer to this if she reverses the logic - why is Melanie in favour of 42 days? Why not 142 days or 342 days?

Clive

Without in any way minimising the threat of Islam to this country, surly the bigger threat is our own Government? In fact in the 20th Century government has been the biggest killer of its own citizens by a country mile - in the order of several hundred million compared to a few tens of thousands of victims of terrorism (as tragic as those are).

But I totally agree with Melanie that once this latest treaty becomes law (regardless of the Irish, unfortunately) then what David does about safe-guarding our civil liberties will be irrelevant. As Melanie says, our English system of law (including habeus corpus and trial by jury) will be replaced by the EU 'Corpus Juris'. Then, if I understand this correctly, the European Public Prosecutor can have you dragged off to rot in prison indefinitely, if someone with enough power so wishes. According to EU law public officials and police are immune from prosecution. Be afraid, be very afraid!

Ann

Well, clearly Melanie is simply not getting it. She thinks she is on the side of reason, but she isn't: she is entirely on the side of naked emotionalism. This is shown most clearly by the following sentence:
"I also sympathise with the general view that the state is encroaching more and more oppressively into people’s lives" - what patronising nonsense. Oh, you sympathise! Why, that is sooo big of you!

It's a simple, demonstrable fact, plain as the nose on anyone's face, that we now have the most oppressive country in the West, the one with the lest civil liberties - and the one with the most rapid (or indeed, rabid) erosion of those we still have. There is the EU on one side, cutting deep into our sovereignty; and there is the literally lunatic, mouth-foaming gang of McBean aka Pinocchio, Hand Puppet, Millipede, Harridan et al (and Bliar before them), who regard themselves as above the law in every respect and entitled to remove the rights of the serfs as it pleases them.
Councils spying on the parents of pupils and on the contents of bins, speed cameras for generating cash, traffic wardens ditto, census forms that demand to know your ethnicity (only they don't understand the difference between ethnicity and culture) on pain of imprisonment (!) - these are not amusing anecdotes, but real oppressive police state stuff. Anyone not living on planet ZZYX knows the list, and it goes on and on. Melanie must be living on that planet, because she simply doesn't get it.

F. and U. Adenufyet

The consensus is that we are under threat from a certain 'movement' who's name we dare not speak. They have declared war on us many times, yet we refuse to pick up the gauntlet.
I would ask the following question.

Are we at war or not?

If the answer is yes, then emergency measures must be introduced to safeguard the country AGAINST THE ENEMY FOR THE DURATION OF THE THREAT and then removed when we have eradicated that threat.

The bleeding hearts will shout 'racist' 'islamophobe','profiling' and 'habeus corpus' but, as the old saying goes
'Not all muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are muslims'
Common sense says that we must protect ourselves.

Ann

Lee Jakeman needs to look up 'last straw'.

And yes, DNA can be used legitimately within reasonable parameters, e.g. for everyone convicted of a serious crime. To keep the DNA of people who have never even been brought to court but released and the case dropped (!!!) is pure police state stuff.

Perhaps Melanie hasn't heard of 'innocent until proven guilty'. In that, she resembles most of our chattering classes.

Frank Pulley

JJ

Perhaps they should bang up he Home Secretary for 42 days while they investigate these serious security breaches?

Joe Strummer

If David Davis was so concerned about "civil liberties" he'd have resigned over the smoking ban in pubs and clubs, even where bar owner, bar staff and clientele wished smoking be allowed.

I didn't see this valiant hero step forwards back then.

logdon

Ah well, time to move to another blog. Time after time I post comments based on a truth we all know is going on yet zilch from this bunch of wimps. Why bother is my reaction when even the dreaded Guardian will post them? They may contain controversial opinion but all of it is gleaned from mainsteam media and all reflects what the general public think. Out of touch government could quite well apply here I'm afraid. I read today that the EU is creating legislation to curb and censor internet content. No need, just try posting on Melanies blog!! The Spectator seems to have beaten them to it!

logdon

Try this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7456357.stm

Kram Ekosum

Melanie should herself be able to rise above the emotionality of this absurd political manoeuvre by Brown. This is not Israel/Palestine...
Lost in Kate..., are you a really a minister? Very sensible blog. Of course 14 or even 28 days sounds frankly absurd. It is a confession that our police are under-resourced, overstretched and even possibly incompetent. It is staggering that there can be so much evidence to arrest someone for terrorism and yet at the same time be so little to able to charge them with. Is this what "they" meant by triangulation?
Why we need new legislation rather than simply asking a judge for more time on an as required basis is beyond my feeble understanding! As a Londoner I dread getting blown up on the way to or from work. However like most people I am really more concerned about being able to pay the rent, pay the mortgage, fill the car up, look after my children, look after my parents, and after all this have any pension savings to live off after retiring well beyond the age of 70. This non-government is putting all these modest desires in jeopardy.

Ann

Joe Strummer is anothet one who needs to look up 'last straw'.

Those sneering at DD - where were they all this time? Actually doing something about it? I don't think so.

So, perhaps he didn't feel strongly about things up to now: so what? He does now. The sneerers are like someone who is sneering at a person who was somewhat late in discovering a fire in his house, and is trying to put it out. They are saying: Since you didn't detect the fire straight away, why are you bothering to put it out now? You are only doing it for self-promotion.
This is a laughable attitude, totally devoid of reason and entirely silly.

logdon

Or this.

logdon

Ridiculousness reigns. You publish my reaction but not the comment and Melanie talks of logic?

Here's another source

http://www.scribd.com/doc/935787/White-schoolgirls-in-UK-falling-prey-to-Muslim-pimps

Elizabeth

Whatever the arguments about the DNA database I am becoming convinced that DNA has something to do with the understanding of DD and his stand.
Maybe only those of us who come from long lines of English and Welsh peasants and the working classes can understand the need to maintain our liberty and fundamental freedoms. Maybe it is just imbred from centuries of dire necessity.
I dread to think how many of my forebears, at the mercy of the elites of their time suffered injustice and summary punishment.
The need for freedom and justice runs deep within our veins.
Wat Tyler, John Ball.
Islam and its threats are a total red herring.
I am damned if I, as an Englishwoman, will surrender my ancient and most basic rights, fought for and died for over the centuries by ancestors unknown but who I like to think were Samwise Gamgees, typically the 'poor bloody infantry' anytime from 1215 to 1945.
Anyone who isn't worried by Islam and the demographics of that creed in England need to wake up - but taking my liberty away will do nothing at all.
Taking it away for reasons that I suspect have less to do with my country and more to do with others, impresses me not at all.
Repealing the Human Rights Act, withdrawing from the EUSSR and forming an English parliament to bring back some English rule thus liberating us from our Scottish masters will do a darn sight more to protect us English than the surrender of Habeas Corpus and the formation of a police state.
Why, if these islamics are such a menace, is so little being done to stop never ending numbers of possible fundamentalists entering this
country unchecked, madrassas funded by the English taxpayer, radicalization across whole sections of our Islamic communities. Kid gloves when sending these wouldbe terrorists back from whence they came, and a dozen other unmentionables which frankly I am no longer at freedom to write because of the 'race relations industry' which has already impinged on too many of our basic freedoms .
The cliche 'enough is enough' is perhaps what Melanie Phillips should understand but doesn't.
Clapped up for 42 days without charge when you are innocent is a bridge too far. The legendary days of the Sherriff of Nottingham and his ilk.
Some of my forebears were probably in the crowd who heard John Pym lay down his gauntlet. I am proud to be among the number to hear DD.
It is just such a moment in history, I sincerely hope.
If not we will have very little freedom left but a future of corporate serfdom.

Pete Hoskin

logdon: we've been having a few problems with comments recently, so your original probably just got lost in the digital ether.

You're very welcome to send the complete version of what you want to say to phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll post it manually for you.

Verily

Elizabeth, I think you'll find that the leader of the Pedants' Revolt was "Which Tyler!"

Joe Strummer

-Ann

The ludicrous smoking ban was an appalling affront not only to individual civil liberties and to democracy itself but was a victory and fillip only for the intolerants of the growing minority pressure groups in this land.

It has also had a major impact on the social fabric of this country, particularly the older generation whose only social contact with their community was a visit to their local pub. This smoking ban has only ensured an even more lonely existence for this often neglected and forgotten generation.

I'll say it again, this smoking ban should have been stridently and loudly opposed by all who cherish civil liberties, but not by the likes of cheap opportunists like David Davis.

david smith

Ann 8pm.You may well be right about our DNA.There are still millions of us with over a 1000 years of English/Welsh ancestry despite the best attempts of the liberal elite to convince us we are in error.David Davis has really struck a chord and who knows where it may lead.Probably back to the 17th century.Melanie please look up the Petition of Right 1628 and the Bill of Rights 1689.They are crystal clear and speak of a time when OUR parliament defended us not trampled on our freedoms.Because these things happened long ago why on earth does it mean they are no longer of vital importance?There is a real difference in meaning between "freedom" and "liberty".Freedom is an old English word and is what we are born with.Inalienable and not in any state's power to destroy except by the means we have ,in our long history,agreed as just.Liberty is something we are given by a state and that is the ruling principle of all other European nations which is why those who respond to David Davis probably loathe the EU in any form.
This is not irrational but common sense.Trust a state and you can end up imprisoned or dead.That is what states do.It is in their DNA.We could and should defeat terrorism by rigorously applying the laws we already have including the treason law.Leaving the EU,repealing all human rights legislation and bringing in draconian border controls for everyone will make a good start.Giving up our freedom will not help at all.

Frank Pulley

Melanie

I understand your reason for supporting stronger measures against terrorism; you have argued your case with cogency and characteristic courage. I agree that stronger measures should be taken against terrorism/Islamic jihad/murder/mayhem - whatever you want to call it. My only problem with your solution is that you are asking for more powers to be given to a depleted and demoralised police force and a Government that was formed after they had completed the 'long march through the institutions'.

My preference would be to upgrade the police through reorganisation, weeding, tougher recruitment and proper funding; then allow them to use the powers they already have without the hindrance of political interference and use the judicial processes that already exist. Terrorists or any other serious criminals can be held for long periods after charge so that further investigations can be carried out to discover the scope complexity of the crimes. It isn't too much to ask that they gather two-penn'orth of evidence to get a suspoected perp on the charge sheet. All a senior police officer has to do thereafter is to convince a judge that he/she is not on fishing expedition and that there is a need and strong likelihood that evidence will be forthcoming. It is important that this corrupt government is denied any further power to destroy our constitution, and what remains of our culture and sovereignty. Rather than give them more power we should concentrate on getting them out of power! And at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, they neither had any intention of using the 42 day provision - nor would they have been allowed to, regardless of the bodged up amendments and gobbledegook. It's a political stunt! As for DD - I agree with you wholeheartedly. Mass insanity is in progress over in the Coffee House - but don't go there: your blood pressure would lead cause fatal apoplexy if you did. Watch your back over there on le continent, too. Hurry home! We need you to lead the charge when the day comes. David Davis has already bottled out and has gone out to play with the sixth formers. I don't like to think of Dominic out front with his brolly; you and your flaming sword I could follow, even at my age.

Frank Pulley

"Elizabeth, I think you'll find that the leader of the Pedants' Revolt was "Which Tyler!" "

Ha!

Verily I say unto you, that's Verity, isn't it, not 'Verily'. If it isn't we're really going to have a problem from hereon in.

Condolences to a Nation

Most commenters seem to be of one 'should be' colour or another. Better if there were a little more focus on reality, on 'what is'.

Every new law of the Government has gone the way of increasing the burden on the citizen, on harassing him more and more. In one sense, even criminals and terrorists are not the problem, it is the culture of doubt in politics, in legislature, in education, that whether aggression, immorality, or bad behaviour, are to be punished, negotiated or rewarded(!).

We live in times of lawlessness - in Godlessness, in the name of modernity, in the name of secular government. State institutions recognise no perpetual law. Nothing is sacred.

Time and again, the citizenry has been sold out. At each political or other such juncture, it thinks things could not possibly be worse. While they are still smarting from the last insult, the custodians of the nation are giving the finishing touches to the next.

The issue is hardly of 42 days, even 420 days would not suffice to allow a killer, a terrorist, free. And the the law-abiding, the God-fearing, the moral, innocent citizen ought never to pay the price of even 42 hours.

The problem, my friends, is not the duration of detention; it is the sense to know right from wrong.

Ann

Strummer, you are still talking utter nonsense. Just because an MP didn't share your prejudices and didn't resign over the smoking ban, but feels strongly about detention without charge (and possibly as strongly as I do about DNA databases, and the EU's fascist 'treaty'), doesn't make him an 'ooportunist': it makes him honest.

Helen

We had a case just last week tat demonstrated the case for 42 days – and indeed 90 days.

Yeshi Girma, the wicked wife of Hussein Osman, one of the would-be 21/7 bombers, was sentenced to 15 years for not disclosing her husband’s plan to the authorities – even though she knew of it.

The trial judge rightfully pointed out that this sentence was “woefully inadequate to reflect the enormity of what you were about in July 2005”. Unfortunately his hands were bound by the law and he was left with no choice but to give her this pitifully lenient jail term.

If you know something like that is going to happen and you do nothing about it, this suggests you have a great deal of sympathy for the plan.

So, what happens if one day a prime suspect is picked up and the police have to deal with the usual rigmarole of sifting through mountains of evidence to charge them, but as they do so realise that an associate might have known of and by having said nothing thus endorses this plan?

What if they are fearful that this associate might decide to step in and replace the prime target who has been arrested and try to effect the terrorist plan themselves? It’s a perfectly reasonable scenario given the number of terrorist plots we have had and still have in this country.

Fringe players such as Yeshi Girma are even more difficult to assimilate evidence on because they will not be all over the main parts of the evidence that come to light. It is just this sort of person that 90 days is necessary for.

Yes, the custody time limit must be drawn somewhere and I do not believe it should be above 100 days but cases like Yeshi Girma’s show just what the authorities are up against.

They must be congratulated for bringing her to justice.

Elizabeth

And if the likes of Yeshi Girma can restrict and take away my freedom and my free society they have won.
Never.
I would like to know why she isn't deported to serve her sentence in her country of origin.
It seems that my rights can be violated, I have to tolerate a coming police state, so that terrorist scum who plot to kill us can have their 'rights' respected and given priority over mine. My traditions and free society must be sacrificed for their protection.
No way.
Something a bit warped here I think. I am sick of watching it.

stephen real

What a marvellous piece of NEO CON literature.

Verity

Frank Pulley and Peter Hoskins -No. "Verily" is not me.

Only Verity is the real thing. ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!

Robin

David Smith & Ann

On the topic of DNA and the whole business of our own views about our ancestry, it's worth reading Professor Bryan Syke's tome "The Seven Daughters of Eve".

Veriest

Vertity: "Only Verity is the real thing. ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!"

You are unique! Just like everyone else ....
;-))

Denise

The trial of Yeshi Girma and her two co-defendants shows just what the authorities are up against.

It took four months (more than 42 day and more than 90 days incidentally) for this trial to be completed. If that was how long just the trial took, how long do you think it took to sift through the evidence before she could be charged?

Of course we don’t want to discard long-held principles, but there were more than 50 dead on 7/7. Desperate times a call for desperate measures and thanks to things like this government’s blind eye to our porous borders and the so-called ‘Human Rights Act’ that prevents hate preachers being deported, we are in for plenty more of this. The lack of foresight on where these idiotic ideas would lead us now means we are fighting a rearguard action.

Rights are not to be thrown away lightly, but my right to life comes before a measly six weeks’ detention. The dead of 7/7 won’t be coming back. We can’t hear what they think of this debate and I don’t much fancy joining them in the afterlife while Shami Chakrabarti gets to scream her case over my dead body with me able to say nothing about it.

Like all prisoners who receive a custodial sentence more than four years, Girma will be eligible for release once she has served two thirds of her sentence. In other words, this woman who endorsed a plan to re-create 7/7 will be back on the streets in just 10 years.

I wonder if Ms Chakrabarti is outraged at this and plans to take to the airwaves to publicise this? I won’t hold my breath.

The Times notes that Girma left the dock sobbing upon hearing her sentence, no doubt with tears of laughter at our timid response to the evil of her and people like her.

Frank Pulley

Denise

There was enough evidence to charge her at a very early stage of the enquiry. You seem to think that if we don't detain suspects WITHOUT CHARGE for ridiculously long periods the world will end in a frenzy of whirling dervishes.

The threat of Islamism is very real and very serious, but if you think passing the 42 day legislation is going to change that one iota, you are seriously deluded, not to mention clinically paranoiac. Get help. The legislation, if it is passed will not only never be used (as with so much other crappy tokenistic enactment of the last few years), but even if it were, it would not stop occasional insane outrages taking place. In fact it is likely to increase them (as happened when internment was tried in Northern Ireland). Voluntary ceding of our ancient safeguards against State oppression will only act as a spur to those who want to undermine our nationhood and culture, because they recognise coardice when they see it and smell it a mile off.

How you can view the antics of this government and some of the keystone cop behaviour of some of our police in recent years, not to mention some of the decisions emerging from the upper echelons of our judiciary, and still want to hand them more power defeats me.

The logical extension of your argument is that we instruct the armed police units to go forth into the streets tomorrow and gun down everybody that looks like a Muslim terrorist. Would that allay your fears? If you were to conduct an opinion poll tomorrow on that proposition it might well turn up a majority in favour. A few might disagree though, particularly if they happened to be Brazilian electricians (any sign of that report yet, btw?).

Elizabeth

For goodness sake Denise get a backbone. Get a grip.
50 dead and you are ready to surrender our basic traditional human rights and freedoms.
Thank heavens there were not many people panicking like you during the blitz. How would you ever have managed.
How many Brits did the IRA murder?
Nobody suggested taking away Habeas Corpus and making a mockery of Magna Carta and goodness knows what then.
As I sit here less than two miles from where Magna carta was drafted, less than two miles from where John Ball was tried, less than two miles from an Abbey gateway still scared form the peasants revolt I find your weak kneed response to one rather minor (in the scheme of things) terrorist attack totally out of proportion and completely over the top.
So you are shaking with fear - thats your problem Denise, get a traquiliser, not the majority of the English people who have endured much much worse without abject surrender.
Now I am furious that my rights are under threat because of the likes of Abu Qatada. I am absolutely irate that his rights, as a Jordanian citizen to boot, can take priority over our own and he can remain here as a terrorist threat and swill like a pig from the British taxpayer whilst at it.
All benefits should cease to him and his family. Have they?
The whole lot should be out of here last year.
Lets suspend the kid gloves for terrorists. lets suspend kid gloves for immigrants who come here either illegally or choose to plot and plan our destruction.
Lets suspend kid gloves and start exporting those whose beliefs are contrary to our traditional and long standing history of parliamentary democracy.
If you do not support our democratic concepts and believe in for example theocracy - why do you want to even live here.
Rather than suspend Habbeas Corpus and our open and free society lets invite such believers to pack up and return to a more hospitable environment where they must feel more comfortable and more at home.
As an older person who can just remember the second world war and sleeping each night in a steel inreforced shelter - the only bed I knew - whose father served in the RAF, whose mother risked her life each day working on London's buses, whose grandfather fought at Galipoli and on the Somme, who lost a close member of the family under a Nazi bomb which destoyed a lovely family home, I find this weak kneed surrender both pitiful and contempible.
50 victims - all tragic and all enough to make you spit tacks. Just get mad and get even. Don't weep into a white hanky and then hold it up to islamic terror.
Of course we would be on far stronger moral ground if we got out of Islamic countries and stopped killing them and if Israel stopped occupying parts pf Palestine and breeding islamic hatred there.
Start working for this Denise. It will do far more to protect your life than surrendering to threats and mayhem, holding up your hands.

Denise

Frank,

42-days is nothing like internment, which was indefinite imprisonment – the two are totally different. Moreover, there is nothing occasional about these attacks, it is just that we were lucky 7/7 has so far – through a combination of extremely good luck on attacks that failed and good detective work on conspiracies that were detected – been the only successful one. That’s the point.

The conspiracies to put these attacks together now are legion and are only set to grow. Extending the custody time limit before charge won’t affect their motives either way.

They are motivated in this country – as with every other Islamist attack in every other country – by God. That’s why the last words you here before you get blown to bits are: “Allah akbar!”

Sorry, Elizabeth, I don’t remember Nazis being allowed to waltz around London during the Blitz. In the history books I read, they were locked up until the end of the war.

“How many Brits did the IRA murder?” Well, they never did more than 50 in one day and at least they gave us a phone call and usually focused on military targets.

As for this tripe: “Of course we would be on far stronger moral ground if we got out of Islamic countries and stopped killing them and if Israel stopped occupying parts pf Palestine and breeding islamic hatred there.”

What was 9/11 about exactly? What are all the attacks on non-Muslims in Africa about? What has Israel got to do with London?

There is only one common thread that I can see, Elizabeth.

Perhaps when you’ve gone and got yourself a copy of The Koran you might understand the world a bit better.

Mine has just opened on the page with the line: “Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”

I’ve not come across a passage yet that says if the custody time limit before charge is extended you must attack non-believers. Do you have a page reference for that, Frank or Elizabeth?

Verity

Oustanding posts from Frank Pulley - no surprises there, then - and Elizabeth.

Just one point, Elizabeth. With respect, Islamic aggression has nothing, nada, zilch to do with our liberating Iraq and nor with Israel, although both are handy camouflage to hide the real point, which is the Caliphate.

They have been intent on Islamizing the world since Islam had its kick-off in the 800s. The Dark Ages (and never reformed with regard to the modern world). They have been after Europe for centuries and last time were only stopped at the Gates of Vienna.

Do not fall for the lefty propaganda that somehow, what with Iraq and Israel and all, it's all our fault. These are disguises.

In the meantime, the vicious left secretly pursues its own agenda for the conquest of Europe. Gramscianism is still on the march. The Muslims were not allowed into Europe in such ridiculous numbers by mistake. They were brought in as rods to control the British and Europeans with.

So the Muslims are set on conquering Europe for Allah, and the Gramscians are set on conquering Britain and Europe for themselves. Just now they're on parallel tracks, which is helpful to both of them.

Which one will be derailed first? I suggest that the Brits and some (northern) Europeans, will wrest control from the Gramscians and will then set the agenda for the return of a number of the Muslims to their ancient homelands.

I don't mean to carp; your post was very interesting. But you should not conflate Israel and Iraq with an ancient Islamic agenda.

Elizabeth

VerITY! I agree with you re the caliphate - wholeheartedly. And time is right on their side regards this country. Around about 2035 we can kiss goodbye to not only our traditional rights and freedoms but also our christianity, culture, flag and history. Bring on the 'bin bags' for all our grand daughters because that is EXACTLY the facts and demographics of the islamic invasion and occupation of England.
WE must do something to sort this out, not hold up a white wet hanky and say we surrender our rights to you - we will live in a police state and will do nothing to stop a further so many million moving in - like pushing for Turkey to be a member of the EU and thus 80 million more islamics to aid and abet the new Eurabia. And thats on TOP of our regular intake from every islamic state on the globe.
We must be mad.
Denise did nothing for me except make one argument, that for us being out of Europe. Opening our borders to 26 different nations is an act of stupidity verging on treason. In 1939 we hadn't filled our nation to overflowing with countless immigrants, a good few of whom mean us death and destruction . We have now the equivalent of handing Hitler Kent to bomb us from.
I completely fail to understand any argument at all by Denise when it comes to surrendering my civil liberties.
As for Eurabia my blood runs cold. Not only have we allowed mass islamic immigration but worse given them bases and made sure they have the finance too.
Bosnia is a fundamentalist dominated state. We fought the Bosnian Serbs on the radical islamics behalf and are busy now trying to force these same Serbs into accepting islamic domination. They are less than happy but unlike Kosovo their autonomous territory is beyond the western pale.
Worst of all we illegally attacked the Serbs (as posted on another thread of Coffee House today) and have illegally backed the stealing of 15% of their country handing it to an islamic fundamentalist terrorist and criminal administration.
All the better to enable the transfer of drugs from Afghanistan through Kosovo Albania and on to the west.
One of Serbia's crimes was being awkward over this drug trade which works in collusion with clandestine western government agencies who take a cut of the profits for 'black ops'. Much of the rest funds the terror against us. The Saudis take the ticket for building the Wahhabi mosques springing up throughout the province.
Yes, and you can carp as much you like, be my guest, Iraq and Afghanistan do matter if only on the grounds that we are sending our sons and daughters - some of the finest of our young - to die for what!! A day or so ago Sky tells us so young Afghans can go to school. Sorry - that doesn't wash for me. I value our young more highly. Their job is to maintain our security and killing the odd Afghan does not do that. It does nothing except show our lack of decent humanity. Ditto Iraq.
As for Israel I cannot accept the right of the Israelis to slowly colonise and occupy Palestinian lands. If I do, then I have to accept the islamic right to colonise and occupy my country. Whats good for the goose as they say.
Palestine for the Palestinians and the English will never ever be islamic slaves - oops -if, that is, we get rid of the Human rights act, the race relations industry, pull out of the EU and reassert our sovereignty.
Otherwise welcome to the new islamic year of 2035 (or thereabouts) and the new caliphate of England. Westminster Abbey the new mosque on the block. No St Pauls has got the dome - for the rock, Westminster Abbey can become a blackened shell like over 140 ancient historic and beautiful christian churches in Kosovo.
They don't even pretend whats in store for us. Our complete enslavement and destruction. And we quibble at sending back a Jordanian alleged terrorist.
Good grief!!If they drank it would be champers all round at our utter stupidity.

Stephen

There is no way there is going to be an Islamic take over of Britain. Muslims make up... what? 3% of the country? Even if they have higher fertility rates (which have been shown to fall off as the generations since immigration increase) and many immigrants are Muslims, there is no way 3% is going to become a majority in 20 odd years. Will Muslims make up a greater proportion of population in 50 odd years? Yes, almost certainly. A majority. No. And even then, most will no be looking for an Islamic state, being more interested in getting on with their lives, just like most people of any other religious/national/ethnic group.

Verity

Sorry, Stephen, but that three per cent of the population has been awarded a voice out of all proportion to its size and political weight. (I didn't say they pushed for it themselves.) They are a battering ram for the destruction of Britain.

I didn't say the Muslims would take over Britain - and actually agree that most couldn't be less interested in such a bizarre concept, but the trouble-makers - the absurd Muslim Council is one of them - have been deliberately accorded a voice out of all proportion to the number of people they supposedly "represent". (I doubt whether anyone has polled the Muslim population of Britain and asked if they want to be represented by a jerk like Inayat Bangalangla and this Bari self-righteous pontificating twerp.

But it suits the governors of Britain in their programme of destabilisation, to have these people appear to gain ascendancy over the British in their own country. It is they - the Archibishop of Canterbury among them - who are according Muslims disproportionate thought and attention. It is these people who are pushing for shariah law. Few Muslims give a thought to it one way or the other, and the Muslim women in Ontario actually banded together very effectively to get a stupid proposal to have a form of shariah in Ontario dropped like a hot potato.

I repeat. Yes, there are Muslim terrorists in Britain, but they could be cut off at the knees were they not protected by this British government.

Worse than the terrorists are the enablers.

About six months into Tony Blair's first time, I remarked to a friend that this was the first time in the history of the human race that the Fifth Column was actually the government of the day.

Joe Strummer

Ann-

You just don't get it, do you.? Unwanted and unneeded State intrusion and the erosion of individual civil liberties begins with what seems like "trivial" issues as the smoking ban, the ban on sportsmen using pistols, the fox-hunting ban, etc.

This is when the likes of David Davis should have made a stand. That he didn't says everything. His sudden conversion as a civil rights activist makes him look a cheap political opportunist.

Elizabeth

Before I post my reply perhaps Verity and Stephen can give us the reference for their figure of 3%.
I was under the impression that no one knows the true figure, least of all our government.
We do know that Islam will become the dominant religion in this country in the foreseeable future.
Yes 3% source please?
How do you come up with 3% when most of our major cities are now verging on a majority ethnic population and scarcely a town or village in the England is devoid of some islamic people.
I would also like you to explain the 3% in light of the fact that large numbers of the Eastern europeans coming over here are muslim. Albanians, Kosovans, Roumanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians etc. A relict of the Ottoman Empire and Muslim for all that. Who knows their religious affiliation. Surely it is rather racist to presume islamics cannot be white.
Please make my day and show proof of your 3% and put my mind at rest and prove many experts in demographics are incorrect.
That with something like 250,000 Brits leaving annually and double that coming in, many islamic, with a birthrate among Brits below replacement level yet six eco cities required for immigrants and their children, we have no concerns with an islamic population of 3%.
Our population is some 60 million. 3% is less than 2 million.
Many islamic groups claim they now have 12 million here.
Less than 2 million is hardly enough to be pushing the Islamic religion into such high numbers. A reason for the introduction of Sharia.
I would have thought, from my knowledge of greater London, 2 million islamics are resident there judging by the mosques and influence peddled.
Yes please Stephen as you are so exact in your figure - please source it. I am most curious and open minded if you can prove your confident claim.

James

Elizabeth, the Israelis haven't taken any Palestinian land. It never was theirs to have in the first place. Israel existed as the homeland Jews hundreds of years before Islam was even invented. You're talking rot.

Stephen, we are going headlong into the Caliphate because we are part of Europe. Within a generation Holland will have a Muslim majority, we and other countries are also on the brink of seeing Turkey's huge Muslim population spreading across Europe. The bulk of these people are functionally illiterate and have very little in the way of specialist skill sets thanks to Turkey's poor education system. All they will do is make up numbers.

For a while, Muslims and non-Muslims will apparently live together with just a little friction, a few terrorist atrocities here and there. However - just as this scenario existed in Lebanon in the 1970s - at some stage, somewhere in Europe an Islamist leader (they're not going anywhere) will seize the momentum and do exactly what the Islamists in Lebanon did and the fanatics will own the ordinary people - as they always do in these situations. That's what happened to ordinary Germans in the 1930s to sweep Hitler to power. It will happen with an earthquake, I doubt if Britain will be right at the epicentre, but it sure as hell will take the aftershock, like everywhere else will.

What happened in Lebanon on a small scale will in essence be repeated across Europe. History will repeat itself.

Brigitte Gabriel, who lived through what happened in Lebanon, sets it all out in her book: "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America". Do check it out.

Tina

Apropos Melanie's piece, 'The curious case of the Waterloo files', I just wondered why whoever has Hazel Blears missing laptop hasn't returned it to her via the BBC or the Independent on Sunday yet.

I wonder if someone were to carry out a control experiment and make up a set of documents made to appear as if they were top secret and had words like 'top secret' written on them and they were left on random trains around the country how many times people finding them would call the BBC and the IoS? Or would they call the police or try to make money by finding a highest bidder?

I lost my brolly on a train last week. I wonder if it's been handed in to a BBC security correspondent?

Verity

Tina - Well, I don't know. Have you checked whether it's been handed in to the News Editor of The Independent.

Elizabeth, I lazily used Stephen's notional figure because the government will never release the real figures.

I take your point. In addition, and I have mentioned this before, Muslims originating in Pakistan account for 31% of the newborn birth defects treated on the NHS. So they're either punching above their weight or, as you clearly suspect, and so do I, the government is telling Sovietesque-style lies to their masters, the electorate. (This outrageous figure, paid for by taxpayer contributions to the NHS, comes about because they indulge in generation after generation of first-cousin marriages. In other words, they practice incest and then get the results treated on the NHS. (This seems to be a Pakistani habit and doesn't apply to Muslims across the board, it should be noted.) Bradfor MP Anne Cryer has been a voice in the wilderness trying to get first-cousin marriages made illegal in Britain.

Not that it will make any difference. Polygamy is also illegal and Gordon Brown has announced that the taxpayer will be supporting women in polygamous arrangements provided polygamy is legal in the country in which it was contracted. So, very malleable, the British government. Just don't be a middle aged,indigenous professional person protesting a new runway wearing a T-shirt whose message the police deem "inflamatory".

Elizabeth

Elizabeth, the Israelis haven't taken any Palestinian land. It never was theirs to have in the first place. Israel existed as the homeland Jews hundreds of years before Islam was even invented. You're talking rot.

My word James if you are correct that is rotten news for every Non Indian American, Canadian, South American, Australians, New Zealanders and much of Europe. In fact only the Japanese and chinese look OK to me on first glance.
The plus side is that if our DNA is the 'right kind' we can claim all England and empty out the last 2 millenium of 'newcomers'.
It throws into doubt much of Europe. We will need genetics to decide who should be where.
How do the Celts fit in. Are they occupiers of the land of the original ice age residents, cheddar man and all that.
So a group of persons can come back to a bit of land after two thousand years and according to you claim it as theirs.
Wow what chaos!
I presume you aren't a racist and believe only Jews can have this right so what a fine mess you are proposing.
Who will score the best. The genetic testers or the lawyers.
This is setting the cat among the pigeons indeed.

James

Elizabeth, all those events are over. Closed. Where are the Red Indian suicide bombers? Why are they not bombing the London tube? The British isles had so many people go to America, so why aren't Red Indians attacking us?

The Jews always had a homeland of one sort or another in Israel.

As others keep pointing out to you, this is a war fought in the name of a religion. Funny how you lose your tongue whenever that’s explained.

If it isn’t, then why have so many non-Muslims been killed and attacked in Africa? Why the Madrid bombings? Why the bombings in London. Why Madrid? Why Indonesia? Why New York? On and on our list goes. It’s global. And you’re telling me it’s all over a titchy bit of land in the Middle East called Israel?

Perhaps if the last words you get to hear are “Allah akbar”, you’ll realise it’s a war fought in the name of a religion – if a little too late.

Elizabeth

Sorry James
You convince me not at all.
I am appalled at the threat of islamic expansion and terrorism however I hope I am just enough to believe that we shouldn't be making matters worse by doing what I do not want to be done by myself.
I do not want any part of islam in my back yard. We should not be in theirs.
If I was occupied by foreign powers murdering and bombing my people I would resist as well.
As for claiming the Jews have some claim on a bit of land they once had two thousand years ago - come on.!
And as many of those Jews on claiming that bit of land actually are not descended from those driven out but from central Asia and all over, you make no sense to me.
A few years ago I had some sympathy with the Jewish position. No longer. I am as appalled by their brutality to the Palestinian people and their brutality in the attack on Lebanon. I am appalled at the Jewish/neocon/AIPAC activities and their demands for ever more planetary war and appalled at the prospect of a Jewish attack on Iran.
I am not such a hypocrit that I can condemn one lot of terror and ignore another.
Both are a threat to global. peace. Both are guilty of horrendous acts of barbarity.