Tories planning to drop 28 days pre-charge detention


by Sunny
14th June, 2010 at 12:08 am    

So far they’ve proved OK on civil liberties. This is also welcome news. In an interview with Sayeeda Warsi:

The little-used but contentious Labour legislation allowing terror suspects to be detained without charge for up to 28 days could also be scrapped. “The question I would ask is this: how many times has 28 days been used?” said Warsi, who also has a cross-Whitehall brief on community issues.

A review could recommend changes in July. “Of course you have got to protect your country. But we have also got some very clear principles of natural justice. We have principles that people should know the charge against them, that we don’t detain for excessive periods without charge,” Warsi said.

It’s a sad day when Tories understand principles of natural justice better than some idiots in the Labour Party (who claim to be all for civil liberties).


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties






23 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Nadia

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Tories planning to drop 28 days detention http://bit.ly/97FDKF


  2. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: Tories planning to drop 28 days detention http://bit.ly/97FDKF


  3. Jim Jepps

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Tories planning to drop 28 days detention http://bit.ly/97FDKF


  4. Islamic Soc Britain

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Tories planning to drop 28 days detention http://bit.ly/97FDKF


  5. Gareth Winchester

    RT @sunny_hundal Pickled Politics Tories planning to drop 28-days detention http://bit.ly/aPHp5K


  6. Renew Your Relationships, Visit A Spa | Copy ... Out

    [...] Pickled Politics » Tories planning to drop 28 days detention [...]




  1. Nadia — on 14th June, 2010 at 12:09 am  

    Amen to the last point.

  2. Oliver — on 14th June, 2010 at 12:17 am  

    Brilliant news (if they end up doing it), Labour walking all over habeas corpus was shameful.

  3. Appealing of Ealing — on 14th June, 2010 at 12:56 am  

    “It’s a sad day when Tories understand principles of natural justice better than some idiots in the Labour Party (who claim to be all for civil liberties).”

    Labour’s natural tendency for big state, the interfering nanny state and the enslaved client state trumps all concerns about civil liberties. The last decade has proven that. It’s the centre right libertarian spirit that actually cares about the rights of individuals.

  4. Kendall Myntkayk — on 14th June, 2010 at 5:36 am  

    Out of curiosity, exactly which rights of the individual have been gifted to the British people by a Labour government, ever?

  5. Rumbold — on 14th June, 2010 at 8:02 am  

    Being socialist-leaning, Labour are naturally in favour of an overmighty state, since socialism is about the superiority of the state over the individual.

  6. Verd — on 14th June, 2010 at 9:49 am  

    Don’t be absurd, people don’t disagree with you because they see the world as you do and side with the darkness, they disagree with you because they see a different conflict as being important, in socialism’s case that’s workers vs bosses rather than state vs people. Deliberately misunderstanding your enemy is just an excuse to avoid thinking.

    But still, this ambivalence means socialists aren’t automatically concerned about civil liberties in the same way anarchists and right-liberterians are. Far leftist parties are anti-state because they are vulnerable to it, Labour haven’t had that problem for a long time.

  7. cjcjc — on 14th June, 2010 at 10:13 am  

    Far leftist parties are anti-state

    Except in the (very unfortunate) circumstances in which they become the state…

  8. Sunny — on 14th June, 2010 at 6:41 pm  

    socialism isn’t about the state – it is about the re-distribution of power.

    After that, you can divide up into camps depending on whether you think the state is best to deliver that (fabians) or people have to take power themselves (left-libertarians, anarchists, environmentalists).

  9. Appealing of Ealing — on 14th June, 2010 at 8:23 pm  

    “socialism isn’t about the state…”

    Recent Labour governments were about the state, and about the Labour party. And they didn’t give a monkeys about civil liberties.

    Lefties always increase the size of the state.

  10. Sunny — on 14th June, 2010 at 8:39 pm  

    Recent Labour governments were about the state

    And you’ll notice they didn’t really care for socialism… or in fact any political ideology other than hanging on to power.

    So the analogies don’t work I’m afraid.

  11. Sunny — on 14th June, 2010 at 8:40 pm  
  12. Arif — on 14th June, 2010 at 9:22 pm  

    Interesting website – although it does make a mistake or two which will make it an easy target for Muslims who suspect liberals aren’t really Muslims. And it keeps things very simple, totally ignoring contrary interpretations, which I understand completely enrages people who believe Islam is inherently inhumane.

    The test for me is to see whether it can develop in response to arguments and discussions, or whether it stays at this level (rendering it a PR gimmick, which maybe does the cause of liberation-type Islam more harm than good). Personally, I don’t think it is a gimmick, and the EIF seem to have a longer term vision. But I think the problems that Progrssive Islam type movements tend to have nowadays is a lack of theological depth (on the currently dominant traditional models) on the one hand, nor shock troops on the ground on the other hand.

    And I don’t think that the Islamic Right can be destroyed by a coalition of the Islamic Left and “anti-terrorists”, partly because the Islamic Left was liquidated by various coalitions between the Islamic Right and “anti-communists” and such-like. Partly because what remains of the Islamic left seems to be more interested in morality than power and keeps a distance from totalising discourses offered by their suitors.

    The EIF may be a newer phenomenon – distanced from the battles of the past – but I doubt they will be innocent of the lessons of postcolonial history. Good luck to them.

  13. e — on 14th June, 2010 at 10:50 pm  

    sunny, i think people like you (much as i admire your writing) really need to get over this whole “tories are evil” thing and stop publishing stuff like “it’s a sad day when the tories understand the principles of natural justice than some idiots in the labour party”

    you may have never heard of “decent” conservative but i’ve never heard of a bigoted liberal and you (and countless others like you) do yourself a great disservice by constantly waiting for them to trip up. you seem like you’re DYING for them to do something utterly shocking/racist/homophobic…anything! just so you can gloat over how rabidly right-wing, loony and CONSERVATIVE they are and how forward-thinking and UNCONSERVATIVE PP is.

    honestly get over yourself. left-wing is not always progressive, just as right-wing is not always swivel eyed.

  14. Appealing of Ealing — on 14th June, 2010 at 11:10 pm  

    “honestly get over yourself. left-wing is not always progressive, just as right-wing is not always swivel eyed”

    Agreed.

    I guess the longer one talks oneself into a corner, the harder it becomes to change the record. Such is the nature of identity politics. zzzzzzz

  15. Kendall Myntkayk — on 15th June, 2010 at 5:22 am  

    So no offers for any individual rights introduced by the Labour Party then? Interesting.

  16. MaidMarian — on 15th June, 2010 at 9:58 am  

    Warsi asks, ‘“The question I would ask is this: how many times has 28 days been used?”’ Section 28 was never used, but many in the tory party backed that to the hilt.

    If it is being little used, is is that not an argument that it is working? – this is an argument in Philip Bobbit’s, ‘Terror and Consent.’ That laws should be, ‘stockpiled.’ Bobbit compares laws to vaccines, we don’t use them but we stockpile them.

    28 days is a real red herring that too many have got themselves in knots over. If there was concern amongst the Parliamentary scrutiny committee that this was being overused/abused then maybe.

    As it stands, this is just misdirected angst. And this is not to mention that come the first major terror attack the tabloids will be calling for indefinite detention.

    Kendall Myntkayk – Rights are not gifted by government, silly boy.

  17. ukliberty — on 15th June, 2010 at 1:42 pm  

    MaidMarian is right that the question shouldn’t be about the number of times 28 days has been used but whether it’s right to have it at all.

    I disagree that 28 days is a red herring – the arguments for it are rubbish and there are serious concerns about it.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.