Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

"Defend 42-day detention? La la la, we can't hear you!", say Labour

Well not quite, but they might as well have done. According to the Beeb: "Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti is threatening to sue a Cabinet minister she says 'set out to smear' her dealings with ex-Tory MP David Davis. Ms Chakrabarti said that she would sue Culture Secretary Andy Burnham if 'you continue down the path of innuendo and attempted character assassination'. It follows an article in which he said he found her alliance with capital punishment backer Mr Davis 'curious'. A spokesman said Mr Burnham had not meant any offence." Click here for more details.

I, for one, couldn't care less whether she decides to sue a Cabinet minister for some very poorly-worded remarks. But it does show us one thing - Labour are only interested in defending the laws they've passed when it's convenient for them. Since Macavity made a grubby deal with the DUP to make sure they voted his way, (before going on national TV to deliberately tell the lie that no deals had been done) Labour have gone extremely quiet on 42-day detention. Indeed, they've now said they won't field a candidate against David Davis in the forthcoming by-election.

Why do Mr Brown and his apologists refuse to defend this law?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They do defend it. Their arguments are bullshit, but they do try bless 'em.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They do defend it. Their arguments are bullshit, but they do try bless 'em.

    Yep, and when it comes back to the House because the Lords will reject it we will once again see cash being handed out in exchange for votes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why should they be contestants in the David Davis show when they don't have to be? It was a silly vain move by him, and he has been left looking like a tit with nobody but the Monster Raving Looney Party for company.

    He should have fought it within Parliament and within his party. Dork.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    Why should they be contestants in the David Davis show when they don't have to be? It was a silly vain move by him, and he has been left looking like a tit with nobody but the Monster Raving Looney Party for company.

    He should have fought it within Parliament and within his party. Dork.

    And perhaps Brown shouldnt have stuffed cash into the DUP's hands, none of us are perfect.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    He should have fought it within Parliament and within his party. Dork.
    Shut up moaning and answer the question. Why won't Labour defend 42-day detention? Perhaps you'd like to explain to us why you think it's necessary?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Shut up moaning and answer the question. Why won't Labour defend 42-day detention? Perhaps you'd like to explain to us why you think it's necessary?

    I'm not moaning about anything, you're the one moaning about Labour not defending 42 days. Fact is Labour have repeatedly explained and defended their stance on 42 days. They just obviously have nothing to gain from standing against Davis in what is a safe Tory seat. It was vain and naïve of him to expect them to play along with him.

    As it happens I'm not convinced that 42 days is necessary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    I'm not moaning about anything, you're the one moaning about Labour not defending 42 days. Fact is Labour have repeatedly explained and defended their stance on 42 days.
    When? They didn't win the argument - they just bought the vote by bribing a crackpot political party into voting their way.
    As it happens I'm not convinced that 42 days is necessary.
    For some reason, I'd got the impression you were very much in favour of this. My mistake.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    When? They didn't win the argument - they just bought the vote by bribing a crackpot political party into voting their way.

    If you haven't heard Labour's argument on this, then you can't have been watching the news or any political programmes recently. They've outlined why they consider it necessary on numerous occasions, and from numerous different MPs. Their arguments are shit, but I agree with Runnymede. Why he thought that they would put someone up against him to debate on an issue that as far as they're concerned they've already won is beyond me. Incidentally, as far as public opinion is concerned, they have won the argument. But then a lot of basic human rights would be destroyed if they were down to the whims of the public at any given time. As I've said, we don't elect governments to follow the direction of the herd, we elect them to protect the rights of everyone, including people who engage in activities that the majority of the population don't approve of (provided they don't hurt anyone else).

    Incidentally, seeing David Davis on Question Time last night convinced me that this is more of a publicity stunt and a way of attacking the government than a genuine principled stance. I agree with the leader of UKIP (never thought I'd hear myself say that), you can't bang on about human rights, magna carta and innocent until proven guilty when you yourself have voted for 28 days. Surely innocent until proven guilty should mean just that, and it should be treated as any other suspected crime? Maybe with the ability to ask a judge to allow you to hold someone for up to a week, for example. But at least it goes before a judge in that case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest DUP would probably have voted for it without alleged extra cash for Northern Ireland (unlike various Labour MPs) and they're not crackpot, but come from part of the UK which suffered from real terrorism, not the second raters of UK Islamists.
Sign In or Register to comment.