Blair Defeated In 90 Day Vote

[Libertine]

Prime Minister Tony Blair has lost the key House of Commons vote on plans to allow police to hold terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days.

MPs rejected the plans by 322 votes to 291 - a majority of 31. It is the government's first defeat since Labour came to power in 1997.

The defeat will be seen as a blow to the authority of Mr Blair, who said MPs had a "duty" to support the police.

MPs are now voting on a compromise detention time limit of 28 days.

The vote will be seen as a blow to the prime minister's authority.

But the defeat does not mean Mr Blair will have to stand down as prime minister - something he has said he will do before the next election.

Labour usually has a House of Commons majority of 66.

'No police state'

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers said the 90-day plans went too far.

Civil liberties groups compared the proposal to internment - a charge rejected by ministers.

In his final plea for MPs to back the plans, Mr Blair urged MPs to take the advice of the police who had foiled two terrorist plots since the 7 July attacks in London.

In heated exchanges at prime minister's questions, Mr Blair said: "We are not living in a police state but we are living in a country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism."

Ministers tried to reassure waverers by promising that the new laws would expire unless MPs renewed them in a year's time.

Conservative leader Michael Howard warned that the detention plans could alienate ethnic minority communities.

Shuttle diplomacy?

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said the measure would almost certainly be defeated in the House of Lords, where two ex-law lords had called it "intolerable".

The prime minister admitted he could lose the vote but argued: "Sometimes it is better to lose and do the right thing than to win and do the wrong thing."

In a sign of the importance given to the vote, Chancellor Gordon Brown was called back within minutes of arriving in Israel for a high profile visit.

And Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also flew back early from EU-Russia talks in Moscow.

BBC News

[Head Honcho]

Tory and Lid Dem traitors should be ashamed of themselves!

It's not as if they want to lock everybody up without charge for 90 days.

Just suspected terrorists.

It was as much a vote against Blair then against Terrorism,which is wrong.

Politicians should be voting to protect our country from Terrorists not playing party politics

[Northants Fox]

The do gooders getting in the way again.

[Thracian]

Mr Blair might say we are not living in a police state but it is increasingly the case that we are.

Quite apart from the alleged or apparent gunning down in cold blood of the Brazilian in London there are such things as the static army of speed cameras one policeman wants hidden, and proposals to clamp any car without tax/Mot etc.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of all these things there is an increasing us/them attitude between police and citizen.

Ordinary people who might otherwise never come in contact with the police are getting fined for next to nothing, losing their driving licences for next to nothing or falling foul of some bit of petty bureaucracy they probably aren't even aware of.

The police even have ever increasing input on whether or not football matches can take place and the cost of their presence is ridiculous as well as largely unnecessary.

The problem with police detaining people for long periods of time is that, so often, the people they are detaining prove to be innocent.

Put yourself in the position of being detained unjustly. It is frightening, humiliating, dehumanising, irritating, frustrating and it offends people's basic right to freedom.

Being left in the custody of people who so often turn out to be bullies, bigots or in various ways corrupt themselves is not the way people should be treated anyway and certainly not people who are innocent.

There is a balance to be found but I would be a lot happier increasing police powers when they are seen to set much higher moral/ethical standards themselves, when they don't go round shooting innocent people, when they don't try to cover up their wrongdoings and when they are humble enough to consider that serving the people is more important than building their own petty empires at other people's expense.

Journalists used to be able to ask questions of any policeman. Now they have to go through channels to appointed professional communicators. Certain things are particularly sensitive, yes, but why should that be (generally) if an organisation has nothing to hide, isn't averse to covering their own misdemeanors, or isn't simply intent on manipulating the media for its own ends (rather like the Government).

I could give chapter and verse on instances of police corruption/hypocrisy going back years. You only have to read the newspapers to realise they are not whiter than white (far from it) so their powers should definitely be limited, strictly controlled and reasonable for all the people concerned.

It would save a lot of trouble, of course, if the terrorists or potential anti-English agitators weren't allowed to come here in the first place.

[Katy]

Hmm me thinks Mr Blairs days are numbered.

[Head Honcho]

With the exception of Australia and N.Z. The U.K. is as far from a Police state as you could imagine.

Just because you may have had a couple of parking tickets doesn't make us anywhere near a Police State.

A Police State is a Country where you are dragged out from your home in the middle of the night never to be seen again.

You have to put some perspective into what you say.

It takes months to sift through the evidence gathered and the Police need the time to get a successful prosecution.

Oh! And by the way whats wrong with scrapping cars without Tax and MOT there's too many cars on the road anyway. Getting a few of these Chavmobiles off the road will only improve things

[Hullfox]

Tory and Lid Dem traitors should be ashamed of themselves!

It's not as if they want to lock everybody up without charge for 90 days.

Just suspected terrorists.

It was as much a vote against Blair then against Terrorism,which is wrong.

Politicians should be voting to protect our country from Terrorists not playing party politics

Hold on there a minute.

Blair has a majority in the Commons of 66.

It was his own party voting against this that lost him the vote.

The opposition parties have contributed well to the debate to date agreeing with bits and disagreeing with others, as is their role. Two Law Lords themselves stated that such a law was ludicrous and the last time parliament listened to "the experts" and jumped in to something feet first, we went to rid Iraq of WMD.

If anyone was playing party politics it was Blair who thought that he could apply a killer blow to the opposition by railroading this through. He flew in the face of advice from his own Home Secretary and Attorney General who knew that compromise would have resulted in a better result all round.

He is the one who should be ashamed.

[Head Honcho]

Hold on there a minute.

Blair has a majority in the Commons of 66.

It was his own party voting against this that lost him the vote.

The opposition parties have contributed well to the debate to date agreeing with bits and disagreeing with others, as is their role. Two Law Lords themselves stated that such a law was ludicrous and the last time parliament listened to "the experts" and jumped in to something feet first, we went to rid Iraq of WMD.

If anyone was playing party politics it was Blair who thought that he could apply a killer blow to the opposition by railroading this through. He flew in the face of advice from his own Home Secretary and Attorney General who knew that compromise would have resulted in a better result all round.

He is the one who should be ashamed.

I agree he did go the wrong way about it, but if our Police Force say they need the 90 days then our politicians should have given them 90 days.

Maybe he thought it was worth fighting for! But then you wouldn't know anything about fighting to protect your country would you?

[Rincewind]

If the torys were in power how many days would they want?

[john_lcfc]

90 days without trial? bit ridiculous. police should hurry up looking for evidence instead of penalising stupid things like doing the willy puller sign at coventry fans

[davieG]

If the torys were in power how many days would they want?

90 days, if the police said that's what we want, that's the irony of party politics it's all to do with being in power nothing to do with what is right and just and for the good of the country.

I don't profess to konw whether 90 days is justified or not because as is usual the public don't get fed facts by the media who are as bad and enjoy/wallow in the games that is party politics.

Good politicians are a rare and dying breed, we the public are culpable along with the media because we are seduced by the marketing of personalityand oratory skills rather than substance, integrity and sound policies; any politician who hesitates or doesn't have an instant, appropropriate sound bite is ridiculed as being weak, where as they just might be biding their time so as to gather all the facts to enable a considered judgement.

Party Politiics = The death of true democracy

Rant Over

[Hullfox]

But then you wouldn't know anything about fighting to protect your country would you?

And you are a veteran of how many campaigns?

[Head Honcho]

And you are a veteran of how many campaigns?

Put it this way the medals I've got aren't from playing Sunday League.

Left up to you we'd all be speaking Arabic come Christmas

[Rincewind]

My point was simple. Tony Blair is the most right wing labour PM this country have had. (the best of a bad bunch though) A lot of his policies were in some form Tory ideas. I also don't know whether 90 days or less is right. There are arguments for and against. The Americans have held prisoners without trial in badly run prisons since 9/11. Is that right?

Maybe sometimes longer is needed to gather evidence but on the other hand should the accused be arrested if some sort of evidence is in place already. Another question is, if a suspect was in custody for 90 days and being questioned daily would he not crack and maybe give a false statement only to retract it in court? If the 90 day had come to be then maybe anyone that acted in a strange way would be arrested by the police knowing that they have longer to gather evidence when with the shorter time they would have to be certain before making the arrest.

Well that's my rant over as well.

[Thracian]

With the exception of Australia and N.Z. The U.K. is as far from a Police state as you could imagine.

Just because you may have had a couple of parking tickets doesn't make us anywhere near a Police State.

A Police State is a Country where you are dragged out from your home in the middle of the night never to be seen again.

You have to put some perspective into what you say.

It takes months to sift through the evidence gathered and the Police need the time to get a successful prosecution.

Oh! And by the way whats wrong with scrapping cars without Tax and MOT there's too many cars on the road anyway. Getting a few of these Chavmobiles off the road will only improve things

I concede we might have different definitions of what a police state is and accept that ours is embryonic but the notion of Big Brother watching you gets worse and worse by the day in England.

People may not disappear here very often but they are dragged out of their beds at unearthly hours (most of them guilty but some innocent) and the fact (which I also concede) that it might take months to sift evidence should NOT give the Police the right to detain people for months.

Would you like it?

Would you accept being locked away while the Police take months to gather/or otherwise enough evidence to either charge you or not?

It happens already of course in some foreign countries and is an appalling way of going on. I wonder how you would think had you experienced such a regime.

As for scrapping cars, some people cannot afford nice new or up-to-date cars (or they don't wish to lumber themselves with years of debt) but the idea of simply clamping non-complying cars (without ascertaining why they are have no tax or MOT) just smacks of the authoritarianism I was speaking of.

How far would you like this sort of blanket justice to go?

There are often damn good reasons why people don't or cannot renew their tax or MOT.

You don't sound as if you have had any experience at all of being really short of cash for instance and you should be thankful for that because others are not so lucky.

Blanket justice stinks in my view (and is also a recipe for further corruption).

In some ways the riots in Paris of symptomatic of the consequences of authoritarianism, of soulless systems of unnecessary and draconian rules that preclude certain people from having the chance of getting a job.

Be thankful my friend that you would seem not have felt a victim of such unsympathetic legislation (or business vetting procedures).

People need to be treated with respect and their problems resolved. Being bullied by the state or sidelined by employers only leaves certain people without hope. In the end such people react ... just as others react to having their country's bombed.

[Head Honcho]

There are often damn good reasons why people don't or cannot renew their tax or MOT.

Yeh they normally choose to buy Beer or Fags first.

I do in fact agree with most of your concerns about giving the Police too much power but when National Security is at stake i think we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

This 90 day rule would have been highly monitored and every 7 days it would have been reviewed.

[cisono]

Tory and Lid Dem traitors should be ashamed of themselves!

It's not as if they want to lock everybody up without charge for 90 days.

Just suspected terrorists.

It was as much a vote against Blair then against Terrorism,which is wrong.

Politicians should be voting to protect our country from Terrorists not playing party politics

Don't you ever consider that they may be trying to manipulate you by using these arguments?

You and me think that - surely - they would not lock up too many people, but what guarantees are there?

There is a good reason why the police have limited powers and why power is divided across several "bodies". It is mainly to limit abuse of such power.

Is if fair for someone who is innocent to be spending 90 days in jail? 90 days is a short jail sentence! The only difference being that perhaps you will have a clean slate when they release you...

[Head Honcho]

Don't you ever consider that they may be trying to manipulate you by using these arguments?

You and me think that - surely - they would not lock up too many people, but what guarantees are there?

There is a good reason why the police have limited powers and why power is divided across several "bodies". It is mainly to limit abuse of such power.

Is if fair for someone who is innocent to be spending 90 days in jail? 90 days is a short jail sentence! The only difference being that perhaps you will have a clean slate when they release you...

These Terrorist don't play by our rules and we need to adapt to defeat them and if that means bringing in some unpopular laws then I dont see the problem.

There are at least another 50 families grieving tonight due to another suicide attack in the Middle East how many will it take in this country before people sit up and realise that we need this security.

Hypothetical I know but if there was another suicide attack in London tomorrow the people of London would be quite rightly asking TB for protection, how can he protect the country with one hand tied behind his back.

[cisono]

These Terrorist don't play by our rules and we need to adapt to defeat them and if that means bringing in some unpopular laws then I dont see the problem.

There are at least another 50 families grieving tonight due to another suicide attack in the Middle East how many will it take in this country before people sit up and realise that we need this security.

Hypothetical I know but if there was another suicide attack in London tomorrow the people of London would be quite rightly asking TB for protection, how can he protect the country with one hand tied behind his back.

I don't dispute your intentions. What I am saying is that, along with what you wish for, stuff you don't wish for would ensue.

A friend of mine felt rather mistreated last year. He was staying with friends in some (possibly studenty) area of Leicester for a couple of days. He was woken up at 7am on a Saturday morning. When he unlocked the door, the police nearly kicked the door down and (I believe) pushed him to the ground. Even after he produced his passport, they thought it was a fake. Eventually they came round (probably after confirming his identity the official way) and left him alone. He was very disappointed at the treatment, knowing he had not done anything wrong. Hours later, he was still quite shaken, as all this had happened while he was still half asleep.

The reason this happened - reportedly - was that they were looking for some illegal immigrants. Now, imagine how they would have acted if they'd been looking for terrorists?

I am just wondering about all the things that could go wrong if such measures went through... how many sacrifices are "ok" to put up with in the hope that terrorists can be dealt with.

PS: The terrorist don't play by our rules - I know. But if we introduce laws that are unfair, aren't we stooping too low and compromising our democracy ideals... Also, somewhat off-topic, please note that the Communist regimes had (and still have in one or two places) a rather tight control of their citizens and what goes on in their countries. But are those pleasant countries to live in?

[Hullfox]

Put it this way the medals I've got aren't from playing Sunday League.

Left up to you we'd all be speaking Arabic come Christmas

What exactly are they for then? I'm genuinely interested in knowing how I'm sleeping soundly at night as a result of your service.

As for me wanting us all to speak Arabic by Christmas, you really are such a fool. Half the people on this board can't even speak English properly, there's no way they'll manage Arabic in such a sort space of time.

[Thracian]

90 days, if the police said that's what we want, that's the irony of party politics it's all to do with being in power nothing to do with what is right and just and for the good of the country.

I don't profess to konw whether 90 days is justified or not because as is usual the public don't get fed facts by the media who are as bad and enjoy/wallow in the games that is party politics.

Good politicians are a rare and dying breed, we the public are culpable along with the media because we are seduced by the marketing of personalityand oratory skills rather than substance, integrity and sound policies; any politician who hesitates or doesn't have an instant, appropropriate sound bite is ridiculed as being weak, where as they just might be biding their time so as to gather all the facts to enable a considered judgement.

Party Politiics = The death of true democracy

Rant Over

Excellent point that about Party politics.

[Thracian]

These Terrorist don't play by our rules and we need to adapt to defeat them and if that means bringing in some unpopular laws then I dont see the problem.

There are at least another 50 families grieving tonight due to another suicide attack in the Middle East how many will it take in this country before people sit up and realise that we need this security.

Hypothetical I know but if there was another suicide attack in London tomorrow the people of London would be quite rightly asking TB for protection, how can he protect the country with one hand tied behind his back.

I certainly sympathise with what you say - I suppose I wish that TB had shown the foresight to prevent all these problems arising BEFORE he needed these unpopular and probably far-reaching laws.

[Steven]

Mr Blair might say we are not living in a police state but it is increasingly the case that we are.

Quite apart from the alleged or apparent gunning down in cold blood of the Brazilian in London there are such things as the static army of speed cameras one policeman wants hidden, and proposals to clamp any car without tax/Mot etc.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of all these things there is an increasing us/them attitude between police and citizen.

Ordinary people who might otherwise never come in contact with the police are getting fined for next to nothing, losing their driving licences for next to nothing or falling foul of some bit of petty bureaucracy they probably aren't even aware of.

The police even have ever increasing input on whether or not football matches can take place and the cost of their presence is ridiculous as well as largely unnecessary.

The problem with police detaining people for long periods of time is that, so often, the people they are detaining prove to be innocent.

Put yourself in the position of being detained unjustly. It is frightening, humiliating, dehumanising, irritating, frustrating and it offends people's basic right to freedom.

Being left in the custody of people who so often turn out to be bullies, bigots or in various ways corrupt themselves is not the way people should be treated anyway and certainly not people who are innocent.

There is a balance to be found but I would be a lot happier increasing police powers when they are seen to set much higher moral/ethical standards themselves, when they don't go round shooting innocent people, when they don't try to cover up their wrongdoings and when they are humble enough to consider that serving the people is more important than building their own petty empires at other people's expense.

Journalists used to be able to ask questions of any policeman. Now they have to go through channels to appointed professional communicators. Certain things are particularly sensitive, yes, but why should that be (generally) if an organisation has nothing to hide, isn't averse to covering their own misdemeanors, or isn't simply intent on manipulating the media for its own ends (rather like the Government).

I could give chapter and verse on instances of police corruption/hypocrisy going back years. You only have to read the newspapers to realise they are not whiter than white (far from it) so their powers should definitely be limited, strictly controlled and reasonable for all the people concerned.

It would save a lot of trouble, of course, if the terrorists or potential anti-English agitators weren't allowed to come here in the first place.

There is not much I would disagree with in this post.

[Steven]

These Terrorist don't play by our rules and we need to adapt to defeat them and if that means bringing in some unpopular laws then I dont see the problem.

There are at least another 50 families grieving tonight due to another suicide attack in the Middle East how many will it take in this country before people sit up and realise that we need this security.

Hypothetical I know but if there was another suicide attack in London tomorrow the people of London would be quite rightly asking TB for protection, how can he protect the country with one hand tied behind his back.

If Blair truly wanted to protect the Subjects of the UK he would not have gone to Iraq. He was warned that attacks like those in London would be more likely if he went into Iraq and yet he did.

It is Blair that should have his freedoms taken away and not the ordinary person who did/does not support his Iraq policy.

[FNQ]

I'm against the 90 day extension. It is a huge infringement on our civil liberties and sets a dangerous prescident. Everyone has the right to be given a fair trial, and to lock people up for 3 months before they've been convicted or even charged is barbaric. The last government to do this was during apartheid in SA - says it all really.