And this is my response:

“Dear Joan Ruddock,

Thank you for responding to my email (12/06/2008) by post (received today, 27/06/2008). I don’t think you addressed the issue of my disgust at the erosion of civil liberties that you helped vote through, ie the 42 days under arrest and without charge with the support of Anne Widdecombe and the DUP.

Your letter read like a copy & paste justification of a vote that was politically expedient for you and Gordon Brown.

You fail to address the lost vote and your argument does nothing to convince me.

In addition, responding by post to an email is a good way to stifle discussion and indicates a complete lack of engagement and understanding of modern technology and communications. This is 2008 after all. I cannot believe that a postal response is is good value for money either.

To expedite discussion, I have passed this correspondence to a journalist and it has been published it at https://liberalconspiracy.org/ where discussion *can* take place. I invite you to respond in person to defend your reasoning because I am not the only vote you have lost. This site has had guest posts from your fellow MPs and a response from you would a least indicate an understanding that we have moved a long way since postal communications.

I would appreciate a response by email rather than post.

Yours sincerely etc”

If you haven’t already, I suggest you contact your elected representatives through the excellent http://www.writetothem.com and tell them what you think (I’m sure many of you have repeatedly!)

I contacted my MP, and it was to tell him I’m sorry I’ve given him such a rough time, and I’m actually proud to have an MP like him standing up for our rights. It’s a shame your MP here is using the typical tactic of suggesting that the *possibility* of something happening in the future justifies legislating now. As I said elsewhere on the web, this argument is also an argument for putting satellite tracking chips in all our children to prevent abductions, i.e. a complete nonsense that abandons civil liberties for no justifiable reasons.

I do hope Joan comes on to say hi and explain herself (chance would be a fine thing), I’d love to know if she thinks selling our liberties down the river was worth it considering the public haven’t congratulated labour for doing so, as seen by recent polls and the Henley by-election.

I understand now, of course, why they didn’t field a candidate in H&H, it would be a bit too much to poll lower than the monster raving loonies!

Yep, the Henley result was a cracker, wasn’t it… Not getting your deposit back is NASTY

the thing is – i was saying this to dan paskins at the blog nation event – i would still kind of like labour to turn it round. i dont want the tories in. i dont want this lot in. but surely some labour mp somewhere is agitating for a shift towards the liberal left…?

lying down again now

Labour have the chance, they could boot Brown out, they could force a change in policy, they could reject the New Labour ethos while accepting the benefits that a slightly more centrist (rather than leftist) stance can bring. They could actually rebel on issues the public want them to rebel on (going back as far as the euro referendum, whether we agree on it or not would probably have put Labour in a good light in retrospect, at least compared to now). But they don’t. They’re cowards, they have no idea of what they’re doing.

To me it seems like they are sitting there absolutely terrified because they put all of their money on Brown being an amazing PM, and their bet has lost…they had no plan B and they’re not strategically set up to deal with that problem. They can’t even bring themselves to do more to actually save themselves locally, throwing themselves on to the central government bonfire like lemmings because for some reason they *actually believe* that supporting a guy the country distrusts and hates is going to win them support or stop them dying.

It’s fascinating.

Yep, it does amaze me that there is simply no bottle to shift the narrative even slightly to the so-called Left. They’d only have to throw the electorate a few bones, as it were – even a colder shoulder from Brown towards Bush would have at least got my attention.

As for saving themselves locally – you’re right to say they don’t even seem to be able to rise to that (see above crud from Joan R). Absolutely no acknowledgement of the fact that she has lost our votes – just a passive-aggressive/wandering sort of ‘we know best’ spouting of the wavering party line… weird, really. Wonder if she thinks anyone’s actually on the other end of these letters, etc.

It’s clear these people aren’t online, though. They’re obviously not used to facing up to their oratory, like we are.

The previous comments are beginning to echo my inner thoughts, that of sadness at how ‘New’ Labour is evolving. When at last the Tories were kicked out in ’97 my heart sang and my thoughts lifted to a brighter future for all. Gradually under Tony Blair disillusionment set in although he did do some good things it must be said. As the years rolled by and he forced the Party even further to the right and freedoms and rights were albeit gently, squashed undr foot my depression was all but complete.

Then, after his long wait, along comes Gordon and I began to revive because maybe, just maybe….. but no! Worse was and is to come.

New Labour has run it’s course and a complete change is needed but who could I vote for in all conscience? I am effectively disenfranchised and for that I cannot forgive.

Yep, it is difficult to take.

I take a lot of heart, though, from the dialogue that is thriving around subjects like the rightwinging of Labour, etc, and the fact that so many people are so angry. Surely, that’s the sort of anger that ultimately generates electoral reform, etc – and ultimately more voting options?

I do see plenty of reason to hope.

I contacted my MP and got a two page letter explaining why it was a good idea! I’m going to email him back and tell him I’m still not planning not vote for him again.

#3 Kate

> i would still kind of like labour to turn it round.

Purely from a strategic POV, I hope they do. If Labour collapses, as seems likely, the chances of a hung parliament go out the window. And a hung parliament, right now, is the *very best* outcome that’s possible. A majority for Cameron (or Brown, too) anything like Blair’s is a proper doomsday scenario. He wouldn’t even have to listen to the occasional sane voices on his own side.

@ Sunny

Hi there,

That’s interesting – what was the gist of your MP’s argument? I’d be really keen to know.

The thing I’m finding so difficult about Joan’s response is the paucity of argument – no figures or research backing up these wild claims of ‘severe and sustained threats’ and ‘a threat that is more complex and international in nature than ever before.’ Sounds like she’s been watching X-files reruns, and nothing else.

I mean – who says the threat is more complex and international now? Where does Joanie get her numbers for that claim? I only went to a state school and that was in the colonies, but I think I’m right to say that the two world wars of the last century were fairly international in nature, and that they certainly weren’t short on complexity. I think Joan is simply trying to frighten us with the suggestion that we’re heading over the edge because we’re reached a point in our technical development where all them crazy Muslims out there can email each other links to the Anarchist’s Handbook if they feel like it. BE AFRAID.

What theatrics. And how insulting to all of us – she (or whichever chimp wrote this letter) obviously really thinks that there is still plenty of mileage in cheap scare tactics and Daily Mail rhetoric.

Maybe they even copied and pasted this out of the Daily Mail directly. I should have a look.

@ Donald S:

Yep, yr certainly right when you say the Tories are bad news.

eg – I’ve done heaps of work over at my site about the devastating effect they’ve had in their couple of years since taking over Hammersmith and Fulham Council. They’ve been an excellent case study for anyone wanting to remind themselves what real Tories look like – trying to close schools, attacking the voluntary sector in a very big way, devastating the unions, etc. Not pleasant. They’ve gone for broke on it too, so I can only conclude that smiling Dave Cameron condones their programme.

TWATS

Re Joan Ruddock ex chair of CND who gets herself elected and votes in favour of Trident!!

I’m glad she’s not my MP

‘I’m glad she’s not my MP’

Methinks she’ll not be mine for much longer…

Dear Joan,

If you have taken the time to click on the link in my email you will see that there are a lot of supporters of the liberal left who would like a response. Why not be brave and engage in 21st century political discussion… you did so (once) on Comment is Free (March 12 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/12/onwednesdaympswillvote?commentpage=1) but I can’t see a single response from you to any of the comments.

This from a Google search for you blog and was the only thing that showed up on the first page (no blog or is it not search engine optimised? Do you know what that means?). It is so indicative that you and your party just ‘don’t get’ the use of the web and modern communications technology. Your electorate does and I suggest you get up to speed.

What is so hard about it after all?

Anyway, I’m looking forward to your postal response in a couple of weeks if I’m lucky, though if you are reading this, please do us all a favour and don’t bother. It is a waste of tax payers money and the time lag is unacceptable. I can even guess that it will begin with ‘I’m sorry for the long delay in responding to you. I receive a huge volume of post and this can lead to a delay in my reply…’

Try doing yourself a favour and use the available technology not just to cut down on the delay but also to engage in an adult way with your consituents (at least two of whom are on this thread).

Bye…

An ex Joan Ruddock voter who is now wondering who the fuck to vote for

Can we add Joan Ruddock to the list of those MPs worth campaigning against? I’m assuming we can. As a Berkshire boy, I’d like to add John Redwood and Martin Salter to that list, who I find are similarly offensive.

I really don’t like this left-centre-right talk because it is so easily abused. Look at the BNP – a party which builds among the poorer and more deprived sections of society but wishes to increase inequality. By freeing ourselves from such tired and overworked language and its’ dogmatic associations we CAN pick and choose the substance of what we really support.

Good topic for discussion. How do people here think MPs should respond to this sort of letter from their constituents?

I think the starting point should be that people who take the trouble to get in touch with their MPs deserve to get a thoughtful response which takes into account what they’ve written. Problem is, given the volume of letters and e-mails, it’s not possible for MPs themselves to write back personally to everyone who e-mails or writes (or if they did, it would by necessity be very short and rushed letters/e-mails). There is also a problem where the better an MP is at getting their constituents to keep in touch, the more communciations they receive. [I used to be a caseworker, and the office I worked in would get 10,000+ letters / year plus e-mails plus an average of 1,000 survey responses per month plus phone calls, and that was a few years ago when many fewer people used e-mail regularly].

One way of helping with this would be to increase the staffing allowance that MPs get, so they can hire more staff who have the kind of policy knowledge needed to be able to brief MPs and draft detailed point by point responses for MPs to be able to check over, amend and send out. Being an MP’s researcher is currently a 17k a year job, which means in practice it is mostly recent graduates with high staff turnover. Most MPs don’t have anyone in their offices who is familiar with the cutting edge of the available technology.

Alternatively, they can refer letters on to the relevant government departments for a civil servant to provide a response outlining the government’s position, but that’s not very satisfactory because on something like this you want to hear what your representative thinks, not what the Home Office says.

Another challenge with letters which mix up policy questions with bits about ‘you’ve lost my vote’ is that it is kind of against the rules to respond to the ‘you’ve lost my vote’ bit by, say, giving reasons to vote for the MP, seeing as how they get money from the taxpayer to send out the responses. There are ways and means of skirting round this, but it is still a tricky area.

Basically, I think you get what you pay for – I think people would respect MPs much more and be more likely to get in touch with them if MPs had bigger teams of staff, who were properly accountable for the work that they did. In the modern age this is increasingly necessary, but as staff costs get classed as ‘expenses’, any attempt to increase them will be portrayed as MPs giving themselves more money. Hey ho.

Hmm, I think a lot of us lib-lefties will have this dilemma, come the next election – who to vote for, when much of the Labour party have abandoned social-democratic and (small ‘l’ ) liberal policies?

I’m relatively privileged – due to boundary changes, I’ll have two sitting MPs gifhting for my vote, with their voting records available for all to see. I was all set to vote for Sarah Teather, given Dawn Butler’s docile pro-govt record on 42 days, Iraq, PFI, etc. However, Teather’s anti-choice voting on the recent embryology bill and the prospect of Clegg leading the LibDems into a coalition with the Tories has left me less sure of how to vote than I can remember…

Actually, Kate, I think your other half should be grateful that he didn’t get a letter suggesting that appealing to people like us for votes is counter-productive. It’s certainly a widespread view in the Labour Party: that if they are even seen as offering something to left-wing voters, they repel more than they attract. Remember back in the mid-90s when Labour councillors, candidates and activists were being encouraged to read “The Times” rather than the Grauniad?

Basically, I think you get what you pay for – I think people would respect MPs much more and be more likely to get in touch with them if MPs had bigger teams of staff, who were properly accountable for the work that they did. In the modern age this is increasingly necessary, but as staff costs get classed as ‘expenses’, any attempt to increase them will be portrayed as MPs giving themselves more money. Hey ho.

Good point don-paskini.

You should count yourself lucky, i wrote to Labour HQ to resign my party membership over 42 days detention (and a couple of other things), and i got a response from the acting General Secretary, Chris Lennie, of the party that failed to address ANY of my concerns. It didn’t mention 42 days at all, despite three quarters of my page long letter dealing exclusively with that issue. Instead, he mentioned everything apart from the issues that i raised.

In order, he talked about:
Unemployment under the Tories
Interest rates under the Tories
Wages under the Tories
Hospital waiting lists
School results
The economy (which he somehow believes is doing well)
The environment.

He also mentioned deporting foreign national who commit ANY crime. Bearing mind i stated several times that i am a liberal you would think he would have left that one out as its unfairness just reinforces my decision to leave the party.

Kate Belgrave, you’re behaving like such an idiot here, it’s almost untrue. And I’m not talking about the substance of your objection to the 42 days pre-charge detention (because you haven’t said what it is), but to the way you and your partner have gone about it.

Here is a list of the counter-productive things you did:

1) You started by writing a letter saying you will not vote Labour again and making it clear that you meant it. What point is there in your MP writing back to try to change your mind when you’ve already made it irrevocable? Or was the letter a lie?

2) You haven’t outlined a single substantial point in the reply that you disagree with. Instead you just throw a strop and condemn its tone, writing in an informal way full of insults. Is it a serious issue? If you think it is, treat it like one.

3) Apparently if you enter into an exchange of correspondence with someone, it’s legitimate for you to try to convince them that you are right, but it’s illegitimate for them to try to convince you that they are right. Double standards?

4) Anyone who spent even a short time looking at your website would find that you are actively working against the Labour Party.

5) You demand that she address “the lost vote”. Your MP represents more than 100,000 constituents. It is arrogant solipsism to demand that your MP must vote in line with your conscience. And even if it wasn’t, it’s massively ignorant of politics.

6) Do you want an automaton as your MP? Edmund Burke had something to say about this, which has met with general approval.

7) Lucky you for having a Labour MP at all. If we all behaved like you, then we’d all get Tory MPs instead, and regardless of what they say now to try to get your vote we know how they behaved when in office.

There are probably many more points to be made.

“This increasing complexity means that investigators may be faced with a situation where to build a case they may need to hold terrorist suspects beyond the current 28 day limit.”

And as investigations get more complex, surely 28 days may not be enough?
Hmm.
Perhaps better make it indefinite detention without charge.
After all, that would have the benefit of saving trial costs, and making more money available for setting up extra data bases on the basis of which we could give the Americans more information about our subjects and get them to identify more suspects for us to incarcerate …. {Note to self: quietly hint to MPs there would be more money for their expenses too.}

“Good topic for discussion. How do people here think MPs should respond to this sort of letter from their constituents?”

They should be honest and not think their electorate are stupid for a start. If they voted for the legislation because of the whip, say so. If they voted for it because they believe in it then actually give real reasons not wishy washy bollocks.

Now if her letter of reply was genuine then well…my god…she doesn’t deserve to be an MP as far as I’m concerned. But that said I agree with you, I’m always as respectful as I can be amongst the indignation I try to get across, and at least for me the responses I get are thought through and actually have personal reasoning for decisions made.

“7) Lucky you for having a Labour MP at all. If we all behaved like you, then we’d all get Tory MPs instead, and regardless of what they say now to try to get your vote we know how they behaved when in office.”

Of course, so we should instead just accept all the civil liberty infringing bullshit because…hey…at least they’re not a Tory! What tosh.

Once upon a time, as I posted on my personal LJ today, this would have been the time of year that I’d have gone down to Glastonbury back before it became just another horrible mainstream festival with police and security guards and boring music. Back in the day, of course, it wasn’t like that, and it was not uncommon to hear rousing speeches on the old pyramid stage in between acts. One of them I remember was from Joan Ruddock, back when she was involved with CND, and a damned fine speech it was too; uplifting and taking the moral high ground without being preachy.

Fast-forward 20+ years; Glastonbury is now run by the Mean Fiddler organisation (emphasis on the “mean” with that gang), Worthy Farm owner Michael Eavis has a CBE and has been a Blairite PPC, and La Ruddock is nothing more than an identikit mouthpiece for NuLab, just like Ann Clwyd, and just like every single one of those who came through the NCCL (which is why I tend to keep the sainted Shami at arm’s length). The barnstorming speeches have been replaced with “hear hear”s and endless trooping through government lobbies. Nothing more than a careerist of the worst kind and no better than the likes of Martin Salter.

Gawd. I wish I had a time machine.

Maybe they even copied and pasted this out of the Daily Mail directly. I should have a look.

It’s your partner’s letter that is more likely to be a Daily Mail cut-and-paste job given where that particular “newspaper” stands on the issue of 42-day detention.

Oh, and what David Boothroyd said. Your partner writes a letter that is spectacularly short on argument but long on disgust, and you want the Gettysburg Address in return?

@ 21 – Are you Joan Ruddock?

@ 25 – And why should my obvious disgust not be addressed? Joan Ruddock has already heard very good arguments against 42 days, penned more eloquently and persuasively than anything I could do.

With the ‘don’t just write a goodbye letter’ argument of David Boothroyd I agree – put a liberal argument instead, against the prevailing right wing idea (which I heard articulated by an American) that the First World must stockpile laws ready for the terror to come. Which leads me (again) to pitying that we are not seeing any LibDem position elucidated. Don’t the LDs have a cogent liberal stance any more?

“Are you Joan Ruddock?” you ask.

Your question confirms my point a thousandfold. In response to a set of seven reasoned arguments, you don’t attempt to counter them, just make a personality-based wisecrack. Is this about politics or about your ego?

(My identity is fairly well known, as it happens)

My word. Gordon Brown supporters. And both of them at once!

Mr Boothroyd – been reading about you, methinks, and your history with the Labour party. Are you the Westminster Council guy – ?

Not sure. I think you might be trolling, but since you raise some points that rather make my case, let’s get into it anyway: (these responses should also double as helpful ‘how to get Labour re-elected pointers)’ -

You said:

‘1) You started by writing a letter saying you will not vote Labour again and making it clear that you meant it. What point is there in your MP writing back to try to change your mind when you’ve already made it irrevocable? Or was the letter a lie?’

First thing – you’re making the usual horrible error here, and confusing Labour with New Labour. You make the same mistake when you accuse me of running an anti-Labour website. In fact, I run an anti-New Labour website. Two different things, and that’s the point we’re discussing in detail on this site and in this thread.

It’s clear from the original letter we sent that the upset we’re feeling over 42 days (ie, New Labour policy) is the issue. It’s made clear that we used to vote Labour, but no longer do, because New Labour policy has become unpalatable. (I note that you don’t try and justify the 42 days’ extension yourself in any part of your response, as a good New Labour man should surely do. I’m presuming you quietly understand that that detention limit is almost impossible to justify, and that that is why you have chosen to divert us all from the real point of the argument and focus on pulling me up on style and tone. Fair tactic, but an obvious one).

Second thing – I would have thought that any party that is as desperate to regain a footing with the electorate as the entire Labour party is would attempt to write back and change the mind of any voter who said that they had abandoned Labour, and who had bothered to write in and say why. Isn’t that the whole point? Isn’t knocking on doors and trying to change people’s minds – and win them back – the whole point of an election exercise?

Can we assume from this that if you are indeed a member of the Labour party (am assuming you’re this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boothroyd, or pretending to be) that you won’t be out knocking on doors and trying to win hearts and minds at the next general election – that you’ll simply write off the thousands of persons such as myself and others who have expressed their disappointment in New Labour on this thread and elsewhere?

Surely, there’s a great deal of arrogance in such a writing-off – are you saying that the people on this thread who’ve expressed such disappointment in New Labour are entirely unjustified in expressing that disappointment and that the party need make no effort whatsoever to address their concerns? Can the party expect to win that way?

Moving on…

You say:

‘You haven’t outlined a single substantial point in the reply that you disagree with. Instead you just throw a strop and condemn its tone, writing in an informal way full of insults. Is it a serious issue? If you think it is, treat it like one.’

Look a little further down the thread. At comment #10 I write:

‘The thing I’m finding so difficult about Joan’s response is the paucity of argument – no figures or research backing up these wild claims of ’severe and sustained threats’ and ‘a threat that is more complex and international in nature than ever before.’ Sounds like she’s been watching X-Files reruns, and nothing else.

I mean – who says the threat is more complex and international now? Where does Joanie get her numbers for that claim? I only went to a state school and that was in the colonies, but I think I’m right to say that the two world wars of the last century were fairly international in nature, and that they certainly weren’t short on complexity. I think Joan is simply trying to frighten us with the suggestion that we’re heading over the edge because we’re reached a point in our technical development where all them crazy Muslims out there can email each other links to the Anarchist’s Handbook if they feel like it.’

My substantive point, if you like, is that Ruddock doesn’t substantiate her argument in favour of 42 days. Instead, she assumes – cynically – that there is still electoral mileage to be gained from the insinuation that there are heaps of crazies out there whom New Labour wishes only to protect us from. I take issue with her assumption that I am someone who will respond favourably to that stale line of reasoning.

Another issue I have is that Ruddock makes almost no attempt to address the very important point that we raised about the compromising effect the 42 days’ detention vote has on civil liberties. As her letter goes on, she tries to argue that effective process will be put in place to ensure that investigators don’t abuse their new powers, but surely, there is a reason to greet this reassurance with cynicism. Have you heard of the controversy around SUS laws, for instance? And are you reading about concerns about council abuse of RIPA laws at the moment? Here’s something to be going on with…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/councils_ripa_warning/

You say:
‘You demand that she address “the lost vote”. Your MP represents more than 100,000 constituents. It is arrogant solipsism to demand that your MP must vote in line with your conscience. And even if it wasn’t, it’s massively ignorant of politics.’

That’s a New Labourite observation if I ever heard one. Asking your MP to vote in line with your consicence is called participating actively in politics, rather than arrogant solipsism. Only a toady would think otherwise. And my ‘massive ignorance of politics’ is surely no greater than the present New Labour administration’s. After all – they’re the ones who are dropping voters at the rate of knots and losing by-elections in record style. Indeed, Gordon Brown’s crack advice team is demonstrating an ignorance of politics that thrills us all anew every morning.

Etc.

Try and moderate your tone there, Dave. When you attack me on a personal level, you make it very clear that you know your only real option is to play the man, rather than the ball. Forget that, and explain why 42 days’ detention is such a good idea – and perhaps why writing to an MP to express great disappointment in a government action is such a bad one.

@29

>(My identity is fairly well known, as it happens)

Not by me mate, sorry. You read like a troll

>Your question confirms my point a thousandfold. In response to a set of seven >reasoned arguments, you don’t attempt to counter them, just make a personality->based wisecrack. Is this about politics or about your ego?

See @30

David,

“What point is there in your MP writing back to try to change your mind when you’ve already made it irrevocable?”

Are you suggesting that MPs shouldn’t serve their constituents, but their voters?

“You haven’t outlined a single substantial point in the reply that you disagree with. Instead you just throw a strop and condemn its tone, writing in an informal way full of insults.”

There’s very little worth addressing. Joan Ruddock deploys the favoured bare assertion fallacy in saying that “there is little doubt that Britain faces a severe and sustained threat from terrorism and that this threat is more complex and international in nature than ever before”, before assuring her correspondent that she “believes” the legislation to be necessary.

“If we all behaved like you, then we’d all get Tory MPs instead, and regardless of what they say now to try to get your vote we know how they behaved when in office.”

In other words, “Shut the hell up, or else”.

Ben

Joan Ruddock is also my MP and I won’t be voting for her as I’ve found her response to the 42 days vote extremely questionable. I did not write to her because I was aware that she stated she was for the extension from the outset. There seemed little point in engaging someone in dialogue when they had outlined a position that relies on intelligence that can’t be made public alongside the usual party political loyalties.

We shouldn’t forget “politics leads intelligence” not vice versa as politicians try to convince us (see… they try to convince us).

It is why acting on advice from the Police (who are legal enforcers) against that of lawyers (who are legal advocates) is sooo wrong – it how dodgy dossiers get written.

But isn’t the biggest issue that the police *haven’t* advised the home office to do this?

Yup, David Boothroyd is the Westminster Councillor. Until the next election. (Since Labour are more likely to win a by-election in Outer Mongolia than they are ever to run Westminster Council, I don’t see what difference it makes how small the Labour Group there is.)

Lee, exactly, yet that’s not what the government says every time they step up to the despatch box.

We were 106 votes from winning control of Westminster Council in one election.

Have a cookie, do you have anything meaningful to actually add to this debate David? I don’t know, like perhaps some of the elusive facts and real (non-coerced) support that would suddenly make legislation like 42 days acceptable? Or is your purpose solely to come on here and cry crocodile tears about how an angry electorate responds to illiberal and authoritarian action?

I do have a response to make to Kate’s post but I do not immediately have the time to write it up. Meanwhile a little factual inaccuracy needed correcting.

Haven’t a clue what the rest of your comment is on about. Was not Kate’s partner’s letter an attempt to get coerced opposition to 42 days pre-charge questioning? And the best guess is that the majority of the electorate agrees, reluctantly, that terrorism charges sometimes need extended pre-charge detention.

So far as I know no-one has actually challenged the fact that the investigation of suspects in terrorism cases sometimes takes a significantly long time, and the reason for this is also well known. Even Liberty acknowledges it, which is why they are not campaigning against the present 28 day limit.

“And the best guess is that the majority of the electorate agrees, reluctantly, that terrorism charges sometimes need extended pre-charge detention.”

So I take it you agree that Labour should legislate not only AGAINST expert opinion, WITHOUT the authorities that would use it having requested it, and now…amazingly…based on a GUESS whether or not the public really support it or not. This is absolutely hilarious!

“So far as I know no-one has actually challenged the fact that the investigation of suspects in terrorism cases sometimes takes a significantly long time, and the reason for this is also well known.”

Oh really?

from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2008-06-11a.358.1:
“The 28-day limit has been used only in two other cases. Up to now we have had no quantitative analysis of those cases, although the Opposition Front-Bench team produced some yesterday, which showed that there was little questioning of the suspects during that period. We have heard today that in fact the evidence to support a threshold charge was probably in place by 14 days for the two who were held up to the 28-day limit.”

and

“If we had had a 42-day limit, would those three people have been held for that time in the hope that some evidence might turn up, rather than for 28 days?”

from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2008-06-11a.379.2:

“I ask Ministers to spare the House those arguments about decrypting computers. The law exists to deal with people who wilfully refuse to decrypt computer evidence.”

From http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2008-06-11a.328.1:

“Let us start with Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. In his evidence to Parliament, the commissioner said explicitly:

“We have never put forward a case that there is evidence of a need for an extension”.”

and…

“His [Peter Clarke's] example of a technically challenging case was that of Dhiren Barot. There is no doubt that it was a technically challenging case, but it was a case in which charges were successfully brought within 14 days—not 28 days, but 14—which is hardly evidence that we need three times as long.”

and finally from :

“The third witness was Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who said that the police, operating under the current 28-day limit were “up against the buffers”. That is the claim being made: not that we might be, but that we are up against the buffers. He based his judgment on the most complex counter-terrorism investigation in our history, Operation Overt, in respect of the alleged plot to blow 10 airliners out of the sky at Heathrow in August 2006. In that case, five people were held for 27 or 28 days…Three of the five suspects were held for the maximum period. More than half were innocent.”

But then your statement is a bit of a misnomer in itself isn’t it David…

“So far as I know no-one has actually challenged the fact that the investigation of suspects in terrorism cases sometimes takes a significantly long time”

Perhaps you’re right, maybe it takes really long lengths of time to INVESTIGATE, but then the debate is about why it is that people have to be locked up in the vast majority of cases for an unnecessary amount of time, not about how long it takes the police to find all of the facts they need because Labour are woefully inadequate at funding the police force to their needs.

That last quote I link to is http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2008-06-11a.330.2

David Boothroyd

…the best guess is that the majority of the electorate agrees, reluctantly, that terrorism charges sometimes need extended pre-charge detention.

In fairness, no-one has effectively put the argument to the people, so this much bandied about public acceptance, is a red-herring.

Of course, in polling, you usually get the answer you’re after as modelling the questions is a fine art. What we need is a real referendum…

What David Davis is doing – to his credit – is asking people to have a referendum on the issue. He’s calling you out, and as Labour has conveyed its reluctance to field a pro-42 days candidate, this surely indicates that they are afraid that the public actually doesn’t feel the way they constantly claim.

It’s very simple, David. Labour should stand by its principles, field a candidate, and make this a real referendum on 42-days.

Full stop.

‘Was not Kate’s partner’s letter an attempt to get coerced opposition to 42 days pre-charge questioning?’

Hi David,

Not sure what you mean by the above…? Don’t think hubby’s original email to Joan Roddock was an attempt at anything, except to express great upset with Labour to our local MP. You may have meant something else, though – if you did, clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks for coming back, though – it is encouraging to know that there are Labour party members in office who are prepared to expand on the party’s views on these forums. A response from an elected representative like you on this topic will be of considerable interest. Cheers, Kate

I am not an elected representative on this subject. I am commenting as an individual and not as an occupant of any office I might also happen to hold. Please acknowledge this as it is very important.

How should MPs (and Party offices) respond to this sort of letter?

donpaskini raises a question which has a standard answer. As he rightly says, a lot of repies will have to be in standard pre-written form. Reasonably organised correspondence systems have a good range of standard paras that can be pasted together quickly into a reasonable letter in most circumstances. It is not clear that either Joan Ruddock’s office or the General Secretary’s office has got that far yet.

However somebody with discretion needs to keep an eye on the flow of correspondence and of events. If they find a sudden flow of angry letters (emails are a form of letter) about a given point, or see a rash of such letters coming, then they draft what is known in the trade as a “bedbug letter”. A good bedbug letter shows every possible sympsthy with the complainant’s personal feelings, stresses that whatever is complained about deeply worries the writer, and that it will never occur again! (i.e. in this case 42 days ‘is a necessity that appals me’ etc., etc. Thus far and no futher!) The letter concludes by implicitly or explictly asking the complainant’s forgiveness, and saying how much his/her support is valued. The text is then set up for the people who handle correspondence to use.

That is the effective, professional mangement way of handling such letters. As with other matters over tha past decade or so, it does not seem to be the Labour Party way.

* The original “bedbug letter” long antedates computers. It is said to have been sent by the President of a Corporation to a customer who had complained about bedbugs in the accomodation supplied. It was a marvellously appalled, apologetic and appealing missive; only spoilt by the original complaint being enclosed with a note “Send the bedbug letter”.

*notes his response was carefully ignored*

It’s the way Labour operate though isn’t it Aaron? State what you think regardless of any facts or reality, then when called on it go quiet or say you’re making the “tough choices” that need to be made. We should be glad David didn’t respond with a reiteration of Labour’s economic record!

Aaron Heath, let’s not have a referendum on this issue – sadly opposers of 42 days would be disappointed.

David Boothroyd, I’m sure we can agree that the 42 days proposal is based on a hypothetical need, not a present need – after all, that is what Jacqui Smith herself claims. But I believe it is more than arguable that the arguments in favour of 42 days are equally (if not more so) in favour of more resources for the police and security services, not for any new legislation.

But you have problems if you think this was a principled stance against terrorism. On the contrary, this was fundamentally about a desperate Labour Government resorting to the tactics of fear in order to persuade voters that opposition parties are soft on terror. More recently it even became a matter of “saving Gordon Brown”, rather than saving innocent lives. Disgusting.

So Dave never came back, then?

Drag. Thought he might have something interesting to say.