Drag. Thought he might have something interesting to say.

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.

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”.

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

…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.

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.

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.

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.

“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

>(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

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.

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)