Talking Politics

[Marmora Man]

Many have put forward or defended various political positions on the forum. However, the talk is usually spread over many threads - my Quango thread has morphed into a discussion of the merits, or otherwise, of ID cards.

If we can keep "class" and "yah boo" away from the discussion I thought an ongoing thread on the political issues of the day might prove interesting. Think of it as a continually running Andrew Marr show.

To kick it off:

David Davis resigns to draw attention to the gradual erosion of liberty in this country. Within he Conservative party he would be characterised as a right wing "law and order" politician. Yet he is protesting about ID cards, CCTV, 42 days detention without trial. In my view this makes him a real Tory from the libertarian wing of the party - defending the interests of the individual against the state.

I recognise that DD's stance can also be characterised a part of an internal power struggle, ego trip and general political vanity. However, if we leave that aside - his professed proposition that the state is becoming too powerful and too intrusive is one that I feel an instinctive support for.

Where do EDF "ers" stand on the three issues of ID cards, CCTV and 42 days detention?

I've always been against ID cards (despite carrying a military ID for 22 years) - it reverses the historic basis of English common law - "that which is not forbidden is allowed". Whereas the basis of continental / Napoleonic law is "that which is not specifically permitted is forbidden". The state has no need to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I go unless and until I make / take an illegal act. Mere suspicion is not enough. If ID cards are introduced it will become an offence not to produce it or not to tell the state when you move and your new address. Why do the state need to know where I live?

CCTV - it's supposed to prevent crime. There is much evidence and research to show that it merely relocates crime. It has proved useful in developing a case to prove a crime has been committed - but do you feel that being observed on camera upwards of 200 times a day in London is a worthwhile trade off to secure conviction of a criminal after the offence has been committed? I don't.

42 days detention - wrong, wrong and wrong. The various compromises have, in any case, created a constitutional nightmare and I would back any government / party that reversed this and made the limit 7 days.

I'm sure there are other views and other topics to be discussed.

Query - other topics:

1. Civil servants and data protection.

2. The NHS

3. Taxation and tax credits - why take money away in tax, filter it through an expensive bureaucracy and give 80% of it back as tax credits.

4. Overseas wars

5. Treatment of the military - can we / should we separate the political decision to go to war from the personal tragedies and care of the soldiers, sailors and airmen that fight the wars?

6. Police - do they deserve more pay?

[snoozequeen1]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> If we can keep "class" away from the

> discussion I thought an ongoing thread on the

> political issues of the day might prove

> interesting.

So you would like to discuss politics as long as no one mentions politics.

Gosh, one has to love the English for their magnificent capacity for self delusion.

I am ashamed of myself for encouraging you at all by replying.

[spadetownboy]

id card or no id card, the state know where you live and will always know where you live and unfortunately will have to know where you live, one example tax, be it returns, or simply sending your new tax code, p60 whatever its got to go somewhere, so personally i dont see what the issue is. a credit card sized id card provided they can sort someing out re costs etc dosent hold any fears for me, infact i would wholly embrace it as it would solve a lot more problems than what it would cause.

cctv again no issues, as the old adage goes if you,re doing no wrong then you,ve nothing to fear. my only gripe with it is they need to improve the standard of the images produced, in this day and age with the technology available, the quality of images produced from cctv is shocking.

42 days detention for terrorists or suspected terrorists, lock em up i say. depriving someone of their liberty for 6 weeks is a small price to pay if it means we prevent repeats of 7/7 and the ira bombings of the troubles. yup there are going to be mistakes made, but what is the option 6 weeks versus someones life, is no option.

and finally as regards war and service personel getting killed, i,ve no real thoughts on it either way but it needs to be brought into the context that if you join one of the services you may have to get involved in conflict and you may get killed or injured. my only gripe is why are all these deaths all of a sudden a big issue, i certainly dont recall the same outcry, during the 1st gulf war, the falklands and the troubles for that matter and its nothing to do with useless or meaningless wars, because its quite easy to argue that all wars are the same.

[Marmora Man]

snoozequeen1 Wrote:

> Gosh, one has to love the English for their

> magnificent capacity for self delusion.

>

> I am ashamed of myself for encouraging you at all

> by replying.

I meant the usual EDF class "thing" about how wonderful life when Eat Dulwich was populated by real people - which is a sterile and meaningless debate.

[Marmora Man]

STB - you're winding me up surely?

[spadetownboy]

totally serious mm, totally serious, but thats my view,which may not be agreeable with youself or any others for that matter but hey-ho.

[Huguenot]

I agree with STB broadly.

I don't think that the debates are helped by half-truths - there's no suggestion that it's an offence to not to produce an ID card on demand. The streets won't be patrolled by jack-booted neo-nazis in an evil cameo of the 'Worm that turned'. However I don't think it's unreasonable in a world of sophisticated criminals to provide some sort of evidence of identity to qualify for state subsidy and support. I'm quite startled that people are smug enough to take advantage of a society that other people's tax cash built and then squeal about the mildest forms of reciprocated responsibilities.

Ditto CCTV, it's a little bit inane to imagine that one is interesting enough for people to track our every action. Most CCTV cameras are not supervised, they're just used for review after the fact. I'm reminded of that 16 year old thug on the Croydon tram preening himself on the CCTV with stolen jewellery. Nobody was watching him do it, but it caught the little shit.

I reckon 42 days detention is a little bit more complex. I agree with STB when the case is well made, but I can't possibly agree with terror laws when they're used by councils to spy on families to see if they're really resident in a school catchment district. I'd hope that they didn't get 42 days for that ;-), but it is a demonstration that these kind of laws are very much open to abuse and need very close monitoring.

On the police/army issue, I'm not sure that salaries have much relevance. I can't believe that anyone takes up a job like this assuming they're risking their lives by doing so. Hence I don't think people say "I won't risk my life for 25K a year, but I will for 35k a year". Even the railway system prices a human life at something like 4m quid.

I do believe that these guys have a right to medical care for injuries sustained in the workplace however. I don't think it needs to be a function of government - medical insurance companies are perfectly capable of taking up the task at moderate cost.

Not sure I quite understand MM's angle on this though. Are we to understand that you don't believe in government spending on job creation and stimulating agricultural growth, but you do believe in investing in the war machine? :)

[Marmora Man]

I was not attempting to put forward a coherent political philosophy - my points after the ID cards, CCTV and 42 days were meant as a list of possible topics for discussion not necessarily as an expressed point of view. They are all of interest - serious discussion and opinions are welcomed.

I'll leave this to run a while before attempting to analyse / respond.

[spadetownboy]

surely an expressed point of view is the way to go, as regardless of the topic being discussed ones expressed view is what will form the basis of their argument/discussion.

[Asset]

I'm kind of with STB and Huge regarding ID cards and CCTV. Whilst these things are fairly pointless - let's face it passports can be forged so ID cards will be too and until it becomes a case of the jack-booted neo nazi type police force waiting on street corners and randomly requesting to see them, whereupon you get duffed up if you cannot produce it, it's just another piece of plastic in the wallet. Likewise I think it has been shown that athough we are the most filmed population in Europe it has done little to actually reduce crime, but I'm not bothered by them.

What does bother me is recently discovering that police routinely place drug sniffer dogs at the top of tube escalators etc. A person has no choice but to walk past them and that is an infringement of civil liberties in my view and taking the 'preventative' measures to a sinister level.

In re. 42 days, It's ridiculous. I don't see what information can be gathered from somebody in that sort of situation that couldn't be gathered in say, 14 days.

I seriously don't think political leanings have anything to do with these issues. I think if we had a Tory government for the last five years say, they would be doing exactly the same things because it's a cultural mindset rather than a political ideology. A collective ruling by fear.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm much more with MM than Huguenot or STB on this one..

It's a bit fatuous to suggest that those agin these measures are warning that jackbooted state police will be kicking down our doors for thought-crime within our lifetimes. If these measures are introduced, life will go on as normal and few people will be affected

But it is a bit reminiscent of the proverbial frog in the hot pan. The temperature is being turned up and by the time we think something needs to be done it will be too late. Why would something need to be done? Leaving aside the efficacy of the measures (if video cameras are so good why does everyone say they feel more scared in 2008 compared with say 30 years ago?) we don't have to look too far back in our history to see various times when government gets ideas above it's station. I'm not that worried about terrorism or sophisticated criminals - terrorists aren't that sophisticated from what I've seen and tech-minded criminals tend to target not you and me but more faceless corporations) but I would be worried if, for example when Maggie started to wane in office and her ideas started to provoke public disquiet, instead of realising (via riots etc) that the people weren't taking things lying down, she could use the sort of powers being discussed to enforce it. That's just one silly example but it shouldn't be hard to think of many more

I don't understand however the whole "I don't mind the CCTV being there, it doesn't affect me and anyway it doesn't seem to reduce crime therefore I'm neutral about them" - if you consider them ineffective then why shrug - they cost a lot to install and maintain so they must be there for some reason.

And as for the 42 days - let's face it - Kelvin MacKenzie shows the real mentality behind it when he says "42 days? Make it 420 days! whatever it takes" - in otherwords indefinite detention without trial. Well whoppee for us

Asset makes the good point that it's not really party-political - any party with a sniff of this power will sieze it if possible

[mockney piers]

ID Cards, I'm against, I've stated a number of times, but by and large agree with Marmora Man that it's a shift in philosophy of which I don't approve.

CCTV, not intrinsically against them, but they do two things. Firstly give people a false sense of security, recent survey showed a surprisingly low figure are of any use in terms of whether they work, whether their resolution is useful, whether they are monitored or whether they are recorded or the recording used.

Police also admitted they never have the manpower/time to look through them anyway except in high profile cases.

Intersetingly your average oik knows this full well and doesn't pay them the blindest bit of attention.

Secondly they contribute to the general sense of fear and paranoia that is prevalent these days, so are counterproductive in that sense. As a photographer (enthusiast) this has stretched to people getting uppity about my taking photos of their CCTVs, and of taking photos in public in genereal...yes that's right I'm a terrorist, and of course I shouldn't take photos of your useless camera, that makes me bad, but it's fine for you to monitor me is it?

As for 42 days, STB's ridiculous assertion that it's terrorists that are being locked up is about as wilfully facile as you can get. He should know full well that perhaps second to Bloody Sunday, the biggest propoganda coup handed to the republicans was internment, and this is no different.

Of those arrested under terror laws (not counting council tax shirkers and people heckling in labour conferences) only a small proportion have gone on to have a subsequent charge.

These have returned to their communities feeling abused, persecuted with no hint of an apology, and this is before we get to Forest Gate, no doubt STB approves of shooting terrorists too does he?

If we had a perfect police force and perfect intelligence and perfectly intentioned politicians then fine, but we all know this not to be the case.

[Floating Onion]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I reckon 42 days detention is a little bit more

> complex. I agree with STB when the case is well

> made

And here's part of the problem I have with this, the 42 days detention is only required when the case can't be well made. If the case can be well made then they can charge the person & hold them until it goes to a fair trial. The government can now hold you for 42 days when they can't make a case against you.

[SteveT]

The US have no need for holding people for 42 days, and they suffered the attacks.

Perhaps if our police force were as dilligent, and not over burdened with ineffectual masons, they too could deal with 'suspects' in the same amount of time as the American system.

[Floating Onion]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The US have no need for holding people for 42

> days, and they suffered the attacks.

Guantanamo bay? Rendition? Warrantless wire taps? The American justice system is doing a great job.

[mockney piers]

By shoving them in an illegal offshore camp indefinitely with no recourse to rule of law or the judiciary whatsoever?

Nice plan.

[mockney piers]

oooh great cross post F.O. - hah, Foreign Office ;)

[HonaloochieB]

ID cards might be a practical altenative to passport, proof of NI etc but the pro lobby tend to emphasise the war against terror as a pont in favour. If they can be produced by a government appointed agency, then they can be produced by others with worse intent. Is there a connection between the pro ID cards lobby and the companies who stand to earn from the contracts associated with them. I'm sure someone smarter than me can follow the money trail.

CCTV - it doesn't work. It does not prevent crime which is the basis it was sold to us on. It's not that good at providing evidence after the event, poor resolution, the cunning use of sportswear to obscure a person's features and the impossibility of monitorring all of the cameras all of the time make it an expensive and ugly piece of street furniture.

Detention for 42 days, I'm agin it for all the reasons above and think it'll be a great recruiting tool for those who are in the business of fomenting unrest among easily led 'radicals'.

[david_carnell]

ID Cards - anti. Redundant. Expensive. Fail to tackle either id fraud, benefits cheats or terrorism. I find the idea of an enforced id card uncomfortable.

CCTV - anti. Expensive. I'm concerned over the increase of a surveillance society. They do not stop crime. Nor, in many cases do they catch the culprits. Quite often they merely displace the crime to a theatre with no cameras. This is not a reason to put cameras everywhere. Whatever happened to "tough on the causes of crime"?

42 detention - anti. Mainly for all the reasons previously expressed. I think 28 is an abomination as well. Canada has 1 day. So should we, without Judicial approval.

And although I'm aware they were meant for discussion and not bullet point responses:

1. Civil servants and data protection.

I presume you mean the loss of private data by incompetant civil servants. A bloody gopod reason not to have an ID card I should think.

2. The NHS

Hurrah for the world's second largest employer (After the Indian state railway if you're interested). A cornerstone of civilised society. It needs more independence from politicians looking to make political capital from it, however.

3. Taxation and tax credits - why take money away in tax, filter it through an expensive bureaucracy and give 80% of it back as tax credits.

To redistribute wealth.

4. Overseas wars

I'm all for a well funded, professional military conducting campaigns of liberal-interventionism.

5. Treatment of the military - can we / should we separate the political decision to go to war from the personal tragedies and care of the soldiers, sailors and airmen that fight the wars?

I find this almost impossible to answer.

6. Police - do they deserve more pay?

Yes, but performance related - and I don't mean those who arrest more criminals. More along the lines of increaased pay for those judged fine, upstanding officers. And less for baton-friendly neanderthals.

[DaveR]

"3. Taxation and tax credits - why take money away in tax, filter it through an expensive bureaucracy and give 80% of it back as tax credits.

To redistribute wealth."

The tax credits system is a disaster (and I speak from real experience) - stupidly complicated, full of perverse incentives, and utterly pointless - it would be so much more efficient simply to distribute the 'benefit' element as benefits and raise the threshold for basic rate tax to around ?10,000.

[david_carnell]

Sorry, yes, I agree Dave R. I was referring to taxation in general. Unlike Mamora Man I believe in moderate redistibution of wealth to be a thoroughly good thing.

Ta credits, as you rightly point out, are a complete mess.

[PeckhamRose]

Anyone see last year's film TAKING LIBERTIES?

The 7/7 and 9/11 bombers were proud to carry their ID cards.

The argument that if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to be worried about is naive.

What happens when suddenly a law is put in place in that crime is "designed in" and you find that something you did perfectly safely and sensibly and legally yesterday is now illegal for various spurious reasons such as "for your safety".

Of course the state knows your address without the need for ID cards, and all the agencies including DVLA can share with one another and anyone else who has access to the files which are left on trains. No need for ID cards.

I and mine have opted out of the National Spine: ie we are forbidding our doctor's surgery to put our details on the central computer to be shared with the hospitals and anyone else who finds the files on a train. You have the right to opt out too. Ask your surgery. The phones still work and my doctor can phone to make the appointments.

[SteveT]

Floating Onion wrote:-Guantanamo bay? Rendition? Warrantless wire taps? The American justice system is doing a great job.

Is it the case now in the US that if you are picked up off the street, they can hold you for the said 42 days?

On radio 4 a month ago, I believe it was stated 15 days.

[spadetownboy]

shooting terrorists,if needs be,so be it.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Nice thread and of course I agree with MM and the others.

ID cards dangerous centralizaton of our data accessed by all and sundry e.g when we purchase something needing ID. Why not stick with passports, driving licences etc.

CCTV - it's funny how CCTV evidence that could help someone accused of a crime prove their innocence often seems to disappear. Issues re: who has access and control. Quality often too grainy for good ID and have seen cases where due to false identification of 6'3" client the CPS didn't stop the prosecution even though the victim had described attacker as being about 5'8. Thrown out in court. Reliance on CCTV leads to lazy policing.

42 day detention without charge - well you just have to pray someone doesn't clone your info and get you banged up for 42 days without charge.

The drip, drip erosion of our civil liberties scares the crap out of me. How do you think these powers will be used when society starts to suffer serious meltdown due to the catostrophic climate change, scarcity of resources etc facing us in the very near future?