"But sadly, David seems to have not noticed this announcement yet".

Could that be because he has got his head firmly stuck up where the sun doesn't shine?

Bob. Please email Henry Porter asap. He needs to know about this!!

Great minds think alike! I've just posted the very same thing:

http://e8voice.blogspot.com/2008/08/david-davis-where-are-you.html

I'll link to your post.

Anthony

Useful post, Bob. As an aside from the Davis issue, my understanding of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is that it applies not just to the police but also to local authorities. The press may not have picked up on this, but an amendment could means secret surveillance of people suspected of offences like dog fouling, prosecuted by local authorities but at the moment requiring specific authorisation under the act.

I hate to think what my own Tory Council would get up to if it had a freer hand (I've posted on its desire to run a quasipolice force rather than Council services at http://www.bickerstafferecord.org.uk/?p=246)

I think that’s a fair point-ish .There is an article by Kamfner in today’s Guardian claiming Dave is back in his comfort zone on the back of this. Grieve presents it as a loosening of red tape which is also a fair-ish point .The police could do all these things they just had to go though an endless rigmarole. On the supposed re -positioning of the Conservative Party ,I think when Dave has just told us we are going to get tax rises ( which Brown cannot do) that’s absurd . His early period was full of gestures at the Liberal centre but as time goes on the focus is on real social policy which Purnell was quick to copy , an improvement in my book .I see a move left.It is becoming clear that Cameron wants to take on social immobility and , to some extent , injustice . I support that wish ,it does concern me that the nation is separating and for any Conservative that fragmentation is abhorrent . We must be one nation with common cause although this , for us ,means encouraging endeavour not handing out lazy vouchers
Personally I feel a lot more comfortable picking on criminals than hyper-ventilating about "Terrorist threats ". Crime effects my life Terrorists do not. As far as David Davies is concerned I was always rather befuddled as to what the logic might be and you have hit, an easy target well.

I am not a criminal and I do not fear this purely formal extension of powers , should it lead to Bob Pipers perverse and degrading sex life being posted on U Tube , that will be an additional source of entertainment which must be good in these miserable times

newmania, with regards to your last point, it is already on there, you just have to search carefully.

eeeooooooooo

I think the point is being missed here.

Remind us as to just who it was wh pushed through this bit of legislation which enables people like the Tories to introduce such amendments?

It will interesting to see how much support or opposition this amendment gets from the New Labour benches. Not to mention its supportors and fellow travellers.

Newmania Posted " am not a criminal and I do not fear this purely formal extension of powers , should it lead to Bob Pipers perverse and degrading sex life being posted on U Tube , that will be an additional source of entertainment which must be good in these miserable times "

Forgetting of course, your criminal misuse of the English Language.

GW

Dave, it was Labour that introduced RIPA. It was the Tories, and David Davis in particular who criticised Labour over RIPA, despite clear examples of misuse by Tory Councils. It is the Tories who are proposing extending its powers.

Mmmmmm.

As a supporter of Davis' stance, in principle if not necessarily in its tactics, this is an entirely fair cop.

That Grieve is proposing this is (if true) a disgrace; everyone should be opposed to giving the authorities a free hand to trample on our rights, especially where non-terrorist offences are concerned (though of course the definition of terrorist offences seems to be broad enough to cover everything from climate camps to Walter Wolfgang).

The only problem (I use that word advisedly) is that, of course, if Davis comes out against this, the story instantly ceases to be about the measures being proposed, and becomes a process story; splits in the Tory Party. No doubt you'd be all for that, but that would strike me as understandable grounds for DD to keep his counsel, in the short term at least.

Oh, I see. Will you be extending the same generosity of spirit to Labour supporters (and Ministers even) who want to support the Government's authoritarian measures such as 42 day detention, even tacitly by remaining silent, because they don't want to make the story one of 'splits in the Labour Party'?

Bit lame that, Mr E.

Hang on, Bob, I said "understandable", not that I supported his decision to remain silent. I agree that his silence, on the face of it, is hypocritical and you make a good point by flagging it up. If I were in Davis' position I would come out against Grieve's proposals. As a Tory sympathiser (but not member) I don't think the Conservatives should be peddling this rubbish.

You're implying, if I read you correctly, that Davis' resignation and by-election was a political stunt, and that his silence today proves that he doesn't really care about civil liberties. I'm merely noting that there is an alternative explanation; that Davis has noticed this announcement and decided, or been persuaded, that spouting off to the press about it would not serve any useful purpose at the height of the silly season.

Of course I have no generosity of spirit towards Labour supporters - you wouldn't expect me to, because I'm biased - but nor would I expect any Labour MP who opposed a government policy to tour the Newsnight studios within 24 hours of its being reported in a a newspaper article and suggest to Paxman that the leadership had lost its mind. I would judge them on their actions and public statements in the medium term - I mean, for all I know Davis is scuba diving off Hawaii at the moment - and their subsequent votes, and that's how I'll judge him.

Put it another way; if these "proposals" from Dominic Grieve are indeed to be Tory policy, and we don't hear anything from David Davis before the month is out, I'll agree that he has let his supporters down. If, by contrast, he does come out against Tory moves to further water down our civil liberties in this area, I trust you'll agree that you've moved too swiftly to condemn him.

That seems reasonable, Mr E. and time will tell.

I do think Davis' resignation was a stunt which misfired. I also note that although he carried the torch of civil liberty, he never took any steps to condemn those Conservative controlled councils - such as Walsall, 900 + instances of RIPA in 8 years, many against there own staff who were off sick - who have gleefully misused the RIPA legislation.

I'm more than willing to criticise Labour, and I have done, over issues such as 42 days detention (and 28) and ID cards, when I think they are wrong. But what did David Davis do, as shadow Home Secretary to reign in those in his own Party who he knew were abusing their authority?

And that's why I think he's a hypocrite.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/13/privacy.civilliberties

Anything the Tory front bench can do to further the authoritarian agenda New Labour in Government can go that extra mile.

I tell you what Bob, I'll offer a free night out on the tiles to you if your New Labour colleagues on the Commons benches fail to support this amendment of some amended version of it (including one of their own).

Dave, yes, and the Tories will oppose any of the measures.... until they get back in office. Just see if they repeal them then. But don't hold your breath.

Those of us with long memories remember the Tories being all lovey dovey over the EU, surrendering our sovereignty with Maastricht and the SEA... until they got kicked out of office, and then, lo and behold, they went all eurosceptic on us again.

'I am not a criminal and therefore it has **** all to do with me'(or words to that effect).

Where have we heard THAT before?

1933-1946.

What has the gas chambers got to do with me?

Which Tories are we talking about Bob?

The traditional ones or the New ones?

I know what to expect from the Tories - and so do most people with any sense. The fact that we had to have a Tory Shadow Home Secretary stepping up to the plate on this issues speaks volumes simply because no one on the New Labour side of the house was willing to step up to it.

That space was occupied by a bloody old traditional Tory because it was left an empty space by those who are supposed to be everything the Tories are not. And the reason it was left empty is because there is no one left in what is nothing more than an empty shell of a Labour Party to take up against their (not the tories who are not in power) creeping authoritarian agenda.

We know what to expect from Tories and are not interested in constantly being sidetracked by what they "might" do. That's irrelevant at the moment.

What is relevant, Bob, is not what someone else may or may not do in the future but what the current (New Labour)Government are doing now.

It's really sad to see someone like yourself reduced to the role of the character Squealer (from Animal Farm) trying to divert attention to what the Tories might do rather than dealing with the issues of what the current Government are actually doing.

I'll tell you a true story Bob. We used to have an Executive member of our Union that lived locally who was also on the Exec of the old CP. Some years back he was helping to organise an anti-apartheid demo.

All the usual crowd of "Judean Peoples Front/Peoples Front of Judea" were there trying to outdo each other when this chap turns up wanting to join the March because he genuinely believed and sincerely felt that apartheid was morally wrong and ethically reprehensible.

The problems began when he informed the gathered comrades that he was a Tory. The JPF/PFJ crowd were adament that this ruled him out of any involvement in the event. That is until they were put right by my old friend from our Union Executive who pointed out the absurdity of their position.

And its even worse with this situation because at least in that example there were people prepared to step up to the plate over the issue. But in this case the field has been left empty.

Rather than screaming about those who have occupied that field I think we'd all be better employed screaming about why it is that that field has been left empty.

We can either deal with the issue and those who are actually pushing and introducing such authoritarian measures or we can ignore and the issue them by talking about what other people "might" do.

I know which I'd rather do Bob. What about yourself?

Very interesting, Dave, I always like to read a chapter from the anecdotal road to socialism.

Interesting, but, inevitably, wrong.

David Davis didn't 'step up to the plate'. He gave up his position as Shadow Home Secretary opposing a bill which had not passed through Parliament in order to carry out a personal publicity stunt, simply because Cameron wouldn't back him.

We are not talking about what the Tories 'might' do, because their Shadow Home Secretary told us it is what they WILL do.

Nor am I 'diverting attention' away from what Labour are doing. You may be a new reader, I'll excuse you that, but I have consistently said I oppose 42 day detention... and even the 28 day detention that your hero voted for.

Well, actually, I won't excuse you, because I even said it earlier in this thread. And as for there being no one left in what is nothing more than an empty shell of a Labour Party"... check the voting on 42 day detention. Why do you think Brown had to rely on the DUP?

Well, apart from all your factual inaccuracies... I'm sure you must have got something right.

Your name is Dave, isn't it?

Oh dear Bob, I gave up believing in hero's before I started infant school.

You really don't get it do you. Whatever label anyone wants to put on what Davies did I have no problem with.

But, Bob, that is an irrellevance. Why, Bob, was he allowed to occupy that space and present himself as drawing a line in the sand over the issue (as well as opening up the debate over the authoritarian state & giving it a higher profile)to the wider society outside of Westminster?

Why was that ground left unoccupied for someone else Bob?

Why is (not just why has) no one on the Labour side of the house picking up this gauntlet in such a way?

It's not as though its happened overnight in one go. We've had bill after bill after bill - with each new authoritarian measure developing its own mission creep. Why is (not just why has) no one on the Labour side of the house effectively broken ranks with the Party whips over this and widened the debate outside to the wider society they are suppossed to represent?

If there is so much opposition on the Labour benches as you imply how come so much of this stuff is getting through. It's not been very effective so far has it Bob. I mean, before Davies did what he did no one was even taking that debate to the country. It's not good enough just to sit in the comfort zone with the village and hang out with the "right" gang of people Bob.

And this is partly the reason Davies got the level of support he did because he broke ranks with the "Westminster village", widened the debate out and gave it a higher profile.

Now, Bob, you correctly state that you've been banging on about the issue for ages. Fine. The problem is that when someone tries to widen the debate, give it a higher profile, and challenge the direction of those policies you follw the lead of the New labour Party whips in Parliament and many members/ supporters are taking by trying to stifle that debate because the person belongs to the wrong "tribe".

And to be fair you've done a good job on that score. The line taken by the New Labour leadership - and followed by yourself, has killed that wider debate stone dead and made sure that only the "correct" and the "right" people are in control of it and allowed to participate.

Like the so called lefter than thou crowd, in the example I gave on that anti-apartheid event, the issue does not seem to be as important as making sure that only the "correct" people get to be involved and in control.

Nice one Bob. Well done there. Better to score an own goal than have the "wrong" people/tribe scoring it eh?

Instead of casting aspirtions on other peoples background and motives Bob, you might be be better employed looking at the beam in you own eye. For the record I do take a Marxist approach in that I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member. Go figure.

What the Tory side of the House will do and will not do is something which may or may not happen in the future. The key and relevant issue is what is happening now and what the New Labour Government, its leadership, MP's, supporters and members are actually doing and how effective those opposed to that agenda are.

People who are genuinelly concerned don't give a FF what someone else "over there" might do or say they will do. As my old grandfather used to say that's all if's and buts.

What people do give a FF about is what is actually happening and who is making it happen and why. Not what somebody else might do or say they will do.

But my offer still stands though Bob. The New Labour leadership will seek to be more authoritarian then the Tories on this. The lobby fodder will do as the leadership tell them (as they have done previously) and either troop through the lobbys in support of this amendment to RIPA or support some other policy amendment introduced by the New Labour leadership that trumps the Tory position in terms of being more authoritarian.

And if not I'll treat you'se to a night out.

Can't say fairer than that.

...and the booby prize is what? Two nights out with you? No thanks. What a bore!

The funny thing about this is that the Tories had been slowly building up support in the geek and privacy-aware communities because of their anti-surveillance society stance. They have now instantly lost most of it with one announcement.

The only gain for anybody in this is the spoilt ballot party who may hold the balance of power after the next election due to the lack of anything else worth voting for.

Whither democracy? Or maybe democracy is withering.

How about a deal?
These laws can be passed if tabloid journalists are also given the right to "use thermal imaging and X-ray technology" on the bedrooms and basements of MPs.

Very predictable Bob. I know you can do better.

Perhaps you should get yourself an agent rather than sitting there in the dark handling yourself?

If you can't be arsed to engage with ordinary people just say so rather than hiding behind weasal words like "boring."

It's that sort of complacent, lofty. "I know better" tribal bullshit attitude which is switching people off in droves.

And there was I thinking you were different.....

Bob, you had your tongue firmly in your cheek when you made this post, surely? Grieve is only attempting to remove ridiculous regulation introduced in RIPA, which would allow the police to carry out many of their normal duties that we have been accustomed to seeing, such as patrolling in uniform or plain clothes!!