PM’s interview with Downing Street website
Because I am quite sure, based on the experience I have had in government, you cannot solve some of these law and order problems unless you are prepared, quite profoundly, to change and rebalance the system of criminal justice so that you have more summary justice, more summary powers, more ability for quick and effective action to be taken, even if it will cross the line that most people normally think of as there in terms of civil liberties.
So the Prime Minister firmly believes, that you need to cross the line that *most* ppl think is there in terms of civil liberties. So he believes he should go against what most ppl think – how is that representing the will of the ppl? Anyone?
Comments
12 responses to “PM's interview with Downing Street website”
Depends, i suppose, whether you think that infringing the civil liberties of some people and modes of behaviour will benefit the majority? I’ve a feeling there is a case for some change to reflect the change civil climate personally. Victorian laws/20th century laws aren’t going to fit the culture we live in forever and when they aren’t amended to reflect the world we live in, it is the people who just want to live their lives safely who end up getting their civil liberties infringed.
I ought to have a civil liberty that means i could go out for a power walk in my new area every night without fear, but the truth is i can’t do that without fear of being assaulted. I’d rather it was the civil liberty of someone who makes a living mugging people that was infringed, than my right to go out for a walk.
Merry, with the utmost respect, you are missing the point. I believe that most ppl would agree that the civil liberties of a mugger should indeed by infringed to protect the civil liberties of a power walker. Tony Blair, as representative of the ppl, should in the vast majority of cases legislate to follow their will.
However, what he appears to be saying here is that even if the most ppl think one way, if he thinks another, then that is what he is going to do. That does not appear to me to be enacting the will of the ppl, and this is quite an important area for him to take notice of our will in.
I do not believe that the ends always justify the means, and I think in civil libertise cases there is far too little imaginative thinking of solutions, and far too much just taking of authority.
Well he’s got God on his side hasn’t he, so he doesn’t need to bother listening to the likes of us. We are, after all, just silly little children who haven’t a clue what is good for us. It’s a good job we’ve got Father Tony to take care of us all really.
I read the whole of the interview and i really didn’t see him as saying that. I thought he was saying that laws and justice were a code of normal practises that would normally be followed and if the people whose job it is to evaluate them believe they are outdated, then they need to be altered.
Surely it is reasonable to assume that most ministers might be in a good position to say “i’m looking at a big picture, taking in all this evidence that i am paid to look at and i’m seeing that we can’t continue to deal with x, y or z in this way anymore. We have to change because the way people behave has altered.”
TBH, i don’t see what you are getting at here really.
Merry – With all do respect he either said these words or he did not (do you work at No 10 ?).
Laws are constantly beng updated and changed every day – this happens all too frequently.
What this man is saying is that if moving towards an Orwellian state is going to reduce crime then that is what he is prepared to do.
He is a Lunatic who has just shown his true colours.
Lets hope his succesors don’t carry forward this monstrous attitude towards our civil liberties.
Civil Wars begin because of attitudes like this.
The Last World War was I believe fought to stop such arrogance.
GWilliy, you are very welcome to read and comment here, as long as you are aware that this is a primarily family and home education related blog, and the vast majority of ppl who comment are known friends of mine.
Merry – what you say in your comment is utterly reasonable. However, I think that what TB is saying is that many of us think there is a specific balance of liberties, and he thinks we need to give some of that up to address the peculiarities of the world now. I disagree with him – I think it’s spin that’s being put forward to convince us that the world is more dangerous now than it ever has been and accordingly we should submit to summary powers for the police, detention without trial while they get their stories straight, id cards (that will do nothing to stop illegal immigration or terrorist attacks – he’s changed his viewpoint on why we need them if you read the interview closely!) and so on and so forth. I don’t think the world *is* more dangerous now, and I think that the way the various problems need to be addressed is by looking at how we all live and work, but I’m aware that makes me a radical liberal. Don’t be taken in by the spin though.
Jax, would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty (even if personally opposed) on the basis that the majority of the population support it for particular categories of crime?
I find it hard to distinguish between supporting something on the principle that it is the will of the people and opposing it personally.
Not sure what I feel about the relative safeness of the world now when compared with say, 20 years ago. Clearly in the times of Vikings it was a little less safe 😉 What I do think is that if there is an increased threat it is way too marginal to justify the errosion of civil liberties that is occuring at the moment.
This whole *radical* thing really pisses me off. What is radical about wanting basic human dignity for all? Obviously life isn’t black and white; there are people out there who do *bad* things, but hell, they still deserve the right to be treated with dignity, at least until it has been proven that they are guilty of whatever heinous crimes they may be accused of.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it shocking that papers and politicians are currently whooping with joy at the death of a fellow human being, in what was nothing less than state sanctioned murder. Isn’t that what we didn’t like about Saddam? He murdered and tortured people – well hang on, what is extraordinary rendition, what is targetting an individual with 500lb of explosives? Why is it ok for *us* to do these things in the name of *freedom*? Why are *our* hands any less dirty than Zarqawi’s?
Politicians and civil servants (the ones who make the big decisions at any rate) don’t live in the real world. They will only get to hear of worst case scenarios which will probably have been hyped up beyond reason anyway. That’s not a good place to make reasoned judgments from, especially ones that will impinge on the lives of the rest of us.
We have laws already in place that address the vast majority of crimes, they just need using properly. We don’t need a whole draft of freedom reducing rubbish to keep us safe.
I really struggle to understand why this *war on terror* is any different to what we lived through with the IRA. When we lived overseas we had to check underneath our car for bombs before we got into it, every time we went out. There was a risk, but we took personal actions to keep ourselves safe. Maybe that clouds my judgment, but the things the government want to do in the name of protecting us, make me fear for my safety far more than the very real fear of an IRA bomb under the car, that we lived with day in day out for all of my childhood. Ok, so technology has moved on, and it’s no longer so easy to detect a bomb as it perhaps once was, but even so, I’d far sooner be largely responsible for my own personal safety, than to completely hand it over to TP(TDOT)B. If that’s a *radical* opinion then there’s no hope, IMNSHO of course!
And maybe non of that is relevant to the original question, but i’ve just been standing in the sun where the weather station says it is currently 42 degrees 😉
Chris, you’ve just come up with exactly the same difficult question that Tim came up with last night, and the answer is I don’t know, but I’m thinking about it very hard.
CHOP OFF THEIR GOOLIES!
What makes Tony think his party has the talent and tools to fix in 3 years a criminal justice system he’s taken 9 years to screw up? They only have one instrument available, it is the only one they ever have available and they have been using it.
More laws granting more powers and more weapons costing ever more money requiring more police, more prisons, more management and, of course, more government.
As if there were an endless supply available. Sigh…