British political idiocy

I had thought David Davis was one of the vaguely capable Tory (Conservative Party) politicians in the UK. He waffled on a bit when he was trying to become the leader of the party a few years back but as a shadow minister he seemed a bit more realistic than many of the party's parliamentarians.

Yesterday however, he resigned from his parliamentary seat to force a by-election - and to fight the by-election on the one topic of his opposition to the 42-day detention law that has just been passed (only barely) through the UK parliament. Given that the seat is probably a safe seat (i.e. he is unlikely to lose) this is just a waste of tax-payers money (I am one and the Tories are suppose to be the ones reducing taxes) just to do a stunt that will not effect anything (if he was serious he'd put in a private member's bill to reverse the law).

I actually agree the law is bad (it increases the time a theoretically innocent person can be held without charge by the police - with the excuse that you may be a terrorist) but waiting until it has been voted in and then pulling a stunt that will have no effect is stupid to say the least.
To make matters worse, the former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie is going to contest the by-election against him (itself a bad idea as Davis losing it would be ironic) BUT he's contesting it on the idea that increasing the detention time is good:

"I have been associated with The Sun for 30 years. The Sun is very, very hostile to David Davis because of his 28 day stance and The Sun has always been very up for 42 days and perhaps even 420 days."

Someone should lock him up for 420 days on the suspicion that he is a terrorist (didn't I see him talking to "arabian looking people" and loitering suspiciously around an airport?!). You'd soon see that the original 28 days (which I think was only introduced - and increased to 28 - last year) is a very long time to be incarcerated especially when you're innocent.

We don't need Guantanamo in the United Kingdom, thank you!

British Law

One thing I've noticed about British laws since I've lived in London (and it has to be noted that NZ law is originally based on British law) is that the British tend to legislate for specific instances rather than broader reasons.

An example for this is there are laws effecting parks...and laws effecting Royal Parks. Why do there need to be separate laws - stuffed if I know?!

This can be increasingly stupid when you start to wonder a) why the law wasn't implemented in a universal nature in the first place and b) that when it does need wider application it requires a new law (and all the legislative hassle to go along with it).

This has come to light recently in a spate of shootings in South London - we've had about 4 in the last few weeks. It has to be pointed out that British people (like NZ people) generally don't own guns and are not allowed to. This is so we don't go around shooting people all the time and generally works a treat.

Well, to address this spate of gun crime effecting mainly young men, the Prime Minister Tony Blair (and some other politicians) want to change an existing law which makes it possible to send a person to jail for 5 years if they are illegally carrying a gun. The existing law has the proviso that the law effects people over 21 (I'm guessing that that may be the case because you can't get a gun licence under 21).

Now, this law was most likely introduced to catch people who don't have a gun licence and can you imagine the law making process - "Hmmm, maybe we should let teenagers roam around with guns? That's OK isn't it?". So why with the age limit?!

Now they're talking about changing the law so the "limit" is reduced to being 17 years or older. When all the murders have effected people under 17! Are these people stupid or what?