writetothem.com is also a good conduit - though they do warn that mail from non-consituents will be ignored

(my own MP is a Tory so hope will be voting against)

I feel a mail-merge coming on.

Oh my god, mail-merging is so sexy.

What is a mail merge exactly?
It does sound quite exciting!

[…] The list of MPs, and thanks to Sunny […]

Hi

Just thought I’d say thanks for putting this list together. I’ve posted it to our blog and will see about getting it circulated round our mailing list to try and get our members involved. Let’s hope they vote the right way again.

Good work!

Robert @ GU Amnesty

cjcjc

It’s a function on Microsoft Word (and other DTP programmes) to mass-produce letters for a contact database. With individual fields (i.e. names, salutations, addresses).

Like I said. Very, very sexy.

Only if you’re not a l33t perl scripter.

Excellent list - thanks Sunny.

But can people not take a sanctimonious and smug superior line with the MPs by pretending that this is a simple matter of good versus evil (or as the left prefer to label it, ‘concience’.

These people will hardly respond well to being effectively told that colleagues they support, like, and think highly off are imoral scum for voting against concience.

And those on the list considering their vote will not be considering it a case of doing what they believe, or doing what some guy with lots of cash has told them to.

They will be (in their minds) weighing up which vote they think gives them the best net result for the wellbeing of the country. Indeed in some cases that will mean Labour MPs voting with the measure in support of a Prime Minister they don’t want to see ousted by the Tories.

So please if you write to them - write tactically - emphasise the harm this may do in the long term to the government, and to individuals involved.

Do not simply rant that they are bad people if they for for…

[…] 42 day detention February 15, 2008 The Liberal Conspiracy campaign and list of MPs who abstained or voted against 90 days. […]

A query, not a comment… This is intended as a legal query, rather than one about ethics.

When a person is arrested as a suspected terrorist, the police take away potential evidence. This includes communications equipment (computers, mobile phones) and paper documents. If there is no charge, the person is released from custody. But what happens to the evidence? Is the evidence released with the suspect?

A “for instance”: A suspect is arrested, computer equipment is seized and the computer equipment contains encrypted files. Cracking the encrypted files may take some time. Does UK law permit the police to retain copies of seized data? Can the police continue to examine data or to crack encryption? I’m seeking a civil rights lawyer answer here.

In terrorism suspect cases, the suspect is evidentially useless, unless s/he confesses. Surely retention of potential evidence rather than a human suspect is more meaningful to the legal case.

Thanks for the list!
I’m on this…

Dr Ian Gibson has confirmed that he is opposed to 42 days.

Thanks for the info - It gives me a mailing list to express my views on exceeding 28 days.

I will be mailing to all supporting an extention of detention time.

Each to their own.

[…] 42 days: both threat and need remain unproven Posted on 26 February 08, 10:42 am by ourkingdom OurKingdom is supporting Liberal Conspiracy’s campaign against 42 days detention, and will be publishing a series of posts about it over the next few weeks. Labour rebels will decide whether the bill passes or not. For a full list of those who rebelled last time (on 90 days detention), including email addresses, click here. […]