Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
Guest tv tanned

Government defeated on terror laws

Recommended Posts

Guest tv tanned

Blair loses his first vote as PM, 90-day rule defeated by 31 votes.

MPs have gone for the 28 day amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well well well wonder how lnong before Mr ANthony Blair is kiked to the kurb eh.....

On the news it said that wednesday the 9th of November at 16:34 2005 will go down in history as the downfall of tony blair..............

It was also on sky news last week that Mr Brown wants him out but that was 'reported' not actually said by himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ach they're saying Blair was happy for this to happen. Some of the stuff that he still wants to bring into Parliament is apparently even less popular than this, so he wants to make himself look like he's trying tough on terror (identifying with the middle-Englanders etc) but his plans are being sabotaged by Brown's camp.

Basically, if he gets the stuff through, he's quite happy and if he keeps losing votes and eventually loses his job, he's going to make it look like it was Brown's doing and that Brown has let a personal quarrel take more precendence than the security of the nation. One thing it does indicate from this is that Blair thinks Brown's going to be the PM soon (presumably Alan Millburn isn't going to get the job after all).

Forgot to say, the other thing that might happen is that the Tories will back Blair's policies whilst a large quantity of the Labour Party won't, which will rip Labour apart. I wonder if Blair's thinking is that since he can't get anyone to succeed him from his own camp, he's going to make sure Brown inherits a poisoned chalice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much Brown vs. Blair as Old Labour vs. New. There is a difference. Blair knows that Brown's going to take over eventually, and that the only way Labour are going to win the next election is if the party can rally behind the new PM, so he has to get the unpopular but necessary legislation on the statute book now. It's not so much a case of sabotaging Brown's premiership, than a concerted effort to use whichever means necessary to implement the promises as set out under Labour's manifesto.

Watching the news last night made me feel vaguely ill. Has-beens such as Clare Short and Frank Dobson prosletysing in their usual smug and patronising manner revelling in their "victory", while joining Kennedy and Howard in their calls for Blair to go. There is a certain element within the parliamentary Labour Party that has never been comfortable in government and has continued to display opposition traits throughout the lifespan of this administration. They're going to do the same to Brown as well unless he capitulates completely to the awkward squad and runs on an old-fashioned left wing manifesto at the next general election, which he'll lose badly.

If Brown can use the momentum of his "honeymoon" period, however, he may well carry on in the style of Blair, challenging the Tories to vote down populist issues in Parliament and sticking to the centrist policies that got Labour three election victories in a row. He's not daft, is Gordon. He's a lot closer to Blair ideologically than people realise. The malcontents may be rallying around his flag right now, but he'll dispose of them once they've served their purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bbc news headline this morning is

Blair says MPs are out of touch

Tony Blair tells his Cabinet there is a "worrying gap" between some MPs and public opinion over the terror threat.

More like there is a worrying gap between blair and public opinion, am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bbc news headline this morning is

Blair says MPs are out of touch

Tony Blair tells his Cabinet there is a "worrying gap" between some MPs and public opinion over the terror threat.

More like there is a worrying gap between blair and public opinion' date=' am I right?[/quote']

From a Populus poll conducted between November 4-6th

"Tony Blair is right to insist that the police should have the power to detain suspected terrorist suspects without charging them for up to 90 days"

Agree-64%

Disagree-32%

The poll breaks down to show that 71% of Labour voters back the PM, and 60% of non-Labour voters do the same.

Incidentally, others in favour of the 90 day measure were the police force, the security services, and Gordon Brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just hope that somebody we let out of jail after 28 days doesnt go and bomb us, because the police weren't allowed enough time to get the proper evidence.

It's a horrible situation for any innocents that are arrested, but I personally would prefer that the police have the option of keeping someone in for 90 days if it means a shitload of people dont get bombed.

I think Blair got this one right for once, and I hope we dont live to regret it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's just hope that somebody we let out of jail after 28 days doesnt go and bomb us' date=' because the police weren't allowed enough time to get the proper evidence.

It's a horrible situation for any innocents that are arrested, but I personally would prefer that the police have the option of keeping someone in for 90 days if it means a shitload of people dont get bombed.

I think Blair got this one right for once, and I hope we dont live to regret it.[/quote']

It's people like you that are letting this country go to shit. 28 days is still an obscene length of time to hold people for, and it is arguably better to release suspects if they can't be charged due to lack of evidence, because if the authorities are that convinced that such a person is a terrorist, they can put them under surveillance and watch what they are up to. Although, you would expect them to have done that in the first place before arrresting them.

This is just carte blanche to pick up anyone they dont like the look of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that his first defeat comes on an issue where he apparantly does have public support, if that is the case i don't see it doing as much harm ot him as some people are saying, but if he has more losses on upcoming votes then he will be in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's people like you that are letting this country go to shit. 28 days is still an obscene length of time to hold people for' date=' and it is arguably better to release suspects if they can't be charged due to lack of evidence, because if the authorities are that convinced that such a person is a terrorist, they can put them under surveillance and watch what they are up to. Although, you would expect them to have done that in the first place before arrresting them.

This is just carte blanche to pick up anyone they dont like the look of.[/quote']

Yes, me and two thirds of the whole country apparently. It's all our fault.

Incidentally, given that the 90-day rule was requested by the police, I'd guess that your suggestion of simply putting people under surveillance is a gross over-simpification of how the police should do their job. They asked for this because as things stand, they cant deal with the terror threat effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tv tanned

Funny how when the police call for 90 day detention, the government tell us we have to roll over yet when the police call for extra funding it falls on deaf ears in the corridors of power.

I was always of the impression that it was in third world countries that the police told the governments what to do.

Are you seriously suggesting that 90 day detentions would have had any effect on preventing the July 7th atrocities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's funny that his first defeat comes on an issue where he apparantly does have public support' date=' if that is the case i don't see it doing as much harm ot him as some people are saying, but if he has more losses on upcoming votes then he will be in trouble.[/quote']

Blair isn't going anywhere until he beats Maggie's record in November 2008. They've got a big enough majority to ensure that they won't lose a vote of no confidence (heck, Major won one) - so really, he can do whatever the hell he likes.

What should be more worrying to him is that 12 ex ministers voted against him - what kind of message is that sending out to the voters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bluesxman
Are you seriously suggesting that 90 day detentions would have had any effect on preventing the July 7th atrocities?

Are you in sufficient possession of knowledge to suggest they wouldn't have?

What would your solution to this problem be?

I haven't seen an alternative suggestion on here from you or anyone, just the usual outcry about how innocents will suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tv tanned
Are you in sufficient possession of knowledge to suggest they wouldn't have?

What would your solution to this problem be?

I haven't seen an alternative suggestion on here from you or anyone' date=' just the usual outcry about how innocents will suffer.[/quote']

1. Yes, otherwise why were they not brought in under the present powers police have to detain suspects? The bombers would not have been ensnared by any 90 day proposal, and to suggest otherwise is nonsense.

Besides which, it is currently the case that police can apply for extended detention subject to judicial review, so there are powers already available if the police need to interrogate a suspect further.

2. I support the compromise which has been reached, I recognise that there is a need for measures to tackle terrorism, but I am afraid I do not see what 90 day detention would do other than cause serious tensions in our minority communities. It is interesting to note that the Northern Irish MPs, to a man, voted against the proposals after relaying their experience of internment which acted as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA. Those who ignore the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them.

3. I think I have answered this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine being held for 90 days with no charge. Who pays the mortgage whilst I'm locked up? Would my job be held open for me? I think not.

90 days imprisonment means a lot more than just 90 days off the street to Mr 'Innocent until PROVEN guilty'. He'd lose everything.

There's something wrong with our Police if they can't get a charge to stick within 28 days. If not then surely the accused should be set free.

Unless they wear some sort of turban, rag or hook .... then they're definately guilty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bluesxman
1. Yes' date=' otherwise why were they not brought in under [b']the present powers police have to detain suspects? The bombers would not have been ensnared by any 90 day proposal, and to suggest otherwise is nonsense.

Besides which, it is currently the case that police can apply for extended detention subject to judicial review, so there are powers already available if the police need to interrogate a suspect further.

2. I support the compromise which has been reached, I recognise that there is a need for measures to tackle terrorism, but I am afraid I do not see what 90 day detention would do other than cause serious tensions in our minority communities. It is interesting to note that the Northern Irish MPs, to a man, voted against the proposals after relaying their experience of internment which acted as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA. Those who ignore the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them.

3. I think I have answered this one.

What are these powers, out of interest due to lack of knowledge on my part?

Your last sentence in 2 I hope is not prophetic....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bluesxman
Imagine being held for 90 days with no charge. Who pays the mortgage whilst I'm locked up? Would my job be held open for me? I think not.

90 days imprisonment means a lot more than just 90 days off the street to Mr 'Innocent until PROVEN guilty'. He'd lose everything.

There's something wrong with our Police if they can't get a charge to stick within 28 days. If not then surely the accused should be set free.

Unless they wear some sort of turban' date=' rag or hook .... then they're definately guilty![/quote']

Yes but again that's making an assumption that just anyone is going to be locked up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tv tanned

From Hansard

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-11.htm#51109-11_spnew10

Clare Short: I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the point about interviewing a person who has been charged already. My understanding is that, under existing arrangements, if new and significant evidence becomes available, it is possible for the police to apply to re-interview. Is that not the case? Does that not cast some doubt on the case for 90 days?

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that it casts any doubt whatever on the case for 90 days, but my right hon. Friend stated the situation quite correctly. I have just checked with my colleagues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
t is interesting to note that the Northern Irish MPs' date=' to a man, voted against the proposals after relaying their experience of internment which acted as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA. Those who ignore the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them.[/quote']

I was just about to bring this up - internment didn't work, it did nothing but strengthen the resolve of the IRA - heck, look at the amount of monuments in Northern Ireland dedicated to the hunger strikers and you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes' date=' me and two thirds of the whole country apparently. It's all our fault.

Incidentally, given that the 90-day rule was requested by the police, I'd guess that your suggestion of simply putting people under surveillance is a gross over-simpification of how the police should do their job. They asked for this because as things stand, they cant deal with the terror threat effectively.[/quote']

The policeman that advised the government on the 90 day internment thing just so happened to be the same guy who lied to us all about the Brazillian they shot in the underground station (oh my God, I'm quoting Claire Short). You want to take his side, be my guest.

And yes, two thirds of the country who think that international terrorism will be remotely curbed by internment are to blame. Someone already said it didn't work against the IRA (with Al-Qaeda being ever-so-slightly more potent than the IRA), the Americans are already doing it and it doesn't work for them. On top of that, the government haven't actually detained many people under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act (my figures might be outdated now, but I think it's 17 people since 2001), which translates to - how the fuck can you cripple Al-Qaeda by detaining seventeen Arabs? Would we have been in a worse postition had those people not been arrested? No.

The thing that really pisses me off is all the people who go on about protecting our way of life from Al-Qaeda. What seems to be happening is that we're foiling Al-Qaeda's plans to destroy Western Civilisation/ values etc by DOING IT FOR THEM.

And 2/3s of the country back this.

Well done those men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three quick points:

First of all, 'the police' do not back this anymore than 'Britain' backed Blair in going to war. A representative body for chief police officers may agree with Blair, but that's no indication about how those on the front-line actually think, any more than asking the chief executives of McDonalds would determine how those at the till feel about their wages.

Secondly, I think it's a lot easier for people such as myself, and probably everybody else, to talk about someone being kept for up to 90 days because it's not actually going to happen to any of us, thanks to our cultural background. I doubt we'd be quite so blase about the possibility of this happening if we feared if might happen to us or our relatives.

Thirdly, without the 90 days, do you really think a potential bomber 'only' kept for 28 days will suddenly be let free to roam the streets? Of course not, if there's still suspicions he'll be closely monitored for suspicious activity, and the likelihood he'll do anything in those extra 62 days is non-existent.

A lot of this rests of the type of scaremongering that permeated the case for war, resting on negative 'What if we DON'T do anything type arguments', with extremes of what could happen, implying the guilt of those who don't agree. I find such moral rhetoric quite icky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×