Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

British Parliament Rejects Blair's Anti-Terror Legislation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • British Parliament Rejects Blair's Anti-Terror Legislation

    By VOA News
    09 November 2005

    Rivers report (Real Media) - Download 277k
    Listen to Rivers report (Real Media)


    Prime Minister Tony Blair has suffered his first defeat in parliament Wednesday when members from all parties, including his own, rejected his legislative plan that would have allowed the police to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge.

    The defeat represents a major blow to Tony Blair. His call to extend the period of time suspects can be held without being charged from the current 14 days to 90 days was soundly rejected in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Blair's parliamentary majority evaporated as members of his own party joined with the opposition in defeating the bill.

    Fellow Labor party politician Paul Flynn says Mr. Blair now knows that from this day forward, he cannot expect to always get his own way.

    "I believe that the prime minister made a fatal error by going ahead with this. And I believe now that they will perhaps realize what the truth is in the new parliamentary arithmetic," he said.

    The prime minister, interviewed on British television after the vote, rejected the notion that he had made an error of judgment in pushing for such a lengthy detention period.

    "I think people in the country will find it very odd, very odd, that MP [members of parliament] given such a compelling and strong case by the police decided to ignore their recommendation and instead go for a period that frankly they thought of themselves but without any particular justification for it," he said.

    For former cabinet member Claire Short, Mr. Blair's defeat represents a turning point with his power now beginning to ebb away. "I think as the dust settles and people listen to the arguments, he is going to be damaged by it," he said.

    For civil rights campaigners like Shami Cahkrabarti, the director of the London-based group Liberty, the rejection of the 90-day motion was highly significant.

    The parliament adopted Labor members' proposal to extend the current maximum detention period from 14 to 28 days. Ms. Cahkrabarti accepts that with reservations.

    "I want to say that 28 days is still a long time. There is a danger of being too euphoric about 28 days because 90 days was so unimaginable. It is still a doubling of the current pre-charge detention period and still a long time not to know the charge against you," he said.

    The political fallout from Mr. Blair's defeat will be analyzed for weeks to come. Already, some in his own party Labor party are regarding him as an electoral liability.
    From here
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  • #2
    Forget about the legilsation,but look at the way they wen tabt their discussions at hol, a very gentle mans way.When will i see my parliament members respecting their collegues and the house in a similar fashion.
    What's the difference between people who pray in church and those who pray in casinos?
    The ones in the casinos are serious.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is a serious blow for Blair, wherein his own Party chaps seem to have voted odd.

      The Bill was to allow the detention, but a review by a High Court Judge every 7 days.

      So, one wonders if this would have been a strangulation of civil liberties!


      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

      HAKUNA MATATA

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ray
        This is a serious blow for Blair, wherein his own Party chaps seem to have voted odd.

        The Bill was to allow the detention, but a review by a High Court Judge every 7 days.

        So, one wonders if this would have been a strangulation of civil liberties!
        90days detention without charges is barbaric,he didnt have an answer when Howard aksed how many times did the police take 90 days to collect evidence against someone srrested in UK.
        What's the difference between people who pray in church and those who pray in casinos?
        The ones in the casinos are serious.

        Comment


        • #5
          True, he had no answer.

          Could it be that he did not have the facts readily available?

          Maybe not because he knew that it would be a tough debate and he had to have all his answers pat.

          He is not the type to goof up.


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #6
            there was never any explanation as to why 90 days was chosen, during the conflict with the IRA we had 7 days detention and we managed to get them on directing terrorism and conspiracy to cause explosions.

            it went up to 14 days with the terrorism act 2001, and now up to 28 days.

            nobody has why police can't charge within a shorter period, the normal practice is to go for a more minor offence thats more provable and ensure the defentant doesn't get bail, and then go to work on the more serious offences while the defendant is on remand.

            theres not only a civil liberties argument, theres a political argument.

            the current government has a record of having a troubled relationship with the truth and the abuse of power, not long ago a lifelong labour party member - and a refugee from Nazi Germany to boot - was ejected from the labour party conference for heckling the foriegn secretary as he made a speach. now the labour party conference is private property, they can invite and kick out who they like, but what happened when this grey haired old lad in his eighties was ejected by some overzealous goon? yes, instead of the plod saying 'ok sir, you've made your point, now off you go and don't come back' or even areresting him for breech of the peace or agravated trespass, plod arrests this guy under the terrorism act.

            an old man.

            with a german accent.

            yes thats right, an act brought in to protect us from rough men who'd do us harm is used against an old man for shouting at a politician.

            any wonder no one trusts the current government with even greater powers?
            before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dave angel
              any wonder no one trusts the current government with even greater powers?
              Welcome to Libertarian land
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • #8
                3 months is a massive time period, i don't trust the british police to be able to handle this sort of power. I mean especially after reading reports like this...

                http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2177072005

                would you trust a fporce made of men who barely passed high school with such a power.
                What blair should be doing, rather than trying to lock up as many innocent people as he can, is trying to make the police a more attractive job and actaully getting educated people working in it rather than people with no other hope.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by platinum786
                  3 months is a massive time period, i don't trust the british police to be able to handle this sort of power. I mean especially after reading reports like this...

                  http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2177072005

                  would you trust a fporce made of men who barely passed high school with such a power.
                  What blair should be doing, rather than trying to lock up as many innocent people as he can, is trying to make the police a more attractive job and actaully getting educated people working in it rather than people with no other hope.
                  especially bcoz of the way info is handled and available in europe or elsewhere is fast and easier unlike in our land,where we have paper records and cumbersome processes.

                  By giving more power to street police in carrying out arrests and increasing the detention period is not the way out.these laws can be easily termed or even actually used for wrong purposes.
                  What's the difference between people who pray in church and those who pray in casinos?
                  The ones in the casinos are serious.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    which i have no doubt the police force will abuse this power.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hmm,they still havent got it right.Giving an iron hand to the police is not the way out.
                      What's the difference between people who pray in church and those who pray in casinos?
                      The ones in the casinos are serious.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bull
                        90days detention without charges is barbaric,
                        No you see blowing up women and children is barbaric. This isn't even close to that.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Leader
                          No you see blowing up women and children is barbaric. This isn't even close to that.
                          But we are civilsed,
                          What's the difference between people who pray in church and those who pray in casinos?
                          The ones in the casinos are serious.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Dave,

                            An interesting point has been explained by you.

                            Makes sense.



                            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                            HAKUNA MATATA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bull
                              But we are civilsed,
                              I'd rather be alive at the end of the conflict. I don't agree with your definition of "civilized."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X