anti-terroism bill goes through [Archive]

wheresmyplacebo

01-03-2005, 11:05 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4307141.stm

this is one of the few things i think is very worrying and why im praying that labour has to co-ally with the libdems/tories after the next election

a governemnt has a right to try introduce bills, but to force them through like this is just, well grotesquely wrong and irresponsible considering the nature of this, which if, more like WHEN its introduced, will takes ages to remove considering no government wants to reduce its powers

i pray people take to the streets, but they probably wont

budda

01-03-2005, 11:08 AM

It wont get through the Lords.

What was the worst joke about this was the letter to David Davies, basically saying vote for this, I'll amend it later.

What the hell is that?!

Fiend_85

01-03-2005, 11:11 AM

It won't go through the lords.

budda

01-03-2005, 11:12 AM

I just said that.

wheresmyplacebo

01-03-2005, 11:13 AM

It won't go through the lords.

the lords put through the civil contingencies act CCA without any amendments

budda

01-03-2005, 11:14 AM

Ahhh, but this is different, this law probably will pass, but it will be judges who make all the choices. Not that thats really any better.

Fiend_85

01-03-2005, 11:15 AM

they won't do it here, especially because the expiring powers are doing so because they're not legal.

Sorry bong, i replied without refreshing the page.

budda

01-03-2005, 11:18 AM

And a lot of MP's and Lords dont like this rushed feeling, they like to digest things slowly, like their free lunches.

wheresmyplacebo

01-03-2005, 11:25 AM

Ahhh, but this is different, this law probably will pass, but it will be judges who make all the choices. Not that thats really any better.

once a judge makes the decision though, the person in question might not have any life left

itll make the security services look for jsut enough evidence to get a court order instead of proving real criminal planning

and we all know how reliable intelligence is, from iraq, and from torturing people for information

Senor Miguel

01-03-2005, 11:33 AM

i hope the lords throw it out but i wouldn't be surprised............the quote on the bbc in that article is quite worrying tho - "there is too much importance placed on rights of the individual" - wtf that sounds awfully familiar, are we turning into a communist state? funny how the bbc picked that one out of all of them, when in fact the truth is completely the opposite and individual rights and liberties are being ignored or wiped out in huge swathes these days........

budda

01-03-2005, 11:35 AM

If they go too far then they will come up against the EU Human Rights Act again and we will be back to this.

There has been some talk of opting out of parts of the Act, but I really hope they dont do that.

marv

01-03-2005, 11:59 AM

I found this when i was going through the BBC Have Your Say on the Anti Terrorism Bill. I thought it sums it up quite nicely...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4286873.stm

Tony Blair (2005): "There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack".

Benjamin Franklin (1755): "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Senor Miguel

01-03-2005, 12:37 PM

yeah franklin's quote is classic and too true........what tony b is really saying is 'i want to curb your liberties and if you don't let me maybe we need a few bombs on the LU to change your mind', lol.

Man Of Kent

01-03-2005, 04:30 PM

Fear.

Fear leads to anger...etc

At what point do we start protesting on the streets about this, or is it a case of people just not being assed?

Toadborg

02-03-2005, 05:44 PM

Fear.

Fear leads to anger...etc

At what point do we start protesting on the streets about this, or is it a case of people just not being assed?

I can't see there being many protests because most people don't feel threatened by it.

Basically it will be used to lock up foreigners and ethnic minorities, others may be uncomfortable with it but I think it has to be a direct threat to yourself to motivate a protest.........

MrG

02-03-2005, 06:11 PM

so its seems sensible that those most safe from these implementations are white men between 18 and 35, and are terrorists?

probly not too far off the mark the way the world is going these days with its policing and detaining of "suspects"

Senor Miguel

02-03-2005, 07:21 PM

I can't see there being many protests because most people don't feel threatened by it.

Basically it will be used to lock up foreigners and ethnic minorities, others may be uncomfortable with it but I think it has to be a direct threat to yourself to motivate a protest.........

Well to quote from a certain Martin Niemoller (who's sig is that?)......

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak.

BlackArab

02-03-2005, 08:21 PM

I'd be interested in knowing what those thinking of voting Labour, think of this and whether it has changed their minds at all?

Teh_Gerbil

02-03-2005, 08:31 PM

When I get the Vote, I shall cast my vote for the Lib Dems if they are still using the same policiy. I just miss this election by a few months and no more. Grrr.

Anyhoos, this Bill is good if it isn't abused I feel. But inevitably, when the government changes, the next one shall abuse it. I can therefore only hope Mr "Facist" Howard doesn't get it if this bill passes. :nervous: Police State, anyone?

I love how the Labour Party whips were ignored by the back benchers though. Those guys rule.

Man Of Kent

02-03-2005, 09:19 PM

Well to quote from a certain Martin Niemoller (who's sig is that?)......

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak.

It was mine until recently, and very apt I thought in the current climate...

Funnily enough I was only watching Nazis: A Warning from History t'other day. Amazing how many similarities...

BlackArab

02-03-2005, 09:52 PM

First they came from for the Muslims
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for the radicals
and I did not speak out
because I wasn't a radical
Then they came for the liberals
and I did not speak out
because I wasn't a liberal.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak

:sour:

Senor Miguel

02-03-2005, 09:58 PM

It was mine until recently, and very apt I thought in the current climate...

Funnily enough I was only watching Nazis: A Warning from History t'other day. Amazing how many similarities...

yeah i thought it was, but then i remembered the user had a star wars av, it was driving me nuts..........anyways, yes very apt, i like blackarab's version also.

Toadborg

03-03-2005, 01:04 PM

I love how the Labour Party whips were ignored by the back benchers though. Those guys rule.

The majority of the Labour backbenchers are in my opinion are a collection of spineless, pathetic morons........

They have consistently betrayed their promises and 'ideals' to appease the govt. Hopefully plenty of them will pay for it at the next election........

Teh_Gerbil

03-03-2005, 09:07 PM

budda

04-03-2005, 10:26 AM

They vote against anything the Governemnt does, you may have noticed...

Top Up fees
House Arrest
To name but two big ones.

THEY wanted the Fox hunting ban, the Government didn't, because they knew the choas it would cause.

The Back Benchers can't do much anymore, because Blair killed old Labour. So, they can try to mess with the votes, though. What can you do when the new wave of "New Labour" guys (Conservatives in disguise) comes along and out nubmers you, bullies you out the scene? Just try to mess up the votes.

We need back Labour. Bring it back!

What? I'm confused by that, are you saying the back benchers forced the government to ban fox hunting? And that its only way to show power is by 'messing up votes'. But the rebellion on this vote and on the top up fees one wasnt all that large.

Toadborg

04-03-2005, 02:42 PM

They vote against anything the Governemnt does, you may have noticed...

Top Up fees
House Arrest
To name but two big ones.

Errrr, both these are going through in some form

Name other big ones - the Iraq war, ID cards, various privatisations etc

All passed.

Some backbenchers do regulalry vote against the govt but the majority do not. There are plenty of backbenchers who have nerver voted against the govt on an iportnat issue

wheresmyplacebo

05-03-2005, 12:45 AM

What? I'm confused by that, are you saying the back benchers forced the government to ban fox hunting? And that its only way to show power is by 'messing up votes'. But the rebellion on this vote and on the top up fees one wasnt all that large.

was 3 mps away from a lose on top up fees on a party majority of over 160

stargalaxy

07-03-2005, 06:34 PM

Just bringing this back to let you know the House of Lords has delivered a good kicking to the Anti-Terrorism Bill a short time ago. Good, is all I have to say.