kds
Well-Known Member
If there was ever a justification for the upper house - surely today has provided it.
Ken /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Ken /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Hurrah for the House of Lords
- Thread starter kds
- Start date
T_S
Well-Known Member
And what justification would that be?
arto
Well-Known Member
If you need to ask, you'll never know.
T_S
Well-Known Member
If the subject is about detaining terrorist's, then surely it is a sad day!
mikewilkes
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
If there was ever a justification for the upper house - surely today has provided it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did they all wake up breathing and leave??????
If there was ever a justification for the upper house - surely today has provided it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did they all wake up breathing and leave??????
mirabriani
Well-Known Member
Hear Hear!
(More Beer)
Regards Briani
(More Beer)
Regards Briani
T_S
Well-Known Member
Its ok for you whom reside in the sleepy country Brian, unfortunately those of us who live near and work in the city have a different opinion of O.A.P's rejecting a bill that locks these vicious callas b*stards up sraight away......Sorry have to say I don't agree with 'Hear Hear'!
Stemar
Well-Known Member
As a Londoner I do agree.
If we go down the road that TB says is essential, like getting rid of those WMDs, the terrorists have won. It was counterproductive in NI and it'll be counterproductive in the present situation
If we go down the road that TB says is essential, like getting rid of those WMDs, the terrorists have won. It was counterproductive in NI and it'll be counterproductive in the present situation
[2068]
...
As heard on Radio 4: "Who would have thought that the only thing standing in the way of the imposition of a draconian law to restrict civil liberties would be Michael Howard..."
dv.
dv.
FlyingSpud
Well-Known Member
Umm….Haven’t they just released them all anyway?
T_S
Well-Known Member
Yep...took them down to a detention centre then put electronic tags on them!
I supose they have also provided them with benifit books, bed & breakfast in a 5 star hotel too!
I supose they have also provided them with benifit books, bed & breakfast in a 5 star hotel too!
kds
Well-Known Member
Having been closely involved in a terrorist war for 8 years, I do understand your misgivings.
But this Act wasn't about Terrorism - it was about power, and no Political Party should have that much power.
If it really was important - as important as stopping Foxhunting, say - How come they didn't invoke the Parliament Act ?
Stemer -
I think the radio was off beam - it was the House of Lords that brought it back to reason.
Flyingstud -
Yes, released even before the results for the new Act were in.
But this Act wasn't about Terrorism - it was about power, and no Political Party should have that much power.
If it really was important - as important as stopping Foxhunting, say - How come they didn't invoke the Parliament Act ?
Stemer -
I think the radio was off beam - it was the House of Lords that brought it back to reason.
Flyingstud -
Yes, released even before the results for the new Act were in.
silvertop
Well-Known Member
"released even before the results for the new Act were in".
Just goes to show the arrogance of this Government.
Just goes to show the arrogance of this Government.
Talbot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Its ok for you whom reside in the sleepy country Brian, unfortunately those of us who live near and work in the city have a different opinion of O.A.P's rejecting a bill that locks these vicious callas b*stards up sraight away......Sorry have to say I don't agree with 'Hear Hear'!
[/ QUOTE ]
Im sorry that your posts reveal an total lack of knowledge in the actual matter under discussion, and presumably a disinterest in the proposed major restriction to our civil liberties.
You would have to be a total control freak (like tony bliar) if you really supported what was originally proposed before the amendments forced by the House of Lords.
Its ok for you whom reside in the sleepy country Brian, unfortunately those of us who live near and work in the city have a different opinion of O.A.P's rejecting a bill that locks these vicious callas b*stards up sraight away......Sorry have to say I don't agree with 'Hear Hear'!
[/ QUOTE ]
Im sorry that your posts reveal an total lack of knowledge in the actual matter under discussion, and presumably a disinterest in the proposed major restriction to our civil liberties.
You would have to be a total control freak (like tony bliar) if you really supported what was originally proposed before the amendments forced by the House of Lords.
Mirelle
N/A
Yes, indeed!
I am rather worried by those who don't see this, though.
I am rather worried by those who don't see this, though.
B
bob_tyler
Guest
Re: Yes, indeed!
[ QUOTE ]
I am rather worried by those who don't see this, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm very worried, especially if they have a vote in the next General Election. They must have their eyes shut.
The main amendment made to what is a very scrappy ill prepared Act, which had very restricted discussion in the Commons, was in respect of the Sunset Clause.
At least , now, the Commons will have a chance to debate and amend a new act within the next year. When Michael Howard wins the next election, which he should do, we will have got rid of the most untruthful government in living memory /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.
[ QUOTE ]
I am rather worried by those who don't see this, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm very worried, especially if they have a vote in the next General Election. They must have their eyes shut.
The main amendment made to what is a very scrappy ill prepared Act, which had very restricted discussion in the Commons, was in respect of the Sunset Clause.
At least , now, the Commons will have a chance to debate and amend a new act within the next year. When Michael Howard wins the next election, which he should do, we will have got rid of the most untruthful government in living memory /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.
roger
Well-Known Member
A sense of proportion perhaps?
The law as enacted allows THEM to lock up US with no real evidence for ever. Terrorists kill on average less than 10 of us per year. I think the costs of protecting us are in the £billion range.
WE ignore the deaths of about 3000 of us on the roads each year.
We have inflicting appalling laws and high taxation inflicted on us for something that at the moment is doing us little harm compared with what we do to ourselves.
The law as enacted allows THEM to lock up US with no real evidence for ever. Terrorists kill on average less than 10 of us per year. I think the costs of protecting us are in the £billion range.
WE ignore the deaths of about 3000 of us on the roads each year.
We have inflicting appalling laws and high taxation inflicted on us for something that at the moment is doing us little harm compared with what we do to ourselves.
Bergman
Well-Known Member
Well yes and no.
Agree that Blair &Co are arrogant, but reason for release was that the original act under which they were detained without trial, charge or evidence was ruled to illegal by the House of Lords several weeks ago. Since that time their continued detention has been illegal.
Bye the bye the reason it was ruled as illegal was that it affected only foreign nationals and not British nationals. This new act has been made to apply to everyone, including British nationals.
So now the Home Secretary has the legal right to arrest, and place in confinement without access to relatives etc anyone he wishes without the need to produce any evidence, any charge and with little legal process.
So next time someone refers to Guy Fawlkes be very careful - It may just be your turn.
I can't help wondering if they have done this on the insistance of the US, as some sort of quid pro quo for releasing the British Guantanamo prisoners. Much as I despise Blair (oops sorry did'nt mean it) I find it hard to believe he is this stupid without some outside influence.
Wonder what his Human Rights lawyer wife will make of it - apart from a lot of money from legal aid.
Agree that Blair &Co are arrogant, but reason for release was that the original act under which they were detained without trial, charge or evidence was ruled to illegal by the House of Lords several weeks ago. Since that time their continued detention has been illegal.
Bye the bye the reason it was ruled as illegal was that it affected only foreign nationals and not British nationals. This new act has been made to apply to everyone, including British nationals.
So now the Home Secretary has the legal right to arrest, and place in confinement without access to relatives etc anyone he wishes without the need to produce any evidence, any charge and with little legal process.
So next time someone refers to Guy Fawlkes be very careful - It may just be your turn.
I can't help wondering if they have done this on the insistance of the US, as some sort of quid pro quo for releasing the British Guantanamo prisoners. Much as I despise Blair (oops sorry did'nt mean it) I find it hard to believe he is this stupid without some outside influence.
Wonder what his Human Rights lawyer wife will make of it - apart from a lot of money from legal aid.
dedwards
Well-Known Member
I have been wondering...
what happens if some evil leader of a political party (with a big grin perhaps?) gets into power and then decides to pass laws to turn the country into a dictatorship?
The commons wont oppose him because he has a majority, the lords cant oppose him because of the Parliament act and the people can't oppose him because of the terrorism act.
how do we get out of it?
what happens if some evil leader of a political party (with a big grin perhaps?) gets into power and then decides to pass laws to turn the country into a dictatorship?
The commons wont oppose him because he has a majority, the lords cant oppose him because of the Parliament act and the people can't oppose him because of the terrorism act.
how do we get out of it?
B
bob_tyler
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
I have been wondering...
what happens if some evil leader of a political party (with a big grin perhaps?) gets into power and then decides to pass laws to turn the country into a dictatorship?
The commons wont oppose him because he has a majority, the lords cant oppose him because of the Parliament act and the people can't oppose him because of the terrorism act.
how do we get out of it?
[/ QUOTE ]
I presume that you are referring to the present incumbent in Downing Street - our present President Elect (by himself) who generally ignores Parliament and doesn't ever give a straight answer to a question (unless it is a planted one from his own side).
How do we get out of it? My posting above stands.
I have been wondering...
what happens if some evil leader of a political party (with a big grin perhaps?) gets into power and then decides to pass laws to turn the country into a dictatorship?
The commons wont oppose him because he has a majority, the lords cant oppose him because of the Parliament act and the people can't oppose him because of the terrorism act.
how do we get out of it?
[/ QUOTE ]
I presume that you are referring to the present incumbent in Downing Street - our present President Elect (by himself) who generally ignores Parliament and doesn't ever give a straight answer to a question (unless it is a planted one from his own side).
How do we get out of it? My posting above stands.
