Monday, 13 October 2008


Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said that plans to extend terror detention to 42 days will be dropped from the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

It follows a heavy defeat for the government in the House of Lords, which threw out the plan by 309 votes to 118.

Ms Smith said instead the measure would be in a separate piece of legislation to be brought to Parliament if needed.

The Tories said the new legislation was "bizarre", the Lib Dems said Ms Smith was in "humiliating retreat".
In an emergency Commons statement, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the measure would instead be the subject of a separate piece of legislation to be brought before Parliament if required.

Flanked by the Prime Minister, she said: "Some may take the security of Britain lightly - I don't."

To Tory jeers, Ms Smith said she was not prepared to leave Britain "unprotected" against the terrorist threat.

The Counter-Terrorism Temporary Provisions Bill stood ready to be introduced
"if and when the need arises".

Peers voted 309 to 118 to reject a controversial proposal to hold terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge.

Ms Smith accused critics of "being prepared to ignore the terrorist threat for fear of taking a tough but necessary decision" and said she still believed the stronger powers could be needed.

The latest bid to extend pre-charge detention for terror suspects was rejected by a coalition of Tory and Liberal Democrat peers and Labour rebels.

They backed a move by crossbencher Lord Dear, a former chief inspector of constabulary, to bar any extension beyond 28 days in the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

Shadow Security Minister, Pauline Neville-Jones, said:"The vote was decisive.

"The proposal to extend pre-charge detention failed on three significant grounds: necessity, desirability and practicability.

"On all sides of the House of Lords the majority view - drawing on significant experience in policing, security and the law - was that these provisions should be completely removed."

This is a sensitive issue in light of the fact that there is a trial being heard currently in which the defendants stand accused of attempting an attack on Glasgow Airport. One of the men on trial is University Hospital of North Staffs doctor Mohammed Asha.

Do you think this bill should have been defeated? Ultimately wasn't this to protect our country from the threat of terrorism? Should the Home Secretary resign after this embarrassing defeat?


brooneyes said...

The most shocking element to this
debacle, is that she is actually surprised at the motions defeat!
And if she's so concerned about Britains security, she should have a word with her boss and tell him to stop letting these bloody terrorists in!

Sir Findo Gask said...

Like it was a big surprise that this wasn't going to get through the Lords....

As Brooneyes says, deal with the cause not the affect..

Sir Findo Gask said...

I meant to post this link with the post above..

Well worth a read..

warren said...

A forgone conclution, it was never going to pass the upper house. If guilt could not be proven within 28 days, then you are not going to prove it within 42. Lets be honnest on this one, it only went thought parliament as surport for Brown. If therrorists were not in this country it would by a better, so lets the imagation titend up a littel. As for convicted terrorists in this country, like that Abu Anzer and his lackeys most are wanted for crimes in other countrys anyway, ship them over there, like them get justace out of them.

Gary Elsby said...

Lets get a few things clear.

1.My Labour Party (Stoke Central) voted 100% to oppose this stupid bill. Mark Fisher mp voted against it.We supported him and he supported us.

2. 'Get rid of these bloody terrorists' (Craig BNP Pond)Almost all of them were born here.

3.Should she resign? Should Ricardo Fuller resign when he misses a sitter?

4. We have already had internment and it failed first time around and made us look stupid in the process, why the return?

5. Gordon Brown could, if he wanted to, impose this bill using the Parlaiament act. That would be a mistake of horrendous proportions.

6. I reiterate, sensible Labour Party members rejested this bill on day one simply because the people of Stoke-on-Trent see it as Dictatorial and unnecessary.

7.Why not 50 days? I would feel oh so secure if that was the case.

brooneyes said...

Gary, so what if most of them were born here??
If they adhere to a belief of suppressing women, of having sex with children,of attacking their neighbours because their prophet says they must, they are not British anyway!
There is more to being British than being born here, and if the simple truth of this statement evades you, then there is no point in talking to you any further as you will be incapable of comprehension.

Gary Elsby said...

Craig, it may passed you by that it is only five minutes ago that this Country gave equal rights to women. It goes without saying that it was Labour who passed such a law.
So sex with children is a muslim thing is it? I've learnt something there then.
I. always up for being educated by the BNP and so attacking one's neighbour is a skilled art by foreigners, muslims and immigrants?

I do hope I haven't left anyone out. I'll read tonight's sentinel to see how the indigenous white population looks after the neighbourhood just to make sure.

St George said...

Craig Pond,

Far more attacks and law breaking is done by White people in this country.

And on your parties website, they love outing all the other political and other religions law breaking, but if you hold a mirror to your party, and white Christians you will see reflected back all the same lawbreaking and peadophile issues you accuse others of.

And, dear, your party has strange views on equality of the sexes.

What is the difference between a BNP member, and a 'lady member' ?

What is the difference between a Councillor, and a 'lady Councillor' ?

What is the difference between a wife, and a 'lady wife' ?
I suppose on this one lady-boys come to mind, but I digress.

The language your party and its leadership use is quite telling.

A few years ago, The BNP got exited as the population statistics for Scotland showed a drop in the population below 5 million.
Their answer ? To propose that if ever they were in power nationally, they would have a 'Minister for Procreation'.

How this would work was not clear. Banning the pill? Sex police ?

Interesting party policies Craig.

Anonymous said...

In response to the last, the BNP has virtually no support in Scotland. Why? Maybe the Scots have realised that the BNP is in fact an English, not a British party. If you read the party material you can't help thinking that they plan to turn the UK into a "Greater England" along the same lines that Milosevic tried turning Yugoslavia into "Greater Serbia". Look what happened there. As for this ridulous idea about the Irish Republic "coming back into the fold", what have they been smoking?

They oppose the anti-terror laws because a number of their members are genuinelt involved in terrorism. When these people get caught they suddenly end up being ex-members.

Anonymous said...

its not what she lost in this bill its what she gained.. a no vote to say that 42 days is outragous.. yes i agree it is . but then she now has a precident to change the outlaying laws to fit the new bill hence she lost 42 days but gained the sunset clause gained the richter clause gained the right to remove name and sex from a person / persons who are abducted and detained in HMP`s secure units for interogation then of course ther eis the matter of rendition which is now legal due mainly to this bill. Firs tmade possible by upping the anti to 14 days from the 7 days proposed under the Northern Ireland PEace agreement 1970 opperation motormouth and the succeeding " big knock" program which is by the way as a matte rof history how we got into this mess..

some may need to recall the simple facts that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. it doesnt matter if born here or not black white pink brown yellow doesnt matter in the slightest.

Also its wise to note that under the new provision of terrorism act. still to be rattified our emails and phone calls on mobiles ect can now be deemed as " terrorist acts" if we mention key words in the call or email. the system that placed this under the spotlight was the American FBI NSA program monograph run from a west minster office block it monitors all calls the NSA deems warranted. This was the true cost of that bill.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."


Anonymous said...

4. We have already had internment and it failed first time around and made us look stupid in the process, why the return?

failed? urm are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?

1971: NI activates internment law
The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Brian Faulkner, has introduced a new law giving the authorities the power to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists without trial.

YES Brian activated it its still running.. its NEVER failed in as much as it does its job .. perhaps not the job that you think it should be doing .. but in spreading fear and hatred its working o so well..

room 101 anyone?