Labour backbenchers in retreat over 42 days?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by insert-coin-here, Jun 3, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Story here

    It would appear that the rebellion of nu liarbore backbenchers is to fizzle out now that they will be the judges of the legislations validity in tackling 'terrorism'.
    If the report is accurate in saying a u-turn is imminent it beggars the question what happened to the arguements against the extension to 42 days being required in the first place?
    It would seem that as long as the puppet strings of power are handed directly to MP's they will go along with just about anything.
    Also intresting to see at the end of the article that mrs spliff is happy to trivialise such a important issue by turning it into a game of party politics...

    'yes it is another errosion of civil liberties....but,by god, we cant let the tories win'.
     
  2. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Of course their principles have gone out of the window now that broon has made it a confidence issue. If it were to go against the government they'd have no option but to call an election. That of course would mean labour MPs numerous would have their snouts pulled from the trough - lower than snake sh1t.
     
  3. Another damning indictment of Parliamentary democracy. The sooner we go for deliberative polling, the better.
     
  4. Ah, but there will be far fewer candidates for 42 days. That is is because:

    Islamic extremists should get therapy, Home Office tells local councils

    Islamic extremists could escape prosecution and instead receive therapy and counselling under new Government plans to "deradicalise" religious fanatics. The Home Office is to announce an extra £12.5 million to support new initiatives to try to stop extremism spreading.

    The central element of the Home Office plan is a new national "deradicalisation" programme that would persuade converts to violent and extremist causes to change their views.

    Controversially, the new plan makes clear that people who fall under the influence of violent organisations will not automatically face prosecution.


    "Instead, the presumption should be that some such individuals would face therapy and counselling from community groups instead of criminal charges. "

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2068366/Islamic-extremists-should-get-therapy,-Home-Office-tells-local-councils.html

    So that will be fine then. :roll:
     
  5. Ah bless them, they are all reading the Great Leader's tealeaves and not liking the implication for their own careers. I imagine quite a few keen party apparatciks are even now morphing into "good constituency MPs" in a last ditch bid to keep a seat on the gravy train and devil take the hindmost!

    Excellent...
     
  6. Nail hit squarely on head.

    The problem with the 'rebellion' was that it was making Broon look good: 'Broon Stands Firm in Defence of Britain's Security by Defying Backbench Wimps'. Labour MPs don't want to lose the next election - but they don't want Broon to win it either.

    So by caving in, they have deprived Broon of an opportunity to take a last, principled stand.
     
  7. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    Almost as good at it as Doris Karlov eh?

    Theres so much spin surrounding this story both from the media and the Labour whips its hard to know whats really going on. The 42 rebels now say they never were rebels, they just had 'reservations'. Whatever. This is a piece of legislation we need. And if you are in any doubt, ask yourself why Abdulla Ahmed Ali has suddenly shifted from "What me Guv? Nah. I just like to carry a lot of bottles when I travel" to "Well, yeah, I did research bomb making from assorted chemicals on the internet. But I only wanted to make a big bang and some smoke. Not to kill anyone".

    He's done it because he was presented with evidence he had done the research on the internet. Evidence that wouldnt have been got in a few days.

    No jury in the land will believe him and another murderous Zombie will go down. Good.
     
  8. *Cough* It's very easy to identify every single website you have ever visted on the web from your PC. Time consuming but not slow.

    I just simply do not see any justifcation for 42 days dentention without charge, even more so with the Police and Local Councils willingness to abuse laws meant to protect us. Coffin Dodger nicked for heckling under Anti Terroism laws anyone? Council spying on people under Anti terroism laws ring any bells?
     
  9. Standard spin.
     
  10. That's a good point. IIRC fewer than one in a thousand arrests under anti-terrorism legislation ever results in a conviction. Near where I live, a bloke was arrested for taking a photo of some z-list celebrity switching on the Christmas lights.

    As you've highlighted, there is widespread abuse of the existing laws. What does Labour actually want 42 days for?

    Is it just Broon trying to reassert his authority?

    Will they be banging up BNP candidates before elections?

    Will it be used to keep government critics out of the limelight until the press loses interest (think what Maggie would have done with the power to jail miners on demand)?

    Is it time for me to get a new tinfoil hat?
     
  11. Tinfoil hat or not, its bad news.
     
  12. Labour have a record of trying to push through acts that would make Stalin blush, luckily for us though they haven’t got to the role of dictators for life yet so their grand schemes tend to end up somewhat diluted. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 is one example among many. If they had a free hand without the Commons to keep them in some form of check Britain would be royally screwed now.

    Has for voting to keep your seat… Anybody who does that should be displayed before the crowd with one spoon each and two hungry, abused Lions. Abused Lions don’t get hand gestures.
     
  13. This from the same Party that said in 1987
    "We (The Liarbour Party) will never allow Britons' to be forced to carry ID cards"
    and I have the letter to this effect from John Smith-Labour Party Leader at the time

    tis a pity he didn't live

    Pa Broon said he didn't back this 42 day rule when he was Exchequer, strange how things change once he got the reins. WNAKER
     
  14. Well said, Kitmarlowe and AM, those with short memories should look back at the draconian laws that were brought in to 'respond to the very real threat of terrorism' then quietly extended to cover the rest of the population. As Kitmarlowe rightly says, Walter Wolfgang was forcibly ejected from the Labour conference in Brighton in 2005 for heckling Jack Straw then detained under the prevention of terrorism act (along with 500 other 'undesirables') when he tried to get back in. The prevention of terrorism act has been used since then in Brighton to stop a member of rent-a-cause protesting in the main shopping centre.

    Likewise, last year, Mrs Spliff quietly extended powers, intended (solely) to keep track of those nasty terrorists, to your friendly local council, resulting in (for example) a family in Poole being put under surveillance (FFS) under the suspicion of trying to get their kids into a school in a different area.

    How does the government define a terrorist? Someone who criticises them on websites such as this? Someone they just don't like? Much of the legislation passed in the last 11 years has been written so poorly that it could mean just about anything (perhaps that is the object).

    I am getting increasingly fed up with the argument 'if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about' (the Gestapo and NKVD used to use that one) when legislation is written in such a way that you can be hauled in for 42 days in Belmarsh on a whim and then released without charge or reason.
     
  15. A Terrorist can only be seen from a Political view point


    Nelson Mandela?

    Menacen Begin?

    Aung San Suu Kyi?

    Martin McGuiness?

    Osama Bin Laden?

    It's a case of perspective, like it or not.

    Now we can all bang on about the "fact" we know some are Terrorists, but History may not always agree with the current definition.

    Just to play devils advocate