"Makes the Patriot Act look like a JCR motion"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by stoatman, Oct 19, 2004.

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. No, we're not talking about Patriot Act II, or anything else that might be
    going on in the US. What we're talking about is powers far in excess of
    what the US govt could grant itself, due to their constitutional
    safeguards. We're talking about the innocuous-sounding Civil
    Contingencies Bill, from Britain. This was slipped under the radar at the
    same time as the 2nd reading of the foxhunting bill (why do you think they
    pushed the foxhunting bill so hard and with such media coverage?), and
    will give the incumbent government the power to amend and revoke any
    statute (except the relevant clause of the CCB permitting this, of
    course...) by fiat (including the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, i.e.
    the British constitutional statutes), in the event of an "emergency", the
    definition of which is sooooo subjective that Mr Blair stubbing his toe
    could be deemed to be one... "Lord Lucas has described the Civil
    Contingencies Bill as comparable to Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933 which
    enabled him to transform Germany's Weimar Republic into his own personal
    tyranny. I have now read it, and I have to say that he is not
    exaggerating."

    http://www.iainmurray.org/MT/archives/000898.html
     
  2. Nothing and I do mean nothing surprises me anymore from this government :evil:

    Where were the opposition when all this was going on :roll:

    Where were the usually vocal but totally useless Lib-Dems :roll:

    I suppose his black book contains all our names now 8O
     
  3. Well spotted Stoatman. People (sheeple) really don't think the government in Britain can be nasty. Well how wrong they are.
    There's an interesting docu series coming to BBC2 this Wednesday at 21.00 called the Power of Nightmares which I think (hope) will make sheeple think a bit harder about why they're agreeing to give up our hard won freedoms.

    I suspect we'll soon have Parliamentary committee's set up to 'Review Public Service Broadcasting in the UK' Upshot of which will be - do away with licence, sell off to industry (ie Johny Foreigner). Then the sheeple can watch more mind numbing soaps and reality shows. We'll have no more of this questioning us poli's lark

    They may call themselves New Labour but in fact they're just Old Commies with spin. Control freaks the lot of 'em. .
     
  4. A few people have continued to say this bill has taken all the most brutal aspects of ministration of a nation and imposed them.

    The system of due process and the legal ramifications as well as the imposition of a diplock jury on main land Britain is monstrous.

    We are increasing a power that is open to so much abuse it will resound for many, many generations.

    1933? I think we're more like 1937 at the moment. This government just evoked the parliament act to push a bill through that was, as you say a smoke screen to cover the real issue of control of the masses, and make no mistake that is what this bill is in it's purest form.
     
  5. People are surprised?
     
  6. Part of the problem is that we have not had a really malicious government in this country since Cromwell. This has lulled everybody (including HM Govt) into believing that British govts will always be benign, therefore there is no need to incorporate safeguards in the legislation. However, since absolute power corrupts absolutely, once this bill has passed, it will be used. One of my pet conspracy theories at the moment is that once the fox hunting bill has served its purpose to get this bill under the radar, the civil unrest it will cause in the countryside will be used as an excuse to declare the "state of emergency" required to invoke the CCB.

    It has been shown that ordinary people with absolute power abuse it (read up on the Stanford Prison experiment), so I believe that this bill is unbelievably dangerous, particularly in the hands of El Presidente and David (Beria) Blunkett. If it /is/ used to install El Presidente as Presidente for Life, only 155 grains will save us...
     
  7. Why is the nothing on the BBC website about this bill........ :roll: ......silly me! They have been subdued by TBliar and his farcical inquests.

    Where are the other newspapaers? Why are they not leading with this?

    I am definetly emmigrating....if anybody will have me that is :wink:
     
  8. Where you educated prior to the change to the system that is now frowned upon in nations that used to headhunt in this country?
    Because I doubt many of our children will be head hunted or have qualifications that other nations will be vying to grab up...
     
  9. Hmmm, I wonder if large scale civil disobedience by a public unhappy with the imposition of a compulsory ID card would qualify as a good excuse to try out these wonderful new powers?

    Just thinking out loud... GULP 8O
     
  10. That's not the only thing that slipped under the radar

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/110/2004110.htm


    However, this is the latest version of the CC bill

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/077/04077.i-iv.html


     
  11. Holy sh!t.

    I've never done this before, but I might just write to my MP. Not that I think it'll do much good, but I'm otherwise stumped on what to do.

    Any suggestions?

    Armed revolution aside, that is...

    IF
     
  12. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    1
    Meaning of “emergency”


    (1)
    In this Part “emergency” means an event or situation which threatens serious damage to—

    (a)
    human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom,

    (b)
    the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or

    (c)
    the security of the United Kingdom or of a place in the United Kingdom.


    (2)
    For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) an event or situation threatens damage to human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause—

    (a)
    loss of human life,

    (b)
    human illness or injury,

    (c)
    homelessness,

    (d)
    damage to property,

    (e)
    disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,

    (f)
    disruption of an electronic or other system of communication,

    (g)
    disruption of facilities for transport, or

    (h)
    disruption of services relating to health.


    (3)
    For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation threatens damage to the environment only if it involves, causes or may cause—


    (a)
    contamination of land, water or air with—

    (i)
    harmful biological, chemical or radio-active matter, or

    (ii)
    oil,

    (b)
    flooding, or

    (c)
    disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life.


    (4)
    For the purposes of subsection (1)(c) the following threaten damage to security—

    (a)
    war or armed conflict, and

    (b)
    terrorism, within the meaning given by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11).


    (5)
    A Minister of the Crown, or, in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers, may by order—

    (a)
    provide that a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation, is to be treated as falling, or as not falling, within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1);

    (b)
    amend subsection (2) so as to provide that in so far as an event or situation involves or causes disruption of a specified supply, system, facility or service—

    (i)
    it is to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare, or

    (ii)
    it is no longer to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare.


    (6)
    The event or situation mentioned in subsection (1) may occur or be inside or outside the United Kingdom.



    Lets take it to the extreme.

    Bliar is on another of his freebie holidays when hears that an event on a foreign stockmarket (Subsection 6) will affect one of his offshore bank accounts, (Subsection 2 (e)) and thereby future lifestyle and welfare. (Subsection 1(a))

    Answer: declare a state of emergency in the UK.

    Welcome to the Third Way, the eternal presidency of Tone in Bliarland.
    (Assuming he gets cloning sorted too.)
     
  13. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    That was what Mussolini called fascism in the thirties!!!!

    From www.wordiq.com:
    As for TCB and his current ideas wasn’t there some political drama in the eighties about a radical labour politician who was likely to get elected and go over to the Russians or something? Can’t remember the bloody name. Anyway the thing ended with the static of radio conversations, with the inference that the military had held a coup.

    Maybe some thought for the future. :twisted:
     
  14. Does that now mean that the threat posed to health and safety in the playground means conker playing could be termed a national emergency :?: :D
     
  15. Maybe....

    The Lords will chuck this Bill at short notice, using the cunning notion that if the Parliament Act is likely to be employed to force the foxhunting bill through, it is unlikely to be used (even by this shower) to force through the Civil Contingencies Bill.

    Hopefully, this would see this Bill stalled this side of a general election.

    Yes, it is dangerous because of the frightening prerogative powers that it allows the Nazis access to, but not much use as a tool of general repression because of the general sh!t state of the Armed Forces, police and criminal justice system that would be required to enforce it.

    The mention of Cromwell earlier is most apt (although at least he had the b@lls to actually shut down parliament rather than rely on the back door method - and he looked after the Army!) as the British people have a longstanding tradition of defending ancient (and modern) liberties and the primacy of an elected government.