Friday, April 25, 2008

The Ever Flexible Lord Goldsmith

Remember who was Attorney General when the government tried (and failed) to get the 90 days terror detention measure through Parliament? Yes, it was Lord Goldsmith. The very same Lord Goldsmith who, yesterday, spoke out against the revised 42 day measure. Has he suddenly discovered a backbone?

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

You couldn'ae make it up..

Alex said...

No backbone. Just a different source of paycheck.

Jonny Mac said...

Oh but Goldsmith is weak, weak, weak. He was destroyed by Iraq. He knew it was wrong but he changed his legal advice for the sake of political expediency, which is a precise definition of what an AG is not supposed to do. And he knew that, and it haunted him and it continues to haunt him. Trying to make amends now just highlights his hypocrisy and weakness further.

Anonymous said...

I can't understand why Brown is pressing ahead with this.

Unless it was in the vision he had last Autumn, that made him call the election off.

dirty european socialist said...

I htink 42 day thing is needed we are in war against terror. Sometimes you have withdraw some liberties to defeat an evil enemy. Look at WWII.

Anonymous said...

ther goes a man with 100's of lives on his conscience. too little too late mr goldsmith.

you will never be forgiven for your disgraceful behaviour as blair rent-a- reason for criminal acts

javelin said...

No he has dicovered Gordon is for the chop and decided to get in with the next Prime Minister - a Tory.

Anonymous said...

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?"

Matthew 16:26

Bill Quango MP said...

dirty european socialist said...I htink 42 day thing is needed we are in war against terror.

Why not unlimited then?Why restrict to 42 days..? If its a war we are in there should be no half measures. Plotting against the state is treason. Treason is punishable by death. In Ww2 even talking unfavourably about the government was an imprisonable offence.

Prehaps Dale and anyone who posts or reads this blog should be imprisoned ?

Anonymous said...

I suppose the point that 42 was the answer to 'life, the universe and everything' in Douglas Adams's book has nothing to do with its choice?

Gordo is in there still trying to work out what is the question!!!!

Lend him a compass, someone.

Penfold said...

Why bother with any number of days.

Just adopt Corpus Jurus and you can bang the beggars up for ever and a day.
Also has the added benefit of allowing the incumbent government to bang up the opposition on some trumped up charge.

No wonder Gordo the Ineffectual Twat, {GIT} to all, doesn't want a referendum on the Lisbon Constitution, sorry Treaty.

Penfold said...

So felxible he can perform self onanism.

dougal said...

Now let me see - weren't we in a war of terror with the IRA? And didn't Labour persistently vote against the renewal of the Anti-Terrorist legislation?

As usual, one rule for the leftie dingbats, another for the rest of us.

beachhutman in Beijing said...

No

Anonymous said...

peter has always been a man with heart in the right place. he spoke out against guantanamo and more besides... he was admittedly cowardly and sycophantic about 90 days but this seeing light shd be applauded not mocked.

Blue Eyes said...

If this war on terror is so intense, where are the suspects who have been kept 28 days and were released because the detention wasn't long enough?

This government is waging a war on freedom far mightier than those asian kids with home-made bombs ever tried.

Anonymous said...

Splendid final paragraph in this piece:

"Several Labour backbenchers appeared exasperated by Lord Goldsmith's stance – which will be highly damaging to the government's plans and could weaken the authority of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown."

Weaken the authority of the Prime Minister? What authority, pray tell?

bloggers said...

interesting post,thanks

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3.35 pm said:

"peter has always been a man with heart in the right place."

Perhaps, but not so long ago, it was another part of his anatomy that was in the wrong place, wasn't it?

Sorry to sound puritanical, but if a man's prepared to cheat on his wife, then he'll cheat on anyone.

His word means nothing.

Trumpeter Lanfried said...

anonymous @ 12.24 PM. You say, 'I can't understand why Brown is pressing ahead with this.'

It's because he cannot abide contradiction. Anyone who disagrees with him is seen as an enemy. 'We always take the right decisions.'

Anonymous said...

Penfold said...
"So flexible he can perform self onanism.

I thought that was the whole point about onanism!"

Madasafish said...

Anyone who believes anything Lord goldsmith says needs to get a better lawyer.

That is of course not difficult.

Praguetory said...

I might be mistaken but I thought that Goldsmith was planning on resigning over extended terror detention laws.

Chris Paul said...

Alex 12:11 is kinda right. It is not the same person at all. Different hats, different clients, different advice. The Law is a debating society, discuss. The most able advocates can argue either side. And indeed are expected to do so if asked.

Anonymous said...

My understanding (from the Telegraph I think) was that he DID disagree with 90 days and argued against it in cabinet. Had the measure passed the Commons and gone to the Lords, he would have done a "Robin Cook" and resigned on principle, and then voted against.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5.28 pm said - "Sorry to sound puritanical, but if a man's prepared to cheat on his wife, then he'll cheat on anyone.

His word means nothing."

You must feel the same about John Major, Nigel Lawson, Douglas Hurd, Jeffrey Archer, Prince Charles, President Kennedy, etc.

Chris Paul said...

Don't know if he ever supported 90 days as Iain suggests but assuming he did some discussion here.

I do accept that assuming Iain is right is a risky business. But that is the point. What is Iain on about?

Calais said...

Guidos is showing a 404.

Has he tripped over a lawyer?

Anonymous said...

The EU is a Totalitarian Police state, they are building up to Unlimited detention, Ultimately, anyone the Unelected in Brussels dont like will be arrested by Europol on some unspecified charge, you will end up in front of a bought Judge, No Jury and No Appeal and simply dissapear.
That is where we are going.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gk9sABtJxM&eurl=http://www.wearechange.org.uk/

http://www.eutruth.org.uk

Why did Blair Lie about his Involvement with the Global Elite.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/October2006/201006Bilderberg.htm
http://www.disgrunt.com/blog/2006/10/20/blair-quizzed-on-bilderberg/

Evan Price said...

I too have read in the press that Lord Goldsmith would have resigned had the Government proceeded with the 90-day detention period and then voted against the proposal in the Lords ...

The fact that he is no longer bound by collective responsibility means that he can, now, as a peer independent of the Government but taking the Labour Whip, argue for what he believes in, rather than what the Government decides.

Many in Government will no agree with everything that the Government decides to do ... if their conscience does not permit them to act in a particular way, then they must resign (if they have scruples).

That a minister defends something that he or she doesn't agree with when in Government is not something remarkable or new ... Conservative ministers will have been in the position in the past. Remember Geoffrey Howe's speech when he resigned? He said that he disagreed with the direction the Government was taking for some time before he resigned ...

Newmania said...

Alex 12:11 is kinda right. It is not the same person at all.

It is.


PS...off topic .... how are the wedding preparations going Iain? I hear anyone who is anyone is invited. ( My invite got lost in the post) I bet you can’t wait to try sex after all those years of saving yourself.

Are you going to do a Hallo Magazine Spread draped alluringly over soft furnishings ?
It is a matter of legitimate public interest and I demand an answer

Unsworth said...

@ Chris Paul:

"The most able advocates can argue either side. And indeed are expected to do so if asked."

Of course. That is their 'profession'. But the question is about Godlsmith's morality rather than his expertise. Or would you hold that morals and law are one and the same thing? Further, which of those two concepts should take precedence in your view?

anon 5.28 said...

Anon 11.04:

Yes.

I'm not such a puritan to believe that married couples who split up are somehow immoral.

I simply think that anyone who can live the lie that having an extra-marital affair entails is beneath contempt and cannot be trusted.