Monday, October 13, 2008

Government Backs Down Then Revives 42 Days

Am in the car on the way home (I am not driving!) and have just had a Sky text alert saying that the Government is to press ahead with 42 days and introduce a new Bill. So the fight must begin again. It's an incomprehensible decision. They can introduce new Bill after new Bill but it doesn't alter the fact that there is no parliamentary majority support for 42 days.


Anonymous said...

This really is the end of Gordon Brown.

Anonymous said...

Ah, but it will only be introduced 'if needed' which seems to be code for when we've had a major terrorist attack, and voters are so riled up they will be able to push anything they want through the Commons in the interests of 'security', though I would think the Lords would still reject it.

That time, however, they might be able to push it through without committing political suicide.

Anonymous said...

Cud not believe Goldsmith in yesterday's Grauniad - mendacious nutter.

Null said...

The inability to admit to mistakes typifies this arrogant, incompetent, bag of shit government.

Fitaloon said...

Understand Lords trying to amend the bill to prevent more than 28 days becoming a law so they have obviously been thinking about what Gordon might try and do if they rejected the 42 days part of the bill. Parliament could also do this when the remainder of the bill returns.

Anonymous said...

David Davis looks preety stupid now

The rest of the bill will pass, except for on part that could cause brown problems - he doesnt need to worry about that now

Anonymous said...

I wonder how they will arrange another "terror" attack on the UK without raising suspicion.

Old Holborn said...


"Plans to increase the amount of time terror suspects can be questioned before being charged are being dropped from the Counter-Terrorism Bill after a crushing Lords defeat."

Come on Iain, wakey wakey

Anonymous said...

I don't really have much to say on this matter, but I thought I should show my face anyway.

Yours in nobility

The Prof

Anonymous said...

Bugger off 'Anonymous 9.41'
As DD said ... ``It has been clear for some time that this proposal is based not on national security, but on party politics.''

Smiths statement such that I saw was pathetic and disingenuous. She talked as if dozens of her own side had not actually voted against the bill, that many scores of their people in the Lords had not turned up.

But most sickeningly of all she claimed that opponents of 42 days simply did not care about the fight against terrorism. A disgraceful slur that I take quite personally. The woman is a cow. (Sorry to cows everywhere for the comparison)

Has there ever been such a disastrous day for a government? A £37 billion pound leaf followed by a 42 day fig leaf.

Will the Unionist bribe still go through?

Anonymous said...

Smith's statement concedes in effect that the proposal is dead. Stating that a Bill will be drafted 'if needed' is a face-saving formula.

Anonymous said...

I am sure the Iceland PM is going to enjoy a 43 day stay at her Maj's pleasure @ Parkhurst or Broadmoor, although I hear Dartmoor is rather nice this time of year.

Another Day said...

The 42 days proposal was never about security - it was only ever about showing Labour as tough on security and trying to portray the Tories as weak.

The new proposal is even more ridiculous. It will be brought forward at a time when voting against will only be portrayed by the Government as giving in to terrorists. It is a disgusting tactic and I hope when it is seen for what it is.

As for Lord Carlisle commenting on the Lords' decision tonight - I don't think I've ever heard such a self righteous load of nonsense.

Anonymous said...

It will be a manifesto committment i think - new bill after the election if they win.

By constitutional precedent, the Lords wont oppose it.

Anonymous said...

Fortunately the contents of the Labour manifesto will be completely irrelevant after the next election

Letters From A Tory said...

I bet the DUP are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of being bought off by the government for a second time.

Anonymous said...

the courts (brighton i think) have held that a 'manifesto commitment' is nothing more than a vague expression of not even intent and can be dropped, ignored , abandoned
without an redress for the deceived electorate.

stuart wheeler - the labour manifesto 'promise' repecting a referendum on an eu constitution -ho ho.

David Lindsay said...

Now that the House of Lords has thrown out the scheme to bang people up for six weeks without even so much as charging them with anything, let the bonfire be lit, and let it burn, burn, burn.

Let the fire of liberty consume identity cards, control orders, the admission of anonymous evidence other than from undercover Police Officers, the provision for conviction on anonymous evidence alone, the existing erosions of trial by jury and of the right to silence, the existing reversals of the burden of proof, the provision for majority verdicts (which, by definition, provide for conviction even where there is reasonable doubt), the provision for Police confiscation of assets without a conviction, stipendiary magistrates, Thatcher’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Civil Contingencies Act, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, and the Official Secrets Acts.

And once the fire has done its work, let us rebuild Britain. Where the minimum age for jurors is at least 21. Where the pre-1968 committal powers of the magistracy, and the pre-1985 prosecution powers of the Police, have been restored. Where we have preventative policing based on foot patrols, with budgetary sanctions against recalcitrant Chief Constables who failed to implement this. Where Police Forces are at least no larger than at present, and subject to local democratic accountability, most obviously though Police Authorities, but if appropriate by means of elected sheriffs.

Where each offence carries a minimum sentence of one third of its maximum sentence, or of 15 years’ imprisonment where that maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Where cannabis is a Class A drug, with a crackdown on the possession of drugs, including a mandatory sentence of three months for a second offence, six months for a third offence, one year for a fourth offence, and so on.

And where a Bill which runs out of parliamentary time is lost at the end of that session.

Just for a start.