Article

2005-11-10 Britain

Blair Suffers Major Defeat on Terror Bill

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-11-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ""This vote shows he is no longer able to carry his own party with him. He must now consider his position," said Howard."

I can understand how Howard might say this for partisan effect, but did he and the Conservatives actually work against this measure? Are they that politically irresponsible regards the safety of UK citizens?

I've come to expect such self-defeatist / self-hate / scorched-earth stupidity from our Dhimmidonk dickheads, and probably from your Scottish Nationalist Party leader Alex Salmond and the spectrum of similar ilk, but from the Tories? Are the Tories as fucked up as the Moonbat morons?

Posted by .com 2005-11-10 02:51|| 2005-11-10 02:51|| Front Page Top

#2 From the noise they have been making about this for months it appears so PD. The BBC is happy as hell about it. I reality it means almost nothing. I believe the Law Lords would have struck it down if the House of Lords ever passed it.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-11-10 05:14|| 2005-11-10 05:14|| Front Page Top

#3 Are the Tories as fucked up as the Moonbat morons?

Apparently, unfortunately, yes. That is why they no longer win elections and we come, rightly, to look at a socialist, eurocentric, iconoclast, PCer like Tony as our second best (to John Major of Oz) ally in the war on terror. And in Gordon Brown, we get a Scottish,socialist, eurocentric, iconoclast, PCer who will at least remain our second strongest ally. Thereafter?

Posted by Shamp Grinesing9012 2005-11-10 08:26|| 2005-11-10 08:26|| Front Page Top

#4 It is difficult for us Americans to follow this.

In our country people can be detained without being charged for long periods for reasons such as being material witnesses, or for their own protection. One reason for this is that the threshold for charging a person with a crime is pretty high. It may be a bit different in Britain.

Posted by mhw 2005-11-10 08:44|| 2005-11-10 08:44|| Front Page Top

#5 Never mind. They'll rise it to 90 days after the next terror attack.

Posted by gromgoru 2005-11-10 11:18|| 2005-11-10 11:18|| Front Page Top

#6 Its the whole shizophrenic Western World that needs their morning eye-openers: 9-11 not enough, Spain, London, Israel, Iraq...not enough. Just like in America we have moonbats on the left and right, demeaning our cause and what we fight for, all angling for political advantage while our blessed soldiers endure. That Blair could come this far in the present British climate amazes me. Reminicent of the England of Churchill (not Ward) I admire.

Posted by Bardo 2005-11-10 14:37|| 2005-11-10 14:37|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm not sure. Not sure why the police should hold a citizen WITHOUT CHARGE for more than 4 weeks.

I think 28 days was right. this is a classic Blair move offer an extreme alternative to make sure prefered mid option passes.

Americans should be very wary of making law that is convenient to beurocrats at the expense of liberty.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2005-11-10 16:27|| 2005-11-10 16:27|| Front Page Top

23:44 ex-lib
23:43 Bardo
23:36 DMFD
23:35 ex-lib
23:31 C-Low
23:24 CrazyFool
23:17 ex-lib
23:09 The Happy Fliegerabwehrkanonen
23:07 ex-lib
23:01 Bardo
22:48 Captain America
22:46 Barbara Skolaut
22:30 trailing wife
22:28 Bardo
22:17 Bardo
22:15 C-Low
22:12 trailing wife
22:11 Bobby
22:05 trailing wife
22:05 Bobby
22:01 trailing wife
22:00 Asymmetrical Triangulation
21:59 Bobby
21:55 Bright Pebbles