| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Blair stands firm on terror bill | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 11 2005, 08:37 AM (493 Views) | |
| HRDCOREMAZ | Mar 11 2005, 08:37 AM Post #1 |
|
Me and my girlfriend are getting married soon and having a baby
  ![]](../../../../0/1/0/p601690/pipright.png)
|
Tony Blair has insisted he is not being "arrogant" by refusing to give way over his controversial anti-terror plans. He said he was trying to protect the security of British families and described Tory opposition to the plans as "extraordinary" and "unbelievable". The Prevention of Terrorism Bill is returning to the House of Lords after MPs overturned key amendments to it. MPs and peers are at loggerheads over plans to limit the bill's lifespan and the burden of proof against suspects. 'Respect' the Commons As the bill returned to the Lords, peers gave way over the need for a Privy Council review of the bill. But the debate still threatens to stretch into the weekend with both sides refusing to back down. I am not being dismissive of people's civil liberties - I don't mean to be arrogant in taking this legislation through Tony Blair Blair accused over terror advice In a series of votes over the past 24 hours, MPs repeatedly rejected demands by peers for a "sunset clause" which would kill the bill in 12 months time. They also rejected calls for a privy council review of the bill's operation and a higher burden of proof against suspects. As debate recommenced in the Lords, Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, appealed to peers to accede to the MPs' demands. "The time has come to respect the supremacy of the Commons, put aside our disputes on the debate and join together on the t.errorist threat we revile," he said. 'Messing about' Meanwhile, in an interview with the BBC, Mr Blair refused to accept the opposition's call for the bill's lifespan to be limited and accused the Tories of "messing about". We believe terrorists should be brought to trial and put in prison, not wandering around with an electronic bracelet Michael Howard "I am not being dismissive of people's civil liberties - I don't mean to be arrogant in taking this legislation through," he said. "I am doing it genuinely to protect the security of Britain and British families. "It's important that we have legislation on the statute book and don't send a signal of weakness that this legislation may evaporate or disappear in some months time." In earlier rowdy scenes in the Commons, Home Secretary Charles Clarke argued that the government had made "constructive moves" to end deadlock over the bill. He contrasted these with what he called "zero movement" from the Tory and Liberal Democrat controlled House of Lords. 'Imperfect bill' "It's been a stick in the mud response, simply trying to put heels in the sand and prevent the elected House carrying its proposals through," he said. "I argue that the country needs a bill which prevents terrorism and protects our people. "It is time for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the Lords to respect the considered view of the elected chamber." This bill proves the terrorists are already winning - we're restricting our rights through fear of an attack Sarah, Bristol, UK Anti-terror laws: Have Your Say Tory leader Michael Howard insisted the parliamentary battle would "take as long as it takes" and described the bill as "full of imperfections". He said if the prime minister wanted to push it through, it should have a lifespan limited to 12 months to give all sides time to come up with an alternative. "We believe terrorists should be brought to trial and put in prison, not wandering around with an electronic bracelet - the kind of thing which is routinely broken by conventional criminals every day," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "The notion that a tag of this kind will be a serious inconvenience to an al-Qaeda operative takes a great deal of swallowing." David Heath, for the Liberal Democrats, said his party was trying to find the best way of protecting British citizens, while at the same time ensuring they are subject to fair laws. "To say that there is no attempt to find that consensus is simply wrong," he added. The debate continues as the eight remaining foreign terrorist suspects held under existing anti-terror laws - which expire on Sunday - were preparing for their release under strict bail conditions. :o I myself cant believe that theirs up to 200 terrorists have entered the UK all because of the attack on Iraq. |
 |
 
|
| Anesthesia | Mar 11 2005, 08:31 PM Post #2 |
|
Wow. Just wow. Do you know what I'm refering to?
|
I didn't read all of that just the beginning but who si tony blaire? |
|
|
|
| Nir | Mar 11 2005, 08:37 PM Post #3 |
|
Former IF Support Staff
|
Start doing your research ;). He is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. |
|
|
|
| Special Forces | Mar 11 2005, 09:39 PM Post #4 |
Baja
|
Do you watch the news? :blink: Anyway some information the public doesn't need. Top secret evidence or procedures that may put our sources or ourselves at risk. |
|
|
|
| OcelotJay | Mar 11 2005, 09:52 PM Post #5 |
<3 mine [big]Miaow[/big]
|
I have great difficulty believing that everyone arrested for suspicion of terrorism in some form is in fact a terrorist. :/ Of course that begs the question why, if some aren't terrorists, are they being arrested? I honestly don't have any theories but it wouldn't suprise me to learn they are simply trying to make themselves look good by saying "Look! We tracked one down! Aren't we great! :w00t:". Not saying they are but let's face it, Blair is about as trust worthy as a thief is in Fort Knox. I'm not saying it's some huge conspiracy but I can't understand how some of the people arrested because of terrorist connections/acts is usually not charged and hidden away for months on end and others are released.  Interrogating them is all good and well but the way they go around trying to quieten the press just doesn't add up in my mind.I know, I know. People may think I'm crazy, insane, overly suspicious and even paranoid but I honestly have little faith in our government and even less trust, but I also don't just make my mind up because of it. They might indeed all be terrorists, I just think Blair's approach has been a little...unusual. |
|
|
|
| q-tip | Mar 11 2005, 09:57 PM Post #6 |
|
BOOM! Headshot!
|
Pardon me as i preach: First off, I believe in patriotism, and I think the world would be a darker place without it. Our countries deserve to be protected. I think we all need a chance to be safe, and that our govts look out for us (most of the time). Now that ive said that, i really believe that we are being taken advantage of. Before 9/11, many die each day as a result of radical attacks. I read in the news every day that "2, 5, 10, 50 die in mortar/car bomb etc". This happens after 9/11 too, as we all know. So why should we pass so many laws now? Because we didnt before, and the world became risky. Bills like the one Blair is trying to get passed would get shot down before 9/11. Why? We thought we were safe. Now, our leaders "feed on our fears". The patriot act, war in Iraq, etc are all direct results of this. I believe it wholly unnessecary to pass new "acts". We passed 54983645 of them after 9/11, why do we need more. People can read our library records, we have 100,000's of troops in Iraq, and we have a color coded alert system. Our fears have resulted in a lot of needless action. Hell, i even heard about the government infiltrating a group in Fresno because it was "dangerous". All they did was eat and talk about politics. Made me chuckle. Do we really need another person looking over our shoulders? No. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Mar 11 2005, 11:33 PM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
Indeed. If you really look at the reality of things, the best weapon against terrorism is to rid ourselves of our governments that claim to be fighting it, while actually being the main cause of it.  Blair needs a chainsaw enema like the rest, not that I'm saying I'll do it, of course, since the thought police would be at my.. er.. wait a minute.. there's somebody at my dooraaaaaahhhhfglp.. |
|
|
|
| alamir | Mar 12 2005, 12:54 AM Post #8 |
Electricity is just Organized Lightning.
|
I agree with q-tip. something else caught me off guard on that original post... Lines Not to Use When Implanting a New Big Brother:
Basically he's telling everyone to "SHUT THE FUDGE UP AND LISTEN TO YOUR LEADER!" I'm always amazed at how the people who want to pass a bill that can fully interrogate other people's private lives don't seem to have a lot of respect for the people.. yet the bill-passers seem to respect that bill's "privacy" and interrogation quite well with a lot of respect. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| « Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 7:23 PM Jul 11
|