The British home secretary says the proposed anti-terror plans are vital due to the continuing terror threats facing the UK, despite widespread opposition.
Charles Clarke's plans include control orders, ranging from tagging to house arrest and would apply to UK as well as foreign terror suspects.
The Tories have accused ministers of trying to "ram" through the plans and the Lib Dems say only judges, not politicians, should be able to impose the orders.
What do you think of Charles Clarke's proposed anti-terror plans? Does the nature of the terror threats facing Britain make them a necessity? Or do you agree with the critics that say they are the biggest attack on British civil liberties for 300 years?
What are your thoughts ?
Any law in which power is taken away from the judiciary system in favour of an untrained office holder's opinion, informed or not, makes a mockery of that justice system and of the government that proposes it. The law is meant to be a vestige of reason and impartiality, the government should be ashamed of themselves. If they were serious about needing this law to combat terror, then there would be judicial power within it and it would be clear and targetting in its wording. In light of a lack of this I must presume they are merely looking (as with ID cards) for carte blanc yet again. The sooner they are voted out the better.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm against this. It sounds like a way to further us into an era of a police state, something I find totally reprehensible.
The British home secretary says the proposed anti-terror plans are vital due to the continuing terror threats facing the UK, despite widespread opposition.
Charles Clarke's plans include control orders, ranging from tagging to house arrest and would apply to UK as well as foreign terror suspects.
The Tories have accused ministers of trying to "ram" ...[text shortened]... hey are the biggest attack on British civil liberties for 300 years?
What are your thoughts ?
Nyxie
Originally posted by ivanhoeBlair is like the Emperor and Charles Clarke is Jar Jar bloody Binks.
The British home secretary says the proposed anti-terror plans are vital due to the continuing terror threats facing the UK, despite widespread opposition.
Charles Clarke's plans include control orders, ranging from tagging to house arrest and would apply to UK as well as foreign terror suspects.
The Tories have accused ministers of trying to "ram" ...[text shortened]... hey are the biggest attack on British civil liberties for 300 years?
What are your thoughts ?
"Let's give Blair FULL control."
Yes, what a wonderful idea.
Originally posted by Starrman
Any law in which power is taken away from the judiciary system in favour of an untrained office holder's opinion, informed or not, makes a mockery of that justice system and of the government that proposes it. The law is meant to be a vestige of reason and impartiality, the government should be ashamed of themselves. If they were serious about needing thi ...[text shortened]... looking (as with ID cards) for carte blanc yet again. The sooner they are voted out the better.
Do you think the conservatives will do a better job ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you are asking me in reference to this law in particular I believe they are contesting it. If in terms of being elected, to be honest I have little faith left in British government no matter which party 🙁
Do you think the conservatives will do a better job ?
Blair defends anti-terror plans.
Mr Blair is being accused of ramming through anti-terror laws.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has defended controversial proposals to deal with terror suspects as the most "responsible" action to take.
"There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack," Tony Blair said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293067.stm
That sounds like something he's picked up from Bush. I mean where does he get off telling us what our civil goals should be? There's no greater civil liberty than to have the choice to live as we want and not to acceed to ridculous laws that Blair says are to enhance our own civil liberties. Defining our civil liberties to suit his agenda, the concieted tw@t! That man is one step short of getting a bitch-slap.
Originally posted by Starrman
That sounds like something he's picked up from Bush. I mean where does he get off telling us what our civil goals should be? There's no greater civil liberty than to have the choice to live as we want and not to acceed to ridculous laws that Blair says are to enhance our own civil liberties. Defining our civil liberties to suit his agenda, the concieted tw@t! That man is one step short of getting a bitch-slap.
Do you think the conservatives will do a better job ?