Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

1 comment from readers

Cassandra
30 April 2008 at 18:38

Was I the only person to spot Mr. Brown's self-contradictory 'justifications' for the 42-day period today?

He started by saying that the '42 days' provision 'must' go on the statute books now, in order to avoid giving terrorists the 'oxygen of publicity' of the Government having to come before Parliament to request more powers after another terrorist atrocity.

Later on, he sought to reassure the Commons that there would be 'no threat to Civil Liberties' posed by this Bill, because it would be necessary for the Home Secretary to come to the Commons to request permission to activate the power to hold a suspect for 42 days.

Eh? Doesn't that count as 'coming before Parliament to request extra powers'?

So - WHICH was a lie?

The grandstanding about the 'oxygen of publicity', or the 'no threat to Civil Liberties' shpeel?

Perhaps *both* were lies?

If the Government were *serious* about protecting society from 'the terrorist threat' - rather than serious about abolishing the Civil Liberties that our ancestors had to fight for so long and so hard to wrest from their 'betters' - it would change the Law to make wiretap evidence admissible in Court.

And - as painful as it is to type this - it's the flippin' Tories who are arguing for that, NOT New Labour.

(Of course, I do know that they'll revert to Michael Howard mode once they get their claws back on Power.)