[SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6129566.stm

Sexy? Crap?

Imo it's a brilliant idea. I could see them getting Conservative backing over it, too, and with the disenfranchised state of the Labour backbenchers, I could see it passing.

Article courtesy of AFITS.

[soup_dragon87]

It's very interesting. I don't know how much support it will get though; "New Conservatives" don't seem to be very interested in this sort of thing.

And it didn't make the 10 O'clock news. If it carried any weight you'd think it would be on there somewhere. Perhaps it'll be there tomorrow morning.

[Ezekiel]

It will flop.

[Thud]

fantastic!

They won't do it though.

[JonathanH]

Yeah, let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world hasn't changed in the slightest since 1997 and that numerous methods used to combat a highly increased terrorism threat are unnecessary. I mean, yeah, let's let every serious foreign-terror suspect do what the hell they want, make it easier for criminals to avoid conviction and harder for whistle-blowers to expose problems. They really have no grip on reality.

[Thud]

(Original post by JonathanH)
Yeah, let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world hasn't changed in the slightest since 1997 and that numerous methods used to combat a highly increased terrorism threat are unnecessary. I mean, yeah, let's let every serious foreign-terror suspect do what the hell they want, make it easier for criminals to avoid conviction and harder for whistle-blowers to expose problems. They really have no grip on reality.

no one's saying that. but the current situation is imo excessive and looks like it's going to get even more repressive. you're on about "serious foreign-terror suspects" but tbh, these measures so far have done little besides put the regular people of this country under the increasingly authoritarian thumb of the government.

[FullLeatherJacket]

(Original post by JonathanH)
Yeah, let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world hasn't changed in the slightest since 1997 and that numerous methods used to combat a highly increased terrorism threat are unnecessary. I mean, yeah, let's let every serious foreign-terror suspect do what the hell they want, make it easier for criminals to avoid conviction and harder for whistle-blowers to expose problems. They really have no grip on reality.

They want to make it easier for whistle-blowers.

Reading is good.

[discombobulation]

Menzies Campbell isn't gonna take the Liberal Democrats anywhere, nice enough guy but they need someone who can lead 'em somewhere new and be forceful with 'em instead of just letting them pansy about in the middle.

The idea proposed is quite interesting but guaranteed not to work...and of course the likelihood of it actually being implemented IF they gained power is quite low.

[SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian]

(Original post by JonathanH)
Yeah, let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world hasn't changed in the slightest since 1997 and that numerous methods used to combat a highly increased terrorism threat are unnecessary. I mean, yeah, let's let every serious foreign-terror suspect do what the hell they want, make it easier for criminals to avoid conviction and harder for whistle-blowers to expose problems. They really have no grip on reality.

You really think we - average Joes and (Ishmaels) on the street - are safer now than in 1997?

[L i b]

I fully support it. In fact, I love the idea.

[JonathanH]

(Original post by FullLeatherJacket)
They want to make it easier for whistle-blowers.

Reading is good.

OK, stand corrected on that one, I did skim a bit too fast.

[JonathanH]

(Original post by DanGrover)
You really think we - average Joes and (Ishmaels) on the street - are safer now than in 1997?

Of course not - because the threat has massively increased since 1997. But trying to pretend that it has not increased and that 1997 laws and provisions are adequate for dealing with today is just insane.

[Carl]

I think it's a great idea. The continual erosion of civil liberties has been my major bugbear with the Blair government.

[JonathanH]

MI5 is already having difficulty tracking no less than 1,600 terror suspects in Britain, with 30 major plots being investigated - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nterror10a.xml. A Muslim convert was sent to prison for 40 years the other day for planning a hideous campaign of terrorism against the UK. MI5 are saying their caseload has almost doubled since January. And the Lib Dems want to bind our security services even more? This is the problem with the Lib Dems, they don't have to deal with the realities of power and won't have to for rather a long time, if ever. So they can suggest things which are utterly deranged and downright dangerous. If they got in to power and listened to the security services properly, they'd drop their silly plans to remove control orders in 5-seconds flat.

[Carl]

You don't think it was possible for our security services to fight terrorism using existing legislation then?

I think the laws introduced by Blair are a waste of time and dangerous erosions of our freedom. Wy bother fighting terrorism if the government is going to remove our freedoms first?

[Eru Iluvatar]

I think its trying to do too much with one bill, its not likely to get through, even though i completely agree with.

Current terrorism laws simply don't work, they damage personal freedoms, while having little to no effect on terrorism.

[Juwel]

Bit too extreme to get through at once. I reckon it's only trying to create headlines, rally the liberals, and reopen debates (such as the ID cards thing) on which the government is not popular. The Libs can't seriously expect this to get through.

[JonathanH]

(Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
Current terrorism laws simply don't work, they damage personal freedoms, while having little to no effect on terrorism.

Ah, so you're privy to insider MI5 information then? You know the details of all the terror operations stopped in the last 5 years and how it was done in each case? You know for a fact that legislative provisions haven't helped at all, do you? Sorry, I didn't realise I was addressing you, Dame Eliza.
Your statements cannot possibly be based on anything other than your own ludicrous assumptions and guesses. You have NO idea what the effect of such provisions has been on terrorism, because you don't know the vast majority of the stuff that happens in relation to terrorism.

[bikerx23]

(Original post by JonathanH)
MI5 is already having difficulty tracking no less than 1,600 terror suspects in Britain

No statement was made that they were having difficulty doing so, just that it was a difficult task - these are clearly different things.

Obviously since I brought the article to people notice in the HoC a couple of days ago, I must say I approve of the motive of such an article - it would be a positive step in redressing some of the infringements on the populus which have resulted from anti-terror legislation, which as was mentioned, in its current state is overkill.

Unlike the lib dems, I do not see all the legislation as unnecesary, but I do see a lot of it as poorly conceived and should be reviewed to get the most from it.

[L i b]

(Original post by Juwel)
Bit too extreme to get through at once. I reckon it's only trying to create headlines, rally the liberals, and reopen debates (such as the ID cards thing) on which the government is not popular. The Libs can't seriously expect this to get through.

That's the thing though, it's not extreme. It's moderate politics and simply a restatement of the values which I thought this country held.

It's a sad day when not being sent to foreign countries with virtually no evidence to stand trial in an inferior judicial system, not fingerprinting the entire population like criminals and not detaining people for long periods of time without any charge is considered extreme.