Oh those crazy liberals

[MrL_JaKiri]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4341269.stm

Why can't they let Blair lock up anyone he likes in peace?

[midge5]

When the fox hunting bill was being rejected by the Lords I heard a lot of talk about Blair using the Parliament Act to force it through.

This time though I haven't heard anyone mention it and it seems to be assumed it will just got dropped. Is there some particular reason why he wouldn't use it to force this legislation through if necessary?


*edit* Never mind, after looking for something else I stumbled across why.

[pig]

to be honest, very rarely do I aggree with the lords, but in the case I do, they are right, the government should not choose who gets banged up, it should be the judges, this country is becoming more unconstitutional as they day goes by.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by pig

to be honest, very rarely do I aggree with the lords, but in the case I do, they are right, the government should not choose who gets banged up, it should be the judges, this country is becoming more unconstitutional as they day goes by.

the governemnt has allready changed it so its judges who decide

the lord's remaining demands are a sunset clause and a change in the level of proof required.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by pig

to be honest, very rarely do I aggree with the lords, but in the case I do.

Could you name some cases where the government and lords have clashed, with the latter being wrong? I can't think of any offhand although I admittedly dont make any effort to follow British politics.

[pig]

Well the problem i have with the house of lords, is that they are unelected, yet there influence is great. They have there advantages, but often you could argue they arent as accountable as the commons, eg if we didnt like what was happeneing in the commons, then we can vote people out. (Although while writing this if they were accountable, then they wouldnt act as a check and balance, but rather as a competitor possibly?)

The lords has its advantages. Its not elected, so in theory no party line, thus it doesnt have to speak and debate for its party, rather its more open debating.

But once again, I dont think the common man is truly represented in the Lords where as in parliament I would say to more of an extent he is

This was my main problem with the lords

n.b Fox hunting, sure there are others

[Nodrog]

Democracy is a shit idea and the lords appear to be vaguely more competant than the government. They got the fox hunting ban right so that isnt really a problem.

Its a bit rationalistic to claim that they are intrinsically bad because they are 'unaccountable', when in practice the government's 'accountability' doesnt really seem to matter. If an unelected body consistently make better decisions than an elected one, then perhaps that shows the concept of accountability in a different light (or at least questions whether it is being applied properly). A proper assessment of the lords would consist in actually looking at how they function, rather than opposing them on a priori grounds.

[pig]

thats true that perhaps an unelected body might be making the correct decisions, however it is of course when they make wrong decisions in the eyes of the people as these decisions effect them, even though they didnt elect them, and of course, the lords may not always make the right decisions, which although i doubt would happen alot it can certainly happen.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Could you name some cases where the government and lords have clashed, with the latter being wrong? I can't think of any offhand although I admittedly dont make any effort to follow British politics.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 - change to the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16. Lords opposed the change.

European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 - changed voting system to proportional representation. This is a personal thing though, it's a particular bugbear of mine.


Both of those were eventually passed via the Parliament Act.

Just so people know, the Parliament Act has conditions for its use - the bill must have been proposed, in the same form, in two separate sessions of Parliament (eg. in the 2002-3 session and the 2003-4 session). This is the first time that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill has been debated in Parliament, so the Parliament Act can't be used.

Those were the two main things that came to mind, I can't think of much else right now. There will be plenty of other stuff though.

[Proteus]

I think the Lords are doing a great job in hindering this Bill, but then I think the Parliament Acts should be repealed and the hereditary peers let back in, so that's probably not much of a surprise.

[furball]

Governments often do stupid/outrageous things, but because they have a majority in the House of Commons, they get passed by the Commons anyway. The Lords can stop those from becoming laws. Shame that this didn't work with the poll tax, but never mind.

The other main function of the House of Lords is as a revising/scrutinising chamber. They refine bills, generally improving them. Since the abolition of the hereditary peers, there's a lot of expertise in the House of Lords in different areas; usually peers will speak on areas that interest them, etc.

The former Law Lords all sit in there as well, and are of course experts on the law. Lord Ackner's been particularly involved in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill (he's opposed to it). They all get involved on certain issues, tbh - Lord Lloyd spoke out when Tony Blair tried to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor. There's experts in every area, e.g. Lord Winston (that genetics guy off the tv with the moustache) chaired the Science and Techonology Committee.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by pig

thats true that perhaps an unelected body might be making the correct decisions, however it is of course when they make wrong decisions in the eyes of the people as these decisions effect them, even though they didnt elect them, and of course, the lords may not always make the right decisions, which although i doubt would happen alot it can certainly happen.

When the government makes the wrong decision it affects all people regardless of whether they voted for them or not, so I'm not sure what the difference is.

Originally Posted by Nonentity

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 - change to the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16. Lords opposed the change.

fair enough

[furball]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I think the Lords are doing a great job in hindering this Bill, but then I think the Parliament Acts should be repealed and the hereditary peers let back in, so that's probably not much of a surprise.

I agree that they're doing a great job in hindering this Bill - is it true that they brought in beds/pizzas, etc?


I'd repeal the Parliament Act 1949, but keep the Parliament Act 1911 for special occasions. However, I didn't agree with the Hunting Act - but I'm in the minority. Most of the country is against hunting, and that was the sort of occasion on which it should be used.

Letting back in hereditary peers? No. I don't agree with that. However, the excellent Lord Strathclyde may be the exception that proves the rule. He worked with my dad in the City of London as an insurance broker in the 1980s, until his father died and he inherited the peerage. He then quit his job and became an active peer, and is now Leader of the Opposition/Conservate leader in the House of Lords...small world.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Democracy is a shit idea

This entirely depends on what you're talking about. Sure, people being able to vote away people's rights and such is stupid but for a lot of issues (what I'd term "shared affairs") democracy is pretty much the only way to go.

[zakoff]

In principle i totally disagree with the Lords and their ability to block legislation. However the Labour Majority makes me absolutely love the house of Lords, if they weren't there the amount of crap legislation that would pass is unbelievable.

The Fox Hunting Bill was not only a bad bill, i don't want to go into my personal feelings about Fox huning, the Lords were right to block it. Ok they were blocking it because many of them are supportive of the countryside or are landowners etc, but they were also blocking a piece of unworkable legislation that SHOULD have been rewritten and reworked out by the the Government. Instead we have a terrible bill thats clearly going to cause trouble. Using the Parliament act was pathetic and just showed that Tony Blair is willing to use his power for something really trivial.

This current piece of legislation is just as bad. I don't understand how anyone can support a bill of this type. The bill goes against the fundemental rights i believe people have as british citezens. The right to a fair hearing, the right to face your accusers, the right to a proper appeal and of course actually having to have done a crime. This bill waves away these rights for 'security', i wonder what we are trying to protect if we lose our rights.... Is it really fair to hold someone if they are suspected of a crime? Surely we should do what the police do in most criminal cases where they have a little evidence - Investigate further. Survellance on suspects who could be planning attacks etc.... The bill is also fundementally racist - how many of these suspects are white british christians.... Yes, i accept that the government believes that Middle Eastern Men are the most likely terrorists, but it doesn't stop the legislations completely alienating Muslim communities and hindering the massive need for informants in these communities. The best people to know if some 'suspicious' muslims are in a community are the people there, the people that see them at the Mosque etc, the people who serve them in a shop etc etc - they are clearly going to be alienated by it.


If Tony Blair uses the Parliament Act again, which he will have too, we can guarentee that this country has another piece of legislation that is wrong and bad for this country. He is abusing his majority and we still have 2months to wait until the Election. Whats worse is there is no alternative to Blair, he is coming back into power, hopefully with less seats of support.

pig - i would love to see one good piece of legislation that the Lords have rejected? I really can't think of any.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This entirely depends on what you're talking about. Sure, people being able to vote away people's rights and such is stupid but for a lot of issues (what I'd term "shared affairs") democracy is pretty much the only way to go.

I'm not convinced there are many 'shared affairs' in government other than perhaps those related to the military and policing and perhaps a few fringe others that I cant think of right now. Even with the above, I wouldnt say that democracy is necessarily the best way of handling things.

[ceres]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

They got the fox hunting ban right so that isnt really a problem.

I'm assuming your being sarcastic?
________
Genie vaporizer reviews

[Nodrog]

oh no people are going to kill an extra thousand animals on top of the several million that are already being killed every year for food and research, quick government save us!!!!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by ceres

I'm assuming your being sarcastic?

The fox hunting ban isn't a good thing.

[JonnyBGood]

Animals are people too

[Nodrog]

well that's this thread finished.

[JonnyBGood]

Maybe now we can discuss communism and why nobody on an internet forum can speak to girls.

[ceres]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The fox hunting ban isn't a good thing.

With the drafting of the fox hunting bill, the lords either showed complete incompetence or complete disregard for the desires of the general population (I'm certainly not advocating the intelligence of the general popuation) either way they should be set upon by hounds.
________
Harmed By Depakote

[MrL_JaKiri]

It isn't the lords' duty to pander to the whims of the undereducated.

[ceres]

It's the lords duty to see the under-educated's abstract requests defined to a point of law.
________
LandonLUX

[MrL_JaKiri]

I disagree.

[JonnyBGood]

If a majority of voters in the UK wanted to rape ceres I'd say that was perfectly acceptable.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by ceres

It's the lords duty to see the under-educated's abstract requests defined to a point of law.

dont be absurd.

[ceres]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

dont be absurd.

Any reasons to offer?
________
WEB SHOWS

[MrL_JaKiri]

It is not the duty of government, especially an unelected control like the lords, to pander to the whims of the electorate. As I said.

[furball]

Originally Posted by zakoff

In principle i totally disagree with the Lords and their ability to block legislation.

Why??

Originally Posted by zakoff

The Fox Hunting Bill was not only a bad bill, i don't want to go into my personal feelings about Fox huning, the Lords were right to block it. Ok they were blocking it because many of them are supportive of the countryside or are landowners etc, but they were also blocking a piece of unworkable legislation that SHOULD have been rewritten and reworked out by the the Government. Instead we have a terrible bill thats clearly going to cause trouble. Using the Parliament act was pathetic and just showed that Tony Blair is willing to use his power for something really trivial.

Most of the country is against fox hunting. As a result, a bill (a poorly-written one, yes) was passed to outlaw it. I am in favour of allowing fox hunting, from a freedom to act as you wish point of view as opposed to a moral view on hunting. However, I have accepted that most people disagree with me, and that's why I don't think that it's pathetic to use the Parliament Act to pass it. The House of Lords is institutionally biased because of its makeup - filled with the older (more experienced, wiser) generations, predominatly white and male (sociologial reasons for this). On the occasions when this affects its decision-making, I have no qualms about the Parliament Act being used to pass legislation which has popular support. Just look at its attempts to block the change of the age of homosexual consent, which I mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by zakoff

This current piece of legislation is just as bad. I don't understand how anyone can support a bill of this type. The bill goes against the fundemental rights i believe people have as british citezens. The right to a fair hearing, the right to face your accusers, the right to a proper appeal and of course actually having to have done a crime. This bill waves away these rights for 'security', i wonder what we are trying to protect if we lose our rights.... Is it really fair to hold someone if they are suspected of a crime? Surely we should do what the police do in most criminal cases where they have a little evidence - Investigate further. Survellance on suspects who could be planning attacks etc....

The argument is that these people don't deserve those rights when they're actively opposed to the British way of life - which many Islamic fundamentalists. Who are more important - the 5 people who conspire to commit a terrorist crime, or the 50000 people who are killed or injured by the effect of their attack?? This isn't my view. But the argument still deserves some credit.

Originally Posted by zakoff

The bill is also fundementally racist - how many of these suspects are white british christians.... Yes, i accept that the government believes that Middle Eastern Men are the most likely terrorists, but it doesn't stop the legislations completely alienating Muslim communities and hindering the massive need for informants in these communities. The best people to know if some 'suspicious' muslims are in a community are the people there, the people that see them at the Mosque etc, the people who serve them in a shop etc etc - they are clearly going to be alienated by it.

The bill is not fundamentally racist. At no point does it mention race in any way.

However, I think that you're trying to say that the bill's effects would be fundamentally racist. Again, no they wouldn't. Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race or the colour of this skin. Fairly applied, race wouldn't actually play an issue. Instead, the bill would act against the people who post the greatest threat to the security and safety of the UK and its inhabitants. Face facts - the greatest external threat to the UK at the moment is the terrorists spawned by Islamic fundamentalism. Islam is most prevelent in Middle Eastern countries. As a result, the bill will undoubtedly have the most effect on Middle Eastern people. That's not racism in my eyes.

Originally Posted by zakoff

If Tony Blair uses the Parliament Act again, which he will have too, we can guarentee that this country has another piece of legislation that is wrong and bad for this country. He is abusing his majority and we still have 2months to wait until the Election. Whats worse is there is no alternative to Blair, he is coming back into power, hopefully with less seats of support.

pig - i would love to see one good piece of legislation that the Lords have rejected? I really can't think of any.

Scroll up. Read my posts. Come back and realise that Tony Blair CANNOT use the Parliament Act to pass this Bill for the next 18 months at least. Also read my post where I named two pieces of legislation that the Lords rejected. Ok?

[MrL_JaKiri]

The argument is that these people don't deserve those rights when they're actively opposed to the British way of life - which many Islamic fundamentalists. Who are more important - the 5 people who conspire to commit a terrorist crime, or the 50000 people who are killed or injured by the effect of their attack?? This isn't my view. But the argument still deserves some credit.

It's not a particularly well thought through view, that's what it is.

[JonnyBGood]

Every argument deserves equal consideration regardless of validity and/or rationality.

[ceres]

"they work for you" this seems to be the current political buzz-phrase doing the rounds, it highlights my point, if there is enough vote in it, the government would do anything. There's no backbone in modern politic's except for... the house of lords, who while i do believe are the only faction capable of rising above most of the pressure's of the general popualation, we've seen recently how even they must bow/bend to pressure from the government.
________
Vapir air one 5.0 vaporizer w/ inflation kit reviews

[furball]

Quite how you can call the House of Lords a 'faction' is beyond me, but anyway.

Where have the House of Lords recently bowed to pressure from the Government?

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by Nonentity

Why??

because its undemocratic and a bastion of conservatism. However, there are obviously positive sides to it, i'm not saying we should get rid of it.

Most of the country is against fox hunting. As a result, a bill (a poorly-written one, yes) was passed to outlaw it. I am in favour of allowing fox hunting, from a freedom to act as you wish point of view as opposed to a moral view on hunting. However, I have accepted that most people disagree with me, and that's why I don't think that it's pathetic to use the Parliament Act to pass it. The House of Lords is institutionally biased because of its makeup - filled with the older (more experienced, wiser) generations, predominatly white and male (sociologial reasons for this). On the occasions when this affects its decision-making, I have no qualms about the Parliament Act being used to pass legislation which has popular support. Just look at its attempts to block the change of the age of homosexual consent, which I mentioned earlier.

I agree that its biased, that is one of my problems with it. However it has very limited power and there are many brilliant peers who's insight is very good for policy. The Fox hunting bill was rejected by the Lords for more than one reason, the point of them rejecting it is for the House of Commons to change it and put it to the vote again. The legislation was misguided and was a populist thing, it isn't good for the country and was certainly badly written. The Lords were right to as for it to be resubmitted and looked at more carefully, the government failed to do anything to it except make it worse in the many times they did submit it.

The argument is that these people don't deserve those rights when they're actively opposed to the British way of life - which many Islamic fundamentalists. Who are more important - the 5 people who conspire to commit a terrorist crime, or the 50000 people who are killed or injured by the effect of their attack?? This isn't my view. But the argument still deserves some credit.

There is is all ALLEGED, there is no proof of any crime accept what we are told by the Home office. They have no conspired to commit a terrorist act unless, in my opinion, they are convicted in a Court of LAW. They have nothing to with killing people and have never killed anyone, there is no evidence for this. I see that this is the view but where does it stop? Do we lock people up who are planning to steal something? - no its not illegal to plan a crime, its illegal to carry it out and if the Police crack a crime syndicate they put on surveillance and stop the crime happening once something illegal has taken place.

The bill is not fundamentally racist. At no point does it mention race in any way.

However, I think that you're trying to say that the bill's effects would be fundamentally racist. Again, no they wouldn't. Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race or the colour of this skin. Fairly applied, race wouldn't actually play an issue. Instead, the bill would act against the people who post the greatest threat to the security and safety of the UK and its inhabitants. Face facts - the greatest external threat to the UK at the moment is the terrorists spawned by Islamic fundamentalism. Islam is most prevelent in Middle Eastern countries. As a result, the bill will undoubtedly have the most effect on Middle Eastern people. That's not racism in my eyes.

It is fundementally racist - it is legislating against a minority of people.

I am also facing facts - WHAT FACTS? where is the evidence of this major threat, i still haven't seen any. There are, undoubtabely, threats to this country many of which have no been detected. This bill will not stop the threat from terror, it wont even hinder it. Putting a few people under house arrest, without allowing them to face the evidence, without letting the face their accusers etcetc is against their human rights and will only work to help terrorist recruitment worldwide. The more we target Islamic groups because we are told of this major thread from them, the more racist our society becomes.

this also comes to mind

Obviously there are some things the lords block that should go through heh! I just can't think of many.

[Boogster]

It appears that the Conservatives were actually useful, for once.

[Nodrog]

I wish people would stop using 'its undemocratic' as an argument without explaining why this is a bad thing.

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I wish people would stop using 'its undemocratic' as an argument without explaining why this is a bad thing.

thats besides the point. We profess as a country to be Democratic and go along with the Americans to 'spread freedom and democracy'. So they have to put their money where their mouth is and not doing anything comparable authoritarian regime.

What would your alternative to democracy be?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I wish people would stop using 'its undemocratic' as an argument without explaining why this is a bad thing.

I don't value / condemn the House of Lords over the House of Commons in any way, but I think the general argument is that it's easy to descend into arbritrary decisions when you're dealing with unaccountable people. Even if their track record is good there are no guarantees with an undemocratic system.

Politics is more than just about government of course, and there are thousands of democratic decisions made each day (e.g. whether streets should have road humps, what colour a communal staircase should be painted in a block of flats, etc). The general idea is that people are more satisfied with their surroundings / life when they have some element of control or consultation over them / it.

This is generally why having a cabal of Party Commissars / Richest Princes in Europe / Most Noble Families / whatever is often a bad idea. On an individual issue, or even a range of issues they might be "in touch" and make the right decision but this may simply be coincedental.

[furball]

Originally Posted by zakoff

because its undemocratic and a bastion of conservatism. However, there are obviously positive sides to it, i'm not saying we should get rid of it.

For starters, I don't think that the House of Lords needs to be democratic in its present role as a revising/scrutinising chamber. If it was equal to the Commons, yes - but in its current form, it's better with the appointed expertise.

Originally Posted by zakoff

]I agree that its biased, that is one of my problems with it. However it has very limited power and there are many brilliant peers who's insight is very good for policy.

The current bias in the House of Lords is unavoidable. The people with that expertise come from, predominatly, a single demographic group - white middle/upper-class men, often from rural areas. This is because they received their education in the 1930s-1950s (mainly): now consider what the UK was like at that time.

Originally Posted by zakoff

The Fox hunting bill was rejected by the Lords for more than one reason, the point of them rejecting it is for the House of Commons to change it and put it to the vote again.

But what if the majority of the House of Commons wanted to keep it as it was, without changing it?! (Which was certainly the case)

Originally Posted by zakoff

The legislation was misguided and was a populist thing, it isn't good for the country and was certainly badly written. The Lords were right to as for it to be resubmitted and looked at more carefully, the government failed to do anything to it except make it worse in the many times they did submit it.

Misguided? I'm not sure about that. Populism = something that is popular with the people. the 'masses' feel very strongly about it, most people react with revulsion to the idea of hunting. But I'm not going to go into the pros/cons of hunting, there's a 6-7 page thread on that from a couple of months ago.

Yes, the legislation is unenforcable. But the act of making hunting illegal will stop a lot of the hunting I think: many hunters polled said that if the Hunting Act survived the challenges to it (which it did), they would not hunt illegally.

Oh, and the government line was licensed hunting. The Hunting Act was amended by Labour backbenchers (Tony Banks, I think) to create a total ban. Just letting you know.

Originally Posted by zakoff

There is is all ALLEGED, there is no proof of any crime accept what we are told by the Home office. They have no conspired to commit a terrorist act unless, in my opinion, they are convicted in a Court of LAW. They have nothing to with killing people and have never killed anyone, there is no evidence for this. I see that this is the view but where does it stop? Do we lock people up who are planning to steal something? - no its not illegal to plan a crime, its illegal to carry it out and if the Police crack a crime syndicate they put on surveillance and stop the crime happening once something illegal has taken place.

It's a conspiracy! A conspiracy, I tell you!


But actually, I agree with you on the main point. Look over the ID cards thread from a month ago for my views, I can't be arsed to re-iterate them here. Suffice to say that civil liberties > security.

Originally Posted by zakoff

It is fundementally racist - it is legislating against a minority of people.

I am also facing facts - WHAT FACTS? where is the evidence of this major threat, i still haven't seen any. There are, undoubtabely, threats to this country many of which have no been detected. This bill will not stop the threat from terror, it wont even hinder it. Putting a few people under house arrest, without allowing them to face the evidence, without letting the face their accusers etcetc is against their human rights and will only work to help terrorist recruitment worldwide. The more we target Islamic groups because we are told of this major thread from them, the more racist our society becomes.

Do you understand the aims of Al-Quaeda? They are waging warfare on America, its allies and its interests. We are America's ally, thus we are at risk. Is that enough of a reason to remove base civil liberties - no, I don't think so. But it's a question of priorities, other people do have different priorities to you.

[Dante Hicks]

For all the shouts of "ignorant masses" in this thread over the ban, I suspect most people fail to give a shit. Polls are all over the place in terms of how many people support a ban (from 80% - 50%) and I very rarely encounter people who want fox hunting banned (keep in mind I live in a city, so people are probably more like to support it here than in the country).

This sort of issue is not ignorant masses vs a minority group. It's one minority group (the animal rights lobby in this case) vs another minority group (the hunters). The former just seem to have influenced the current government (or governing party) rather better than the latter. The ignorant masses really don't give a shit.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by zakoff

because its undemocratic and a bastion of conservatism.

However, there are obviously positive sides to it, i'm not saying we should get rid of it.

It was only the second sentence that made me realise you were talking about the House of Lords and not the House of Commons.

[BeeKiller]

The problem with people who have intentions of breaking the law, e.g. terrorists, is that they will know ways to avoid getting themselves directly implicated or caught (until the actual crime is committed), but it doesn't mean that they're not a terrorist because it can't be proven in a court of law (i assume the whole point of the bill is detaining people who are terrorists but can't be prosecuted in court). I realise it's a flawed argument of me to say that unadmissable evidence is still evidence nonetheless (e.g. intelligence gathered by means that can't be presented in court) [not by torture], but to not have some form of power to detain these people is basically condoning their actions based on technicalities. Obviously, as is in the bill, substantial and sufficient evidence should have been gathered before any detention, but the defence of someone's 'basic human rights' is not justified in my opinion when their actions and beliefs are completely honed towards the destruction of other peoples human rights (e.g. the right to live). Please don't flame this, I'm not condoning restriction of human rights, but I believe there are justifiable circumstances whereby someone can 'forfit' their some of their basic rights, freedom of movement and freedom of communication, when they have been willing and actively trying to prepare to end the lives of others.
Also I think it's a complete misconception to claim that the bill or enforcement of the bill is racist simply because it has been used on more middle eastern people. The bill would not be used indiscriminently or without just cause in my opinion, even if I don't fully trust the government to use it justly, I still have enough faith in the integrity of the British police and intellegence services to not use it maliciously (don't laugh). Some may ask why no white terrorists have been held under the bill? Probably because there are too many of them in our country to effectively enforce it (hello IRA), and using it on these people would have larger ramifications than on Osama Bin Ladens troops. Bin Laden's forces may be plotting to do things, but the IRA have been here, done them, and are still here, and based on recent events such as the bank robbery and offers to shoot their own members it would be too dangerous to provoke them by detaining large numbers of their members.
We live in a dangerous world (Yes! I used a cliche), and with the years of relative peace at home most people have become complaicent and slightly dismissive of the likelyhood of terrorist attacks in Britain, but any country can be caught off guard, the USA and Spain both have, and Britain was attacked for decades by the IRA. I'm not saying we're in danger in quite the same way, but the desire these people have to hurt us for our involvement in Iraq etc, even the fact we're a Christian country (allegedly) is enough reason for some extremists to want to attack us.

[zakoff]

There is no evidence of these people being Al-Queda or being connected to them. I'm very interesting in the fear of al-queda, its become an undefinable enemy, just like the communists. Its a fabrication created by the neo-cons and its certainly not as extreme and widespread as we are led to believe. The americans are now scared of americans - they are being told to watch out for 'disaffected' americans who may attack....

Where does it stop? We are just creating threats from make believe....

The most convincing thing i have heard about Al-Queda is that they are a funding group for terrorism, organised throught Bin Ladens funds. Well this doesn't hold true anymore because all his assets have been frozen, so unless he has stacks of Gold in his 'hiding place' he can't fund anything.

We are told daily about the threats etc, but i don't see how this is any different to before 9/11. There were just as many evil Islamic Fundamentalists then. Except now when it comes up, we compare it to 9/11. Anythings possible because of what happened then. I'd prefer that this country keeps its civil liberties intact for everyone and doesn't go down the same road as America. I don't want to see people getting leeched off of the streets, tortured or held against their will for being suspicious.

Populism is a dangerous political game, it is definately misguided. Politicians should stick to clearly defined principles and not do politics because people things its good. Anti-Semitism was popular in 1930's Europe for instance. Where do you stop, if the majority thinks things are right, doesn't mean it is. I agree with most of what you say though, certainly i'm not suprised what the House of lord is like - i have 90yr old grandad!!

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

It was only the second sentence that made me realise you were talking about the House of Lords and not the House of Commons.

[furball]

Originally Posted by zakoff

There is no evidence of these people being Al-Queda or being connected to them. I'm very interesting in the fear of al-queda, its become an undefinable enemy, just like the communists. Its a fabrication created by the neo-cons and its certainly not as extreme and widespread as we are led to believe. The americans are now scared of americans - they are being told to watch out for 'disaffected' americans who may attack....

Where does it stop? We are just creating threats from make believe....

The most convincing thing i have heard about Al-Queda is that they are a funding group for terrorism, organised throught Bin Ladens funds. Well this doesn't hold true anymore because all his assets have been frozen, so unless he has stacks of Gold in his 'hiding place' he can't fund anything.

We are told daily about the threats etc, but i don't see how this is any different to before 9/11. There were just as many evil Islamic Fundamentalists then. Except now when it comes up, we compare it to 9/11. Anythings possible because of what happened then. I'd prefer that this country keeps its civil liberties intact for everyone and doesn't go down the same road as America. I don't want to see people getting leeched off of the streets, tortured or held against their will for being suspicious.

Al-Quaeda was an organisation which trained people to become terrorists. It also set up sleeper cells in various countries (take for example the Hamburg cell, which carried out 9/11). I refuse to believe that there are not more cells, just because we haven't found them. It's illogical to believe that the Hamburg cell was the only such cell.

These people now have the knowledge to carry out major terrorist attacks. The fact that Al-Quaeda is probably unable to properly operate now has no effect on that.

The reason that 9/11 is used as an example is because it's the most prominent of Al-Quaeda's attacks on America, its allies and its interests. Other attacks include:

- Bombing the American embassies in Nairobi and somewhere else in Africa, can't remember where...
- Attack on the USS Cole, stationed in Yemen at the time.
- The Madrid train bombings.

9/11 isn't the only attack, but it was the attack which defined them: an organisation of Islamic fundamentalists in a holy war with America and what it represents (globalisation/capitalism, for example), willing to trade its lives in return for success.

I don't want to lose my civil liberties, I hold them far too dear. I've never been in favour of torture either. But some sacrifices must be made when we are in a situation such as this. Take for example the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. They broke many of the rights which people could be expected to have. But they existed for a reason - because paramilitary organisations would intimidate juries and prevent guilty men going to prison. Please - I don't want to debate on them, I'm just using them as an example.

Originally Posted by zakoff

Populism is a dangerous political game, it is definately misguided. Politicians should stick to clearly defined principles and not do politics because people things its good. Anti-Semitism was popular in 1930's Europe for instance. Where do you stop, if the majority thinks things are right, doesn't mean it is. I agree with most of what you say though, certainly i'm not suprised what the House of lord is like - i have 90yr old grandad!!

Politicians are people too. It was an amendment which created the total ban on hunting, and a majority of MPs backed it.

I'm not sure you can compare anti-hunting to anti-semitism, but I expect that someone else will comment on this.

Oh and thanks. But don't underestimate the House of Lords, there's many brilliant people in there who, at the end of their careers at the peaks of their professions, are now serving their country.

[Texan]

Originally Posted by zakoff

snip
Do we lock people up who are planning to steal something? - no its not illegal to plan a crime, its illegal to carry it out and if the Police crack a crime syndicate they put on surveillance and stop the crime happening once something illegal has taken place.

I'm not particularly familiar with UK law, but in the United States it is illegal to plan a crime. People often go to jail for planning crimes in the United States. I suspect the same is true in the United Kingdom.

If I was planning to murder someone in the United Kingdom, it would be rather stupid of the police to wait until I actually tried to kill the person before they arrested me.

[BeeKiller]

Originally Posted by zakoff

There is no evidence of these people being Al-Queda or being connected to them. I'm very interesting in the fear of al-queda, its become an undefinable enemy, just like the communists. Its a fabrication created by the neo-cons and its certainly not as extreme and widespread as we are led to believe. The americans are now scared of americans - they are being told to watch out for 'disaffected' americans who may attack....

While I'm not claiming I can prove to you how many terrorists there are, or whether it extends as far as various governments claim it to, it's also rather presumptuous of you to say that you can quantify the spread of Al-Queda, these kind of groups operate on lies and secrets, and the majority of them will have done as much as the possibly can to hide any connection to the whicheve terrorist group they come from so they can try move around without being suspected or surveyed.
Also in my previous post, when i mentioned Osama Bin Laden, i didn't claim (or mean to claim) that the bill or those detained under it were only Al-Queda. However, the bill specifies that there is sufficient proof to justify the detention (even if it may not be possible to subtantiate a conviction with it) so to claim that "there is no evidence of these people being terrorists" (lets be general and use the term terrorists instead of Al-Queda) is bordering on being naivie and ignorant. I do not believe that this countries law enfourcement agencies would willingly and knowingly detain innocent people without substationaly evidence that implicated them in terrorist related activities.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Texan

I'm not particularly familiar with UK law, but in the United States it is illegal to plan a crime. People often go to jail for planning crimes in the United States. I suspect the same is true in the United Kingdom.

If I was planning to murder someone in the United Kingdom, it would be rather stupid of the police to wait until I actually tried to kill the person before they arrested me.

intending, premeditating, organization of, etc.

that is very true in the US